Yes, but those aren't things easily fixed by the community, whereas replacing the stupid ass start menu atrocity is relatively actionable. The best solution I see for telemetry and forced update is to never run on a machine with networking, or if you absolutely must, run within a VM that has very restricted firewall settings. Even that is sketchy.
Of course you're right, at the end of the day the best solution is to just throw out the steaming turd and replace it with something better, which is just about everything at this point.
They innovate surprisingly more than you'd think given the idiotic nature of their website. They spend a lot of time in networking & datacenter innovations, not to mention some pretty complicated algorithms for sifting through all your shit to make it useful to marketing.
It's just the "soshul" front-end that is brain dead and utterly without merit that you see, that is pretty non-innovative and increasingly difficult to use.
If someone can put you out of business simply by copying what you are doing, maybe it means you're a shit company who isn't doing it very well.
Putting it differently, if you receive a buyout offer that exceeds the cost of copying your work, and you say no, you're an idiot. They wanted to put a high value on their user base rather than their code, but I don't think they understood them very well.
Typical of snotty rich Americans who cannot conceive of anyone else except themselves
Actually we're kind of pissed about these movies being stupified to fit into other, esp Asian, markets. It seems almost impossible to make a thoughtful movie that doesn't make a certain government and it's censors uncomfortable.
I definitely wish we were more bigoted and simply let the cards fall where they may.
If you can't tell a story in 2 hours because of arbitrary movie length limits or audience patience, you need to break the story into pieces and tell a piece in 2 hours. That doesn't make you a bad story-teller, it makes you a bad director. It seems like 90-180 minutes is what people can give to the theater, so you have to understand your medium a bit.
But in terms of story-telling, the sky is the limit, the story-teller should be graded then on his ability to hold interest for the duration required to tell that story. Obviously if it takes a year to tell, it becomes a very challenging effort.
Honestly he would be a much better villain on screen. Villains should be nearly all powerful, not the hero.
I disagree, I think. What needs to be done with Superman might make fans uncomfortable though. There are a great number of moral and ethical quandaries that go with being all powerful and virtually invincible and being inherently motivated to Do The Right Thing. One mans hero becomes another mans villain, and balancing the various shades of "what is right" is a lot harder than they make it with the weak plots we've seen. What do you do with a man who is given a near religious quest to do what's right and save humanity, in spite of humanity? Does he become a dubiously benevolent God Emperor?
Imagine Spock's "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" line. A lot can be done. But there are a few problems: 1) The target audience is probably looking for an action flick, and would maybe get that by accident and be disapointed, 2) The trend of releasing these films only when they can be globally marketed to other cultures with other value systems (and political concerns) isn't compatible with a lot of introspection, particularly when it comes to dubious dictators; China may not like having the concept of benevolent dictator questioned a lot and in this particular way 3) Superman might quickly become the villain, or certainly be portrayed as one in some of the movies.
Personally I think after decades of Marvel comics with popcorn plots, we're ready for more intellectual superheroes with really hard problems. Batman is the best we've done, he's popular because he's complicated and conflicted (at least in some of the movies) and he's chosen a decidedly different bias-point than say Superman. I think "grown-up" superheros/villains with a lot of nuance is a way to differentiate DC movies from the boom-boom Marvel franchise that might makes some money, but in a wallet measuring contest I don't think it will compete, they may have to make do with less than a global audience.
Relating the evils of Google and Facebook with ISPs is a deliberate attempt to mislead. It's not remotely an equal comparison, at most it's a different problem, and all I hear is "hey, look over there!" The debate about what these companies should be allowed to do is important, but irrelevant to this discussion.
Net Neutrality was compromised significantly in its brief existence, that is a fact, but the response should have been extreme and powerful, from the legal to the not-yet-legal. The first attempt to get around net neutrality should have seen every single anti-competitive law in the united states eliminated: any company or municipality that wishes to build out broadband cannot be opposed. If they persist, then tax money should be used to build competing services. Finally, if they do not cease and desist, their board and senior executives should be arrested and the company assets seized. That is the level of hostility that we should be insisting upon for these (and any other) monopoly. Either play nice and make some money, or go to jail.
Instead they have bought the government and its regulation body. I look forward to people showing up to their buildings with torches and pitchforks (or the modern day equivalents) to express their "empathy".
And now she's on the board, where she can still, and with greater authority, cause people to be fired and the company to split, without actually having to do any work, while she skims the profit...rather than having to sort-of work for a living.
She's not really stepping down, she's pretty much stepping up.
not to mention that both linux and os x have better development environments. All this is going to do is remind us of 1999 and why we hated programming for windows.
News at 11. The similarities between millennial hipsters and yuppies are significant, including the absolute hatred towards them by those that are outside the culture. I feel like I'm living the 80s all over again sometimes.
You are wrong and therefore stupid. Words have meaning. If I am wrong I am ignorant. This is neither necessary nor sufficient to prove stupidity, which means diminished intellectual capacity. This is not an example of language mutability, this is lack of precision. Lack of precision leads to unclear thinking. Unclear thinking is frequently associated with stupidity.
Data supporting this hypothesis. Again, words have meaning. Data should be observable and incontrovertible, only interpretation is open to debate. Allow me to provide some data to enhance your grasp of this word. - You don't have to pay anything to play LoL. Ever. There is no "pay to win" component either. True if you play in the free rotation , but I do not know many very successful players who do this. In fact, their business model refutes your data directly. They absolutely do sell champions and boosts, as you should know if you played this game 5 minutes.
- Grinding is irrelevant in LoL. There is no gear. Mods are not allowed. Gear that is irrelevant, yet comprises the skill tree which you of course use to win. Abundant strategies are on the internet for how to best work that skill tree for various scenarios by player. Additionally there are runes which you acquire by grinding out battles. Not to mention both player and character levels which are also increased by, you guessed it, grinding constant and usually inconsequential battles.
- Mutability of language is one of the characteristics of language. Development of jargon is proof of advanced use of language, not the opposite.
Changing the meaning of words on an individual basis is not language mutability, it's simply incomprehensible. What we have instead is jargon, which will not significantly mutate language, but which is simultaneously incomprehensible to speakers of that language. There are ways to express their ideas succinctly and clearly without making up mean down.
So which looks better, a simple egress filter that blocks access to something that the employee shouldn't do while at work, or logging and then punishing for violating the rules?
Depends on the work environment. In my line of work, there's a lot of hurry up and wait. I'm expected to be in the office, even during the wait. I'm expected to do the hurry up, even when at night or on a weekend. In this environment if the employee is watching Netflix, and he's getting his job done, it's his bosses call. Punish may be the optimal path here, as ultimately much of may pay is in performance bonus and it's so easy to cut that because I was watching Netflix at work.
If the employee is a shift worker, and is tasked with moving as many widgets from inbox to outbox as possible, then I'd be more inclined to prevent rather than punish. Employees in this environment have (and want) very little investment in the company, and punishment is not terribly motivating, and termination too extreme. In this case, just don't let it happen.
Now all of the above ignores the load something like Netflix in particular places on a network. That can easily get ridiculous and something may need to be done for purely technical reasons.
Sounds like a whole lot of IT departments need to set up some egress filtering...
The amount of time I spent finding ways around (usually successfully) IT firewalls greatly exceeds the amount of time I spend dicking around in more liberated companies. Granted, I'm (as I write this) off task, but less off task.
Still, watching Netflix at work is a bridge too far. Once you open that particular pandora's box, it gets very hard to contain.
The matchmaker will pair you with poor players, and disagreeable players (who create constant dissent that destroys teamwork)
Does it really? Or is that simply the pool of people that PUGs draw from? Or is it perhaps when people run with PUGs they turn into angry rosie o'donnell?
Especially because if you play LoL long enough to get ranks then you have proven you aren't very smart.
Data supporting this hypothesis: - The funding model involves paying to unlock pixels, some of those pixels have temporary advantages/disadvantages over pixels owned by other people. The game is shifted periodically to ensure you need to keep paying for new pixels. Long time players do this. - The amount of time consumed in grinding and gearing and modding could be better spent doing nearly anything else, some of which will benefit the human species. - Reading the analysis of strategies by people who play the game frequently and well, suggests these players have a very limited grasp of the english language, wherein words like "jungle" have become verbs, and words like "sustain" have become nouns.
Suggesting that people who continue to play this game are smart sounds like a marketing campaign masquerading as science. Let us all go play LoL so that we all can be smarter than the average bear.
Or if he's having his legal bills and other arrangements funded by Tesla's competitors and enemies, and doesn't need to win so much as slander them... definitely not proud to be an american.
I guess if someone manages to make a mold of my face, I've got bigger problem than someone accessing the (wishful thinking) nudes on my phone.
The only scenario that matters here is a hacker getting sufficient information to construct this mold without the user knowing, and then lifting the phone by conventional means to break it. I don't think casual thieves are going to be able to pull this exploit off, which is adequate protection for a phone. Maybe I wouldn't use this (and only this) to guard nuclear launch codes.
In ancient Pompeii, brothel visitors used to document their sexual predilections with graffiti on the walls
In modern America (and probably elsewhere), we do this on bathroom stalls. I do not know what future archaeologists are going to glean from "Call 867-5309 for a good time", but it's probably not going to speak well about us.
It's decreased a bit in recent years because I have a more interesting but demanding job, but not a huge amount. 90% of my reading is done in the gym, the other when i'm waiting on a kid to get out of some kid activity or my wife to be done shopping.
0% of my books are physical, that's far too impractical for me.
I have not seen this be the case for subjects of academic value. I have seen current events and figures of celebrity status get heavily... mis-moderated, and certain subjects still under legal debate get dumbed down so that it's impossible to understand the issue anymore.
But I haven't seen the fourier transform page get turned into a discussion about the oppressive math patriarchy or any such shit.
Put another way, experts are experts because they represent the very top end of the population in knowledge of particular subjects. I know a lot about certain subjects, but I'm not an expert in any of them. I can write something informative for the masses, sometimes even for people in my field, but I'll listen to my old profs when it comes to deep understanding, they know their shit.
Having wikipedia, does make us all smarter. But not everyone, or even the vast majority can contribute. It's definitely lopsided, and needs to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but those aren't things easily fixed by the community, whereas replacing the stupid ass start menu atrocity is relatively actionable. The best solution I see for telemetry and forced update is to never run on a machine with networking, or if you absolutely must, run within a VM that has very restricted firewall settings. Even that is sketchy.
Of course you're right, at the end of the day the best solution is to just throw out the steaming turd and replace it with something better, which is just about everything at this point.
Nevermind the unintended side-effects that arise from spawning new processes.
They innovate surprisingly more than you'd think given the idiotic nature of their website. They spend a lot of time in networking & datacenter innovations, not to mention some pretty complicated algorithms for sifting through all your shit to make it useful to marketing.
It's just the "soshul" front-end that is brain dead and utterly without merit that you see, that is pretty non-innovative and increasingly difficult to use.
If someone can put you out of business simply by copying what you are doing, maybe it means you're a shit company who isn't doing it very well.
Putting it differently, if you receive a buyout offer that exceeds the cost of copying your work, and you say no, you're an idiot. They wanted to put a high value on their user base rather than their code, but I don't think they understood them very well.
Typical of snotty rich Americans who cannot conceive of anyone else except themselves
Actually we're kind of pissed about these movies being stupified to fit into other, esp Asian, markets. It seems almost impossible to make a thoughtful movie that doesn't make a certain government and it's censors uncomfortable.
I definitely wish we were more bigoted and simply let the cards fall where they may.
If you can't tell a story in 2 hours because of arbitrary movie length limits or audience patience, you need to break the story into pieces and tell a piece in 2 hours. That doesn't make you a bad story-teller, it makes you a bad director. It seems like 90-180 minutes is what people can give to the theater, so you have to understand your medium a bit.
But in terms of story-telling, the sky is the limit, the story-teller should be graded then on his ability to hold interest for the duration required to tell that story. Obviously if it takes a year to tell, it becomes a very challenging effort.
Honestly he would be a much better villain on screen. Villains should be nearly all powerful, not the hero.
I disagree, I think. What needs to be done with Superman might make fans uncomfortable though. There are a great number of moral and ethical quandaries that go with being all powerful and virtually invincible and being inherently motivated to Do The Right Thing. One mans hero becomes another mans villain, and balancing the various shades of "what is right" is a lot harder than they make it with the weak plots we've seen. What do you do with a man who is given a near religious quest to do what's right and save humanity, in spite of humanity? Does he become a dubiously benevolent God Emperor?
Imagine Spock's "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" line. A lot can be done. But there are a few problems: 1) The target audience is probably looking for an action flick, and would maybe get that by accident and be disapointed, 2) The trend of releasing these films only when they can be globally marketed to other cultures with other value systems (and political concerns) isn't compatible with a lot of introspection, particularly when it comes to dubious dictators; China may not like having the concept of benevolent dictator questioned a lot and in this particular way 3) Superman might quickly become the villain, or certainly be portrayed as one in some of the movies.
Personally I think after decades of Marvel comics with popcorn plots, we're ready for more intellectual superheroes with really hard problems. Batman is the best we've done, he's popular because he's complicated and conflicted (at least in some of the movies) and he's chosen a decidedly different bias-point than say Superman. I think "grown-up" superheros/villains with a lot of nuance is a way to differentiate DC movies from the boom-boom Marvel franchise that might makes some money, but in a wallet measuring contest I don't think it will compete, they may have to make do with less than a global audience.
Relating the evils of Google and Facebook with ISPs is a deliberate attempt to mislead. It's not remotely an equal comparison, at most it's a different problem, and all I hear is "hey, look over there!" The debate about what these companies should be allowed to do is important, but irrelevant to this discussion.
Net Neutrality was compromised significantly in its brief existence, that is a fact, but the response should have been extreme and powerful, from the legal to the not-yet-legal. The first attempt to get around net neutrality should have seen every single anti-competitive law in the united states eliminated: any company or municipality that wishes to build out broadband cannot be opposed. If they persist, then tax money should be used to build competing services. Finally, if they do not cease and desist, their board and senior executives should be arrested and the company assets seized. That is the level of hostility that we should be insisting upon for these (and any other) monopoly. Either play nice and make some money, or go to jail.
Instead they have bought the government and its regulation body. I look forward to people showing up to their buildings with torches and pitchforks (or the modern day equivalents) to express their "empathy".
And now she's on the board, where she can still, and with greater authority, cause people to be fired and the company to split, without actually having to do any work, while she skims the profit...rather than having to sort-of work for a living.
She's not really stepping down, she's pretty much stepping up.
not to mention that both linux and os x have better development environments. All this is going to do is remind us of 1999 and why we hated programming for windows.
News at 11. The similarities between millennial hipsters and yuppies are significant, including the absolute hatred towards them by those that are outside the culture. I feel like I'm living the 80s all over again sometimes.
You are wrong and therefore stupid.
Words have meaning. If I am wrong I am ignorant. This is neither necessary nor sufficient to prove stupidity, which means diminished intellectual capacity. This is not an example of language mutability, this is lack of precision. Lack of precision leads to unclear thinking. Unclear thinking is frequently associated with stupidity.
Data supporting this hypothesis.
Again, words have meaning. Data should be observable and incontrovertible, only interpretation is open to debate. Allow me to provide some data to enhance your grasp of this word.
- You don't have to pay anything to play LoL. Ever. There is no "pay to win" component either.
True if you play in the free rotation , but I do not know many very successful players who do this. In fact, their business model refutes your data directly. They absolutely do sell champions and boosts, as you should know if you played this game 5 minutes.
- Grinding is irrelevant in LoL. There is no gear. Mods are not allowed.
Gear that is irrelevant, yet comprises the skill tree which you of course use to win. Abundant strategies are on the internet for how to best work that skill tree for various scenarios by player. Additionally there are runes which you acquire by grinding out battles. Not to mention both player and character levels which are also increased by, you guessed it, grinding constant and usually inconsequential battles.
- Mutability of language is one of the characteristics of language. Development of jargon is proof of advanced use of language, not the opposite.
Changing the meaning of words on an individual basis is not language mutability, it's simply incomprehensible. What we have instead is jargon, which will not significantly mutate language, but which is simultaneously incomprehensible to speakers of that language. There are ways to express their ideas succinctly and clearly without making up mean down.
So which looks better, a simple egress filter that blocks access to something that the employee shouldn't do while at work, or logging and then punishing for violating the rules?
Depends on the work environment. In my line of work, there's a lot of hurry up and wait. I'm expected to be in the office, even during the wait. I'm expected to do the hurry up, even when at night or on a weekend. In this environment if the employee is watching Netflix, and he's getting his job done, it's his bosses call. Punish may be the optimal path here, as ultimately much of may pay is in performance bonus and it's so easy to cut that because I was watching Netflix at work.
If the employee is a shift worker, and is tasked with moving as many widgets from inbox to outbox as possible, then I'd be more inclined to prevent rather than punish. Employees in this environment have (and want) very little investment in the company, and punishment is not terribly motivating, and termination too extreme. In this case, just don't let it happen.
Now all of the above ignores the load something like Netflix in particular places on a network. That can easily get ridiculous and something may need to be done for purely technical reasons.
Sounds like a whole lot of IT departments need to set up some egress filtering...
The amount of time I spent finding ways around (usually successfully) IT firewalls greatly exceeds the amount of time I spend dicking around in more liberated companies. Granted, I'm (as I write this) off task, but less off task.
Still, watching Netflix at work is a bridge too far. Once you open that particular pandora's box, it gets very hard to contain.
The matchmaker will pair you with poor players, and disagreeable players (who create constant dissent that destroys teamwork)
Does it really? Or is that simply the pool of people that PUGs draw from? Or is it perhaps when people run with PUGs they turn into angry rosie o'donnell?
Especially because if you play LoL long enough to get ranks then you have proven you aren't very smart.
Data supporting this hypothesis:
- The funding model involves paying to unlock pixels, some of those pixels have temporary advantages/disadvantages over pixels owned by other people. The game is shifted periodically to ensure you need to keep paying for new pixels. Long time players do this.
- The amount of time consumed in grinding and gearing and modding could be better spent doing nearly anything else, some of which will benefit the human species.
- Reading the analysis of strategies by people who play the game frequently and well, suggests these players have a very limited grasp of the english language, wherein words like "jungle" have become verbs, and words like "sustain" have become nouns.
Suggesting that people who continue to play this game are smart sounds like a marketing campaign masquerading as science. Let us all go play LoL so that we all can be smarter than the average bear.
Or if he's having his legal bills and other arrangements funded by Tesla's competitors and enemies, and doesn't need to win so much as slander them... definitely not proud to be an american.
Ok you lost me at the development environments. That's absolute insanity and you sir are trolling.
I guess if someone manages to make a mold of my face, I've got bigger problem than someone accessing the (wishful thinking) nudes on my phone.
The only scenario that matters here is a hacker getting sufficient information to construct this mold without the user knowing, and then lifting the phone by conventional means to break it. I don't think casual thieves are going to be able to pull this exploit off, which is adequate protection for a phone. Maybe I wouldn't use this (and only this) to guard nuclear launch codes.
In ancient Pompeii, brothel visitors used to document their sexual predilections with graffiti on the walls
In modern America (and probably elsewhere), we do this on bathroom stalls. I do not know what future archaeologists are going to glean from "Call 867-5309 for a good time", but it's probably not going to speak well about us.
It's decreased a bit in recent years because I have a more interesting but demanding job, but not a huge amount. 90% of my reading is done in the gym, the other when i'm waiting on a kid to get out of some kid activity or my wife to be done shopping.
0% of my books are physical, that's far too impractical for me.
Mostly when it comes to netflix in NA. I can wait a year, there's so much stuff to watch that I'm not thirsty to pay money to see ads.
Brunt, FCA, ended this show due to a violation of the 666th Rule of Acquisition:
Ain't nobody got time for talk-shows that also has money to pay for shit.
I have not seen this be the case for subjects of academic value. I have seen current events and figures of celebrity status get heavily ... mis-moderated, and certain subjects still under legal debate get dumbed down so that it's impossible to understand the issue anymore.
But I haven't seen the fourier transform page get turned into a discussion about the oppressive math patriarchy or any such shit.
Put another way, experts are experts because they represent the very top end of the population in knowledge of particular subjects. I know a lot about certain subjects, but I'm not an expert in any of them. I can write something informative for the masses, sometimes even for people in my field, but I'll listen to my old profs when it comes to deep understanding, they know their shit.
Having wikipedia, does make us all smarter. But not everyone, or even the vast majority can contribute. It's definitely lopsided, and needs to be.