Except a lot of the fake news is coming from your friends political links.
I wish they could find a way to ban all of it. Just go back to pictures of food and kids and those desperate "You don't care enough to hit reply" posts.
I can feel some of their pain, any attempt to deal with "fake news" is going to scream censorship and bias to someone. The term has no actual meaning anymore, when actual news is being labelled fake, and fake news is being bought into by masses of tin-foil hat conspiracists.
But I bet you didn't see them taking the connectors off completely! Not even an aloe strip to heal your wounds. You need to go to -1 connectors. That's right, people are going to have to plug their headphones into something else, to listen to your music.
That is the conclusion I draw from what little information is given in the article. I'm not sure what kinds of businesses or what kinds of fields they were investigating, but the first and best test of practical intelligence I see in my line of work is the choice to become a manager or exec to begin with. You fail if you say yes 50 years of age (at which point it's smarter to take the job, because you can coast out the last 10 years and dodge some of the ageism layoffs that will occur due to your paycheck being high).
Most of the really smart people choose instead to do the technical work which they enjoy and find challenging and pays almost as well (in a very few few cases, better).
The qualitative terms they are using also do not help me. "Vision", "effectiveness" or "strategy formation" are bullshit terms, the metric should be based on their results. Another disconnect is that while intelligent leaders may react to market shifts and legislative reform by working around them, often their employees want them to not do that, and go use their considerable money and power to fight the root cause of the problem. As they would do if these things impacted their own wallets. In this case smart is not smart enough to matter.
Finally we're again talking about IQ, which has never shown any particular utility to the real world and has always been primarily focused on test taking. It's not clear these people are actually smarter, nor that the problems they are addressing resemble the problems they were solving when they took the IQ test. They may be out of their league and "dumber" people are actually out performing them. But psychologists have ONE quantitative metric, so they're going to wield it like a hammer.
Already reported on is people swearing at Siri (and Alexa, and presumably Cortana if anyone used it). People have talked to their cars for generations now, sometimes naming them ("Come on Betsy, start up").
But hey click that link and someone can avoid getting a real job.
Jana Partners and the California State Teachers' Retirement System are the shareholder groups who are proposing the changes in the company they own. Reuters wrote an article about it. You seem to think there's some backroom dealing between those parties for page views or something... and you rail against "bullshit some lunatics invented up" in the same sentence. Wow.
Any jackass with a marketing department can get stuff on reuters, they're not exactly selective. It would have died there if slashdot had left stupid alone. And yes, I absolutely suspect/. posts these sorts of stories with financial consideration. At face value this is a worthless article that doesn't deserve attention, and I question even the motivation for these "investors" to bring the point up.
I come to slashdot because I do not want to sift through all the pure shit that accumulates on Reuters, CNN, abc, washpo, huffpo, etc. We're supposed to be selecting stories we see there that are relevant to the interests of nerds, being careful not to feed the damned trolls. If we post everything some jackass wants to do that might affect us, we are only helping them.
Regarding your own kids - even if Apple does add these features to iOS, nobody is going to force you to use them.
Nobody should want this, and definitely nobody should get it. Police your own children, do not try to randomly saddle one corporation with your brain-dead activist burdens. If you can't put forth the work, then why should anyone else? Further, if the majority of us agree this is stupid, and I think that would be the case, then most people would not use this even if much money was spent to get it done. You've created an undue burden on one company in particular, forcing them to waste money. You can't even argue you are being a responsible shareholder.
At 3B ownership in the company (.3%), their investment is trivial and probably disingenuous. Stuff like this shouldn't be given any support without significant unfinanced grassroots support. Such as when these OS "stores" were letting kids rack up huge bills on their parents without parental authorization: THAT was a genuine problem, it just happened to be easy to hold Google & Apple's feet to the fire by threatening to not let their kids use these devices at all.
This shit doesn't belong here, it's not alone, but it's one of the worst I've seen in a while.
You have to be kidding me. Invent a problem that isn't real, just some bullshit some lunatics invented up, assign it to most successful provider of hardware (but definitely not sole, or even largest stakeholder), make an article.
Slashdot needs to stop feeding the trolls.
I am a parent, I limit my children's phone/pad/tv/computer use based on what I want from them academically (I don't give two shits about 'social', obviously). That's nobody else's job and I don't want "help" or even opinions.
you might pay more for a PC tho if it didn't have it installed, so there's that angle. Similarly not having a webcam and not having a microphone are increasingly features i'd want in a PC if I were going to buy one rather than build one.
really? I haven't dealt with one of those guys since, ever. Phone salesmen went away with dumb phones, and much like car salesmen, I don't really miss them.
I figure out what I want and go buy it from whoever has it for cheapest. I have 0 interest in a salesman getting in the way.
I would sell my soul for considerably less than $3B. Below about $15M, the devil is getting the better end of the deal. After $15M, you're buying stuck in hell. At $3B, you are a majority shareholder in Damnation, Inc.
Or better: banning things because they might be used for something illegal or something you don't approve of is just ridiculous.
I understand keeping phones out of prison, but that's an uphill battle regardless of this particular issue. And from the article, even a ban here doesn't suppress the majority of cases.
Every OTHER use for this phone seems like nobody else's business, and flat out wrong. Even if you do not wish your employees to use mobile phones on the job, and I can understand that, you don't have the authority to rob them of the devices. People have real lives outside of the job, some of those demands require access to telecommunications in an emergency. And honestly if it comes to that choice, I'd throw the job out the window any day of the week. If employees are unreliable and overly distracted by anything, you should fire them... but taking options away from them and monopolizing them isn't employment, it's slavery.
They will happily allow multi-story office towers and residential condos to be built on streets that cannot take the added traffic
Austin's city council does not have the market cornered on this. It is incredible to me how little they think through traffic when they allow these shopping centers to be built. The "premium outlets" up north? That road was a shitshow before ikea+outlets, now it's just a train-wreck unfolding in slow motion. The worst part, is that before these shopping centers it was nothing, just empty fields and scrub brush. They could/should have seen this coming when they approved the building, and should have at least left themselves a way to expand. The only solution now is going to be massively expensive, and in response those of us local are taking our sales tax elsewhere.
The contrast though is NYC, where you cannot put a lemonade stand down without a 6 month study and community impact statement. It seems like planning and some sort of happy medium could exist, but apparently that's utopia. Either we are impeding business or we're letting them ruin our lives.
It's not just driving people out, employers are moving out too where possible. It's creating some trouble, here around the suburbs of Austin there's a lot of consternation about (of all things) the number of democrats moving in, or at the very least some of the demands and conflicting cultural values of people moving in. I do not live in Austin proper, which has been blue for quite some time, but in surrounding counties which had been very, very red. There was an actual fight at a school meeting where someone stood up and said they don't care about the football team, why are our SAT scores so far below the national average.
The irony that red-state is good for business (and giving attractive tax breaks) comes with an inrush of comparatively liberal population is enjoyable to observe. It turns out that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Riots and religious wackos are constant, if anything this may unify them (not necessarily helpfully, mind you) into a single direction.
But let's face it, if an alien space ship is visiting earth, we are doomed if they decide to be hostile, whether the government chooses to tell us this or not. The question is whether you like a surprise or not.
Additionally Princess Sophia the First, was not born by a queen, she was simply an acquisition when her mom married King Roland II. The lore here is pretty convolution and basically boils down to "Can we sell your daughter a doll and/or a dress? Yes? Princess."
So I dub Xenomorph XX121 Princess Sophia the Second, because my opinion is that King Roland II likes to play around and eventually Xenomorph's will get in his sights.
I would think a closed internet is better for the ISPs
Evidently they think so too, in spite of this guy, because they seem to be willing to buy a government official and motivate him to completely ignore the majority voice repeatedly, and just happen to have a president who is favorable to the whole fiasco. Usually you don't try to kill a thing that you value significantly.
What he's not saying about this future, and maybe doesn't see, is that yeah, probably the "open internet" isn't going anywhere. But its price structure certainly will change. And yeah, some people will pay, but many will be unable to. And we'll be deciding which of those activities he lists up there that we will pay for, and which we will not in favor of other less good options that ISPs push for us. They absolutely will push for their own broadcast TV options, it makes technical sense (for them) to be able to better utilize their network without investing in it. I don't see any way they won't do that. Similarly, anything that becomes a significant fraction of their network usage, they're going to try to price out.
The irony is that the argument they use is net neutrality is hurting investment...but they actually don't want investment anyway. It makes business sense, but most of us do not care at all about their profitability and would happily replace their business with something else that delivers what we want.
Not to mention public reaction to these pricing schemes is going to be increased usage of VPNs, to the point where that is our default network. This will either end up driving internet prices way up, or beget a lot of ISP induced regulation to forbid us from doing this. THe net result is we can expect a higher latency, more expensive, less functional network than we had before.
I remember being a kid in a dark room in a strange house, and I saw something that looked like glowing eyes, and they seemed to be moving or hovering in the air. I was petrified, I screamed. My parents came into the room and turned on the lights and it was just a toy car sitting on a desk by the window. Then they leave, turn the lights off, and I can no longer unsee the toy car, I know what it is, and the movement was nothing more than power lines outside distorting the streetlight and making a weird reflection. I remember feeling disappointed.
But for the moment before the illusion was dispelled I saw glowing eyes, moving in the dark, and there was no other explanation. I am generally a rational person, if pressed I could have come up with dozens of explanations other than some weird monster. I *wanted* to believe it was a monster, even if that meant my life was in peril. The older I get, the harder it is for me to see those things, but when I do there's no one there to turn the light on for me. Very likely I will believe in that monster and start posting grainy pictures of it on Facebook.
Hype is what is valued today, not merely boring news. It enables the masses to take part in slinging their own version of the truth is the information game we now play in society. And liars are having a fucking field day with that; an instant gratification delivery schedule allows for zero fact checking. UFO discussions fit that "click" model rather perfectly.
The X-Files was a popular show when most millenials were still in grade school, and it pretty much embodies this paragraph. Hype fixation wasn't invented recently, or even in our lifetimes.
People want to believe in something amazing and inexplicable, if for no other reason than it gives them hope: reality is just too boring and depressing. Religion is failing us, the stories and legends sound increasingly unlikely and unreal as time and education advances, so something else is filling the void. UFOs for those looking for the unworldy, scandals for those looking for the carnal, social media for those who like a good fight.
There are good reasons to hate millenials: ex. skinny jeans. But this isn't one.
You can join any moment and nobody cares if you are union or not.
I'm curious about this, not to be combative: 1) You can join at any time, but you pay dues right? 2) The people who have been in the union for a long time have more pull with leadership, right? (They have paid in, after all) 3) Who negotiates your wages/conditions when you take a job? 4) If you dispute your union's leadership, and believe they are in the wrong somehow, and you do not support the actions they take to achieve their objective, what happens to you?
Slashdot Mirror
Except a lot of the fake news is coming from your friends political links.
I wish they could find a way to ban all of it. Just go back to pictures of food and kids and those desperate "You don't care enough to hit reply" posts.
I can feel some of their pain, any attempt to deal with "fake news" is going to scream censorship and bias to someone. The term has no actual meaning anymore, when actual news is being labelled fake, and fake news is being bought into by masses of tin-foil hat conspiracists.
As a rich uncle? He probably does.
But I bet you didn't see them taking the connectors off completely! Not even an aloe strip to heal your wounds. You need to go to -1 connectors. That's right, people are going to have to plug their headphones into something else, to listen to your music.
If this were a castle doctrine state, I would consider it a manufacturing defect if it did not!
That is the conclusion I draw from what little information is given in the article. I'm not sure what kinds of businesses or what kinds of fields they were investigating, but the first and best test of practical intelligence I see in my line of work is the choice to become a manager or exec to begin with. You fail if you say yes 50 years of age (at which point it's smarter to take the job, because you can coast out the last 10 years and dodge some of the ageism layoffs that will occur due to your paycheck being high).
Most of the really smart people choose instead to do the technical work which they enjoy and find challenging and pays almost as well (in a very few few cases, better).
The qualitative terms they are using also do not help me. "Vision", "effectiveness" or "strategy formation" are bullshit terms, the metric should be based on their results. Another disconnect is that while intelligent leaders may react to market shifts and legislative reform by working around them, often their employees want them to not do that, and go use their considerable money and power to fight the root cause of the problem. As they would do if these things impacted their own wallets. In this case smart is not smart enough to matter.
Finally we're again talking about IQ, which has never shown any particular utility to the real world and has always been primarily focused on test taking. It's not clear these people are actually smarter, nor that the problems they are addressing resemble the problems they were solving when they took the IQ test. They may be out of their league and "dumber" people are actually out performing them. But psychologists have ONE quantitative metric, so they're going to wield it like a hammer.
Not sure I want to be in the winner's car in this race
Already reported on is people swearing at Siri (and Alexa, and presumably Cortana if anyone used it). People have talked to their cars for generations now, sometimes naming them ("Come on Betsy, start up").
But hey click that link and someone can avoid getting a real job.
The FBI is now indicating we should buy Apple devices because the security is good.
Because the world is populated by absolutely helpless idiots.
Jana Partners and the California State Teachers' Retirement System are the shareholder groups who are proposing the changes in the company they own. Reuters wrote an article about it. You seem to think there's some backroom dealing between those parties for page views or something... and you rail against "bullshit some lunatics invented up" in the same sentence. Wow.
Any jackass with a marketing department can get stuff on reuters, they're not exactly selective. It would have died there if slashdot had left stupid alone. And yes, I absolutely suspect /. posts these sorts of stories with financial consideration. At face value this is a worthless article that doesn't deserve attention, and I question even the motivation for these "investors" to bring the point up.
I come to slashdot because I do not want to sift through all the pure shit that accumulates on Reuters, CNN, abc, washpo, huffpo, etc. We're supposed to be selecting stories we see there that are relevant to the interests of nerds, being careful not to feed the damned trolls. If we post everything some jackass wants to do that might affect us, we are only helping them.
Regarding your own kids - even if Apple does add these features to iOS, nobody is going to force you to use them.
Nobody should want this, and definitely nobody should get it. Police your own children, do not try to randomly saddle one corporation with your brain-dead activist burdens. If you can't put forth the work, then why should anyone else? Further, if the majority of us agree this is stupid, and I think that would be the case, then most people would not use this even if much money was spent to get it done. You've created an undue burden on one company in particular, forcing them to waste money. You can't even argue you are being a responsible shareholder.
At 3B ownership in the company (.3%), their investment is trivial and probably disingenuous. Stuff like this shouldn't be given any support without significant unfinanced grassroots support. Such as when these OS "stores" were letting kids rack up huge bills on their parents without parental authorization: THAT was a genuine problem, it just happened to be easy to hold Google & Apple's feet to the fire by threatening to not let their kids use these devices at all.
This shit doesn't belong here, it's not alone, but it's one of the worst I've seen in a while.
You have to be kidding me. Invent a problem that isn't real, just some bullshit some lunatics invented up, assign it to most successful provider of hardware (but definitely not sole, or even largest stakeholder), make an article.
Slashdot needs to stop feeding the trolls.
I am a parent, I limit my children's phone/pad/tv/computer use based on what I want from them academically (I don't give two shits about 'social', obviously). That's nobody else's job and I don't want "help" or even opinions.
you might pay more for a PC tho if it didn't have it installed, so there's that angle. Similarly not having a webcam and not having a microphone are increasingly features i'd want in a PC if I were going to buy one rather than build one.
really? I haven't dealt with one of those guys since, ever. Phone salesmen went away with dumb phones, and much like car salesmen, I don't really miss them.
I figure out what I want and go buy it from whoever has it for cheapest. I have 0 interest in a salesman getting in the way.
I would sell my soul for considerably less than $3B. Below about $15M, the devil is getting the better end of the deal. After $15M, you're buying stuck in hell. At $3B, you are a majority shareholder in Damnation, Inc.
Or better: banning things because they might be used for something illegal or something you don't approve of is just ridiculous.
I understand keeping phones out of prison, but that's an uphill battle regardless of this particular issue. And from the article, even a ban here doesn't suppress the majority of cases.
Every OTHER use for this phone seems like nobody else's business, and flat out wrong. Even if you do not wish your employees to use mobile phones on the job, and I can understand that, you don't have the authority to rob them of the devices. People have real lives outside of the job, some of those demands require access to telecommunications in an emergency. And honestly if it comes to that choice, I'd throw the job out the window any day of the week. If employees are unreliable and overly distracted by anything, you should fire them... but taking options away from them and monopolizing them isn't employment, it's slavery.
They will happily allow multi-story office towers and residential condos to be built on streets that cannot take the added traffic
Austin's city council does not have the market cornered on this. It is incredible to me how little they think through traffic when they allow these shopping centers to be built. The "premium outlets" up north? That road was a shitshow before ikea+outlets, now it's just a train-wreck unfolding in slow motion. The worst part, is that before these shopping centers it was nothing, just empty fields and scrub brush. They could/should have seen this coming when they approved the building, and should have at least left themselves a way to expand. The only solution now is going to be massively expensive, and in response those of us local are taking our sales tax elsewhere.
The contrast though is NYC, where you cannot put a lemonade stand down without a 6 month study and community impact statement. It seems like planning and some sort of happy medium could exist, but apparently that's utopia. Either we are impeding business or we're letting them ruin our lives.
It's not just driving people out, employers are moving out too where possible. It's creating some trouble, here around the suburbs of Austin there's a lot of consternation about (of all things) the number of democrats moving in, or at the very least some of the demands and conflicting cultural values of people moving in. I do not live in Austin proper, which has been blue for quite some time, but in surrounding counties which had been very, very red. There was an actual fight at a school meeting where someone stood up and said they don't care about the football team, why are our SAT scores so far below the national average.
The irony that red-state is good for business (and giving attractive tax breaks) comes with an inrush of comparatively liberal population is enjoyable to observe. It turns out that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Riots and religious wackos are constant, if anything this may unify them (not necessarily helpfully, mind you) into a single direction.
But let's face it, if an alien space ship is visiting earth, we are doomed if they decide to be hostile, whether the government chooses to tell us this or not. The question is whether you like a surprise or not.
Additionally Princess Sophia the First, was not born by a queen, she was simply an acquisition when her mom married King Roland II. The lore here is pretty convolution and basically boils down to "Can we sell your daughter a doll and/or a dress? Yes? Princess."
So I dub Xenomorph XX121 Princess Sophia the Second, because my opinion is that King Roland II likes to play around and eventually Xenomorph's will get in his sights.
It seems like the wine snobs in this thread would argue your glass should be mostly empty. So that you can play with your drink.
I would think a closed internet is better for the ISPs
Evidently they think so too, in spite of this guy, because they seem to be willing to buy a government official and motivate him to completely ignore the majority voice repeatedly, and just happen to have a president who is favorable to the whole fiasco. Usually you don't try to kill a thing that you value significantly.
What he's not saying about this future, and maybe doesn't see, is that yeah, probably the "open internet" isn't going anywhere. But its price structure certainly will change. And yeah, some people will pay, but many will be unable to. And we'll be deciding which of those activities he lists up there that we will pay for, and which we will not in favor of other less good options that ISPs push for us. They absolutely will push for their own broadcast TV options, it makes technical sense (for them) to be able to better utilize their network without investing in it. I don't see any way they won't do that. Similarly, anything that becomes a significant fraction of their network usage, they're going to try to price out.
The irony is that the argument they use is net neutrality is hurting investment...but they actually don't want investment anyway. It makes business sense, but most of us do not care at all about their profitability and would happily replace their business with something else that delivers what we want.
Not to mention public reaction to these pricing schemes is going to be increased usage of VPNs, to the point where that is our default network. This will either end up driving internet prices way up, or beget a lot of ISP induced regulation to forbid us from doing this. THe net result is we can expect a higher latency, more expensive, less functional network than we had before.
I remember being a kid in a dark room in a strange house, and I saw something that looked like glowing eyes, and they seemed to be moving or hovering in the air. I was petrified, I screamed. My parents came into the room and turned on the lights and it was just a toy car sitting on a desk by the window. Then they leave, turn the lights off, and I can no longer unsee the toy car, I know what it is, and the movement was nothing more than power lines outside distorting the streetlight and making a weird reflection. I remember feeling disappointed.
But for the moment before the illusion was dispelled I saw glowing eyes, moving in the dark, and there was no other explanation. I am generally a rational person, if pressed I could have come up with dozens of explanations other than some weird monster. I *wanted* to believe it was a monster, even if that meant my life was in peril. The older I get, the harder it is for me to see those things, but when I do there's no one there to turn the light on for me. Very likely I will believe in that monster and start posting grainy pictures of it on Facebook.
Hype is what is valued today, not merely boring news. It enables the masses to take part in slinging their own version of the truth is the information game we now play in society. And liars are having a fucking field day with that; an instant gratification delivery schedule allows for zero fact checking. UFO discussions fit that "click" model rather perfectly.
The X-Files was a popular show when most millenials were still in grade school, and it pretty much embodies this paragraph. Hype fixation wasn't invented recently, or even in our lifetimes.
People want to believe in something amazing and inexplicable, if for no other reason than it gives them hope: reality is just too boring and depressing. Religion is failing us, the stories and legends sound increasingly unlikely and unreal as time and education advances, so something else is filling the void. UFOs for those looking for the unworldy, scandals for those looking for the carnal, social media for those who like a good fight.
There are good reasons to hate millenials: ex. skinny jeans. But this isn't one.
You can join any moment and nobody cares if you are union or not.
I'm curious about this, not to be combative:
1) You can join at any time, but you pay dues right?
2) The people who have been in the union for a long time have more pull with leadership, right? (They have paid in, after all)
3) Who negotiates your wages/conditions when you take a job?
4) If you dispute your union's leadership, and believe they are in the wrong somehow, and you do not support the actions they take to achieve their objective, what happens to you?
What you need to have is a strong (independent and non-corrupt) labor union
Alas, no unicorns have been spotted in these parts, and local statute requires they are killed on sight.