Globalists? I'm laughing. Nationalism caused WWI and WWII.
For starters, a massive web of mutual-defense treaties caused WWI. And why were those treaties necessary? Because of the competitive, often belligerent nationalism of that era.
What triggered all of those treaties? An assassination committed by a Serbian nationalist.
There were hardly any globalists until after WWII, when we realized that we needed to stop problems before they snowballed out of control. Globalism arose out of the ashes of nationalist-fueled war.
The League of Nations was the first serious attempt at globalism, and it failed utterly---due a lack of involvement. Even with the US taking a leadership role in the UN, it is still fairly toothless.
Back to the main topic: The EU is like the US states coming together to create the United States of America. Good luck guys, I hope it works out for you, but I don't care personally because it's not my land or culture at stake. Anyone outside of Europe who has a strong reaction to Brexit is an idealist twit.
Where do you draw the line on being an engineer? Seems like a good topic for a discussion.
An engineer has all of the skills of a technician in the field, plus a deep theoretical understanding of the field which allows him to create new devices or improvise solutions reliably.
There are generally quality and liability assurances with professional engineers which are absent from software engineering. However, these are social/legal concerns which do not relate directly to the skills and knowledge of the individual.
I believe there should be a software engineering profession with licensing and liability. Fields with public health and safety concerns should be required to employ engineers in good standing rather than unlicensed programmers (e.g., the automobile, food, medical, aviation, and space industries).
The conclusion remains the same when more appropriate statistical methods are used.
Professor Hand said that the CRU scientists did not use "the best statistical tools for their studies" but that this had made not significant difference to their conclusions.
The nice thing about science is that other people can duplicate the research if necessary. In this case, it was necessary to lay those methodological concerns to rest.
Our developers receive an ultrabook that is rather powerful but not really adapted for development (no admin rights, small storage capacity, restrictive security rules, etc.)
Can you get them a VM on this laptop? Even if it is only allowed to connect to the parent OS, it can give them conisderable flexibility. Both Windows and Linux have native virtualization capabilities these days.
VDI.... performance issues
You have a bottleneck. Maybe more than one.
Your SMEs or your virtualization vendor should be able to identify the issue and suggest a remedy. Some fixes are cheap, and some aren't---but you need to know what to fix first.
presentation of VMWare on desktop and application virtualization (Workstation & Horizon), which is supposedly the future of the desktops
VDI can work (even for teleworkers), but it takes a lot of work.
App virtualization will probably never be good for developers (too limited). You could install the View client on their laptops or issue them zero clients for home/travel so they can access VDI desktops anywhere.
You could set up separate pools to provide access to dev tools and source, build tools, test servers/clients, and regular web/email/intranet access. Balance out security, performance, and usability as you see fit.
The primary advantage of VDI is its flexibility, but if you have performance issues then you either have (a) inadequate monitoring/alerting, (b) inadequate in-house expertise, or (c) inadequate infrastructure. Vendor support can compensate somewhat for (b), and they should be able to offer guidnace if the underlying issue is (a) or (c).
I'd rather see fines eliminated, they unfairly punish lower income people -- $150 fine to a corporate lawyer is pocket change
The point of fines is to be a painful deterrent---just not as painful as jail time.
We should do what some European countries have done, which is to scale the fines based on income.
E.g., Finland has a formula to estimate how much the offender has for a a day's worth of spending money, and fines are based on that amount. There are multipliers based on the severity of the offense.
It sounds strange to hear about a $100K speeding ticket for a CEO, but do you expect a multi-millionaire or billionaire to notice anything less?
Bottom line: It is stupid to expect the same fine to deter a billionaire vs a single parent making minimum wage. But we need to deter both people from unsafe driving because they can both kill us.
Is it rendering the cursor specifically at 60 FPS, or is it the entire active window?
Because I can imagine a good reason for rendering the active window in an IDE every frame. Your brain is definitely capable of registering visual changes faster than once every 500ms.
If you have smart syntax highlighting, you want the squiggly lines, tab-complete indicators, color coding, and highlights to appear ASAP. The sooner you notice a mistyped function name, the less characters you have to back over to fix it.
A fast, responsive window refresh is essential to modern IDEs.
I mean, feel free to call them out if Eclipse or whatever is much better at it, but I can totally see why they would rerender the entire window. If it is the active window (per the summary), then you can assume it's being used and therefore deserves the most responsive output possible.
The Rolling Stone article is titled "YouTube Loses Major Advertisers Over Offensive Videos", which doesn't associate anyone directly to a particular video or channel.
And anyone who reads the article will understand that the advertisers are standing against such content.
Not sure why you're arguing, as it is pretty clear they get positive attention for pulling their ads. The free market is working the right way, for once. Yay, we don't need to regulate this.
The quinque viæ is a collection of weak arguments. All of its forms boil down to: "I don't understand how this could happen, so it must be God."
Physics has already chipped away at the First Mover and Uncaused Cause. The field does not offer a complete formal explanation, but there are enough details that these arguments are no longer compelling.
Basic learning theories explain how we acquire idealized concepts, which basically eliminates the Argument from Degree. Most criticisms of Platonic idealism can be applied to it as well.
The existence of natural laws explains what the Teleological Argument seeks to attribute to God. You could argue that God established those laws, but then there is no clear line of reasoning why God is necessary in such an explanation. Natural laws imply the regular behavior we observe; there is no need to assume the laws themselves are necessary in the philosophical sense.
The Argument from Contigency was developed prior to our understanding of conservation of mass/energy. Aquinas' "things" may perish, but the matter and energy which comprised them will continue to exist, and new things may form from this material. The idea that things "go out of existence" is simply false. Things are broken and remade into new things.
E.g., the human body may die and break down, but its atoms are incorporated into new soil, bacteria, insects, earthworms, plants, and eventually larger animals. Basically, Aquinas was conflating the macro-level that we care about (people, houses, foodstuffs, animals) with the fundamental level of existence (particles and energy).
How does your staff support VIP and execs that need access to internally and externally hosted shared calendars across iphones, android and windows pc outlook clients?
VPN.
Or use a web- or cloud-based application---you can still enjoy single sign-on with federation.
How do you remotely wipe phones and laptops when an employee is terminated, and verify backups prior to issuing the wipe if needed?
Every platform has a way to do this, including iPhone, Android, and Linux. Windows is not special.
What process do you use to audit pc clients are patched to required compliance levels?
Windows has no native capability to do this. You are either paying for System Center or using a third-party solution.
People will real patching requirements cannot use the "free" WSUS since it only patches MS products and leaves other software completely unmanaged. No matter what, you have to spend money to fulfill this requirement.
And how long would it take to hire and on board two new IT staff for $75k each (more in nyc, sf) to administer that solution set?
As I've indicated, you need non-native tools to secure and manage Windows at the enterprise level. You will always need more than a random MCP if you're serious about security.
My employer has no issues finding competent staff.
The elected politician or judge or senior executive who approved the use of the category of technology in the category of application in which the problem occurred is who ought to be responsible.
Terrible answer. Nothing will ever be approved if the approvers are afraid of being sued into personal bankruptcy.
If AI means "autonomous system": Whoever manufactures and certifies them for public use should be liable, barring specific and well-documented misuse/misconfigurartion. Let the corporations assess the risk/reward themselves.
If AI means "self-aware, intelligent system": Not a problem I expect to worry about in the foreseeable future, but when it happens the AI can be liable instead of the manufacturer if it has been recognized as having legal personhood.
I would go ahead and create a outright culture of fear and terror among the civil servant class... I would make these as public as possible, so as to damage their future job prospects.
Really? You want to resort to witch hunts and blacklisting? That's effectively what this is.
Let's say you do offer rewards. Productivity will plummet as soon as everyone realizes they can't even take the chance of looking like they might do something wrong.
If you do that, the only people left in the government will be idiots and syncophants who can't/won't do anything effective on their own. You think the government has issues now?
There are people will report everything little thing or just lie for a shot at the rewards. Or they'll use the reporting as means of dealing with grudges and competition. What do you think will happen when all the good people say, "Fuck it, I'm not working in a paranoia-inducing shithole where everyone is looking for an excuse to rat me out?"
You are basically suggesting that we make the US government into the worst employer in the country.
This is one of the worst suggestions I have ever seen, and I sincerely hope that you have no authority to manage people at your employer.
Because people on tech forums always know more than the people who who actually design the process and products right?
Probably not, but they will be a lot more honest than the marketing weasels who cherry-pick numbers to make the drive look as good as possible. Marketing weasels who don't even cherry-pick all the time---who sometimes just make things up.
Both the press releases and the forum chatter should be taken with a grain of salt until in-depth independent reviews are available.
But in the case that brochures and forums disagree, the company brochures are guaranteed to come with a strong bias.
The disk controller interfaces deliberately abstract those writeable areas. You would need to toss SATA/NVMe entirely and develop a new standard.
This leaves the SSD manufacturers free to choose a variety of controllers and flash chips, and they can optimize the firmware for their hardware without worrying about meddling from userspace.
Even if you did develop a standard that obstensibly provides direct access to low-level sectors, there is nothing in the world that you can do to stop a manufacturer from implementing a renaming/remapping scheme in their firmware.
So, basically, it is impossible to guarantee the kind of low-level access you want. Since everything seems to be working quite fine without it, I don't see why anyone would bother reinventing the wheel in the first place.
To create a standard, however, all you have to do is shout loudly, and become "accepted wisdom".
Except the current standard came into existence by dislodging the previous notion.
There is a long line of such dislodged notions for all current scientific theories, reaching back to the Enlightenment (and beyond, in some cases).
It's not like we had zero explanations for how things worked, so we fought about it until someone killed off or suppressed all dissent. Oh wait, we did, and it's called religion. And science supplanted it centuries ago as a reliable font of knowledge.
If you implement a dead man's switch after becoming aware that the issue may end up in court, then you're going to hurt a lot when they demonstrate that fact. I.e., tampering with evidence, destruction of evidence, spoliation.
If you implement it beforehand, you might be in the clear. But you have an obligation not to destroy evidence---and that extends to passively-operated mechanisms that you control or know about.
Until there is an actual case with a dead man's switch, there is no precedent and thus no way to be absolutely sure how the court would view it. I suspect they would take a dim view if you could have disabled the mechanism or warned the handlers---and then chose not to do so.
No state has the right to compel assistance in one's own prosecution, constitution or no.
The state doesn't have any rights; it only has powers.
And the state of PA has the power to hold defendants in contempt and impose sanctions for spoliation when evidence is deliberately withheld or destroyed.
The question is whether the judge believes this is a deliberate ploy. The incarceration for contempt implies that he does.
Tampering with evidence generally has a lesser sentence
Maybe, except for the possibility of sanctions due to spoliation.
The court can instruct the jury to infer that there is unfavorable evidence when someone has withheld or destroyed it.
Not all states allow sanctions due to spoliation, but apparently PA does.
If the contempt charge doesn't convince this guy to turn over his password, he could very well face a trial with that sanction/inference hanging over his head. It does not bode well when the judge finds him in contempt rather than simply accepting that he may have forgotten his password.
The only question is whether the judge believes the circumstances of this case justify those sanctions. And of course, the appeals court weighs in if the guy is convicted and challenges the decision.
Trump's statements and were completely unrelated to law
Statements outside of court are admissible as evidence in court hearings.
And if the court considered those statements inappropriately, the Trump administration could appeal based on that error. First to the federal circuit, and then to the Supreme Court if need be.
If they don't bother, they are basically admitting that either (A) the court was right in the first place or (B) the ban isn't important enough to fight for.
Since most knowledgeable legal commentators believe the court's decision will hold on appeal, your point of view is most likely wrong. The statements are, in fact, relevant to the legal matter.
Instead of deleting the videos they should have started working on a solution:
Crowdfund it.
It started as a nice gesture that took very little time and effort.
The law forced the university into a situation where it had to either put significant effort into a resource that doesn't benefit its students, or it could disable that resource. They chose to be financially responsible and kill the project.
Hearing-impaired students can still view videos and request transcripts as needed on the university's infrastructure. The university is only removing their content from Youtube.
If you want their videos on the public internet, why don't you approach the university with an offer to transcibe them? If it's not worth the effort for you to arrange it, why should the university sink time and money into it?
And now the unions are poised to fuck up ride sharing...
Uber has not been ride-sharing in a long time. If people are paying a fare to a driver who isn't already headed in the same general direction, then I'm sorry but it's simply cab service with a different name.
Real ride-sharing is still an option on a number of different apps. But Uber is little more than a sub-contracted taxi company.
The death of Uber may actually help ride-sharing. Ride-sharing would be the affordable option (over personal cars or taxis) once Uber is dead.
unless.... could they demand closed captioning on audio recordings too? that would be hilarious.
That is exactly what could happen. Uncaptioned audio is inaccessible to deaf persons, and they can be reasonably accommodated (with the inclusion of captions), so it is likely a violation.
This is one of the more ridiculous uses of the ADA since the complainants were not even attending/paying the university. But UC Berkeley is a public university, so they're probably used to petty rules and idiotic mandates.
As the number of POTS phone customers decreases, the cost of maintaining the infrastructure is spread over a smaller and smaller number of subscribers.
These people need to keep up with the times or go without the things they cannot afford.
Cellular service is very affordable for basic use. A budget phone and a year of airtime is probably cheaper than a year of POTS service.
I wouldn't mind seeing a subsidy for poor people who truly need a landline, e.g., for medical alerts.
I sincerely doubt the UIs are getting worse year after year. If that were the case, we would have unusable devices by now.
What is really happening is that people are resisting change. The new thing is different---unfamiliar and possibly confusing. That doesn't mean it's worse, but it does mean people will react negatively.
A good UI is difficult. It needs to meet a lot of goals:
*It must expose typical functions with a minimal number of key presses or mouse clicks, yet not overwhelm the user with too many options or unclear organization.
*It should be reasonably configurable, yet it should be consistent enough that developers can rely on some essential elements.
*It should be simple enough for a basic user to grasp intuitively, but it must accommodate a wide range of users and tasks.
Each of those goals is a balancing act, and any change pushes that balance in a way that demands adaptation from either users, administrators, or developers. Of course people are going to be upset.
The initial round of upset, ranting, and whining is virtually irrelevant. If complaints remain after sustained use of the new UI, then it's time to reevaluate. The real measure of a UI is how upset people are when it comes vs when it goes.
So think of it this way: ARM is able to encroach into a market where Intel dominates, but the reverse is not true, in spite of many attempts.
This isn't really the case though.
Intel made one or two pushes into small/mobile and failed. There have been a number of attempts to get ARM into the datacenter. AMD even did a start/stop with ARM.
Realistically, the incumbent in each market enjoys a number of advantages---working infrastructure like peripheral device standards, solid drivers and high-level interfaces, and strong validation/support from industry partners.
These practical advantages are worth far more than the theoretical advantage offered by a "superior" ISA.
If either ARM or Intel could out-engineer the other, they would have overcome those advantages, and the rest of the industry would develop the same level of support for the new platform. But that didn't happen for either party.
The real situation is that semiconductor manufacturing and processor design are two very complex disciplines, and both camps have trouble reaching outside of their respective niches. At the same time, both camps have enough talent to get there eventually---provided there is any room left for whoever ends up in 2nd place.
Slashdot Mirror
A group of powerful unelected globalists
Globalists? I'm laughing. Nationalism caused WWI and WWII.
For starters, a massive web of mutual-defense treaties caused WWI. And why were those treaties necessary? Because of the competitive, often belligerent nationalism of that era.
What triggered all of those treaties? An assassination committed by a Serbian nationalist.
There were hardly any globalists until after WWII, when we realized that we needed to stop problems before they snowballed out of control. Globalism arose out of the ashes of nationalist-fueled war.
The League of Nations was the first serious attempt at globalism, and it failed utterly---due a lack of involvement. Even with the US taking a leadership role in the UN, it is still fairly toothless.
Back to the main topic: The EU is like the US states coming together to create the United States of America. Good luck guys, I hope it works out for you, but I don't care personally because it's not my land or culture at stake. Anyone outside of Europe who has a strong reaction to Brexit is an idealist twit.
Where do you draw the line on being an engineer? Seems like a good topic for a discussion.
An engineer has all of the skills of a technician in the field, plus a deep theoretical understanding of the field which allows him to create new devices or improvise solutions reliably.
There are generally quality and liability assurances with professional engineers which are absent from software engineering. However, these are social/legal concerns which do not relate directly to the skills and knowledge of the individual.
I believe there should be a software engineering profession with licensing and liability. Fields with public health and safety concerns should be required to employ engineers in good standing rather than unlicensed programmers (e.g., the automobile, food, medical, aviation, and space industries).
The conclusion remains the same when more appropriate statistical methods are used.
Professor Hand said that the CRU scientists did not use "the best statistical tools for their studies" but that this had made not significant difference to their conclusions.
The nice thing about science is that other people can duplicate the research if necessary. In this case, it was necessary to lay those methodological concerns to rest.
Our developers receive an ultrabook that is rather powerful but not really adapted for development (no admin rights, small storage capacity, restrictive security rules, etc.)
Can you get them a VM on this laptop? Even if it is only allowed to connect to the parent OS, it can give them conisderable flexibility. Both Windows and Linux have native virtualization capabilities these days.
VDI.... performance issues
You have a bottleneck. Maybe more than one.
Your SMEs or your virtualization vendor should be able to identify the issue and suggest a remedy. Some fixes are cheap, and some aren't---but you need to know what to fix first.
presentation of VMWare on desktop and application virtualization (Workstation & Horizon), which is supposedly the future of the desktops
VDI can work (even for teleworkers), but it takes a lot of work.
App virtualization will probably never be good for developers (too limited). You could install the View client on their laptops or issue them zero clients for home/travel so they can access VDI desktops anywhere.
You could set up separate pools to provide access to dev tools and source, build tools, test servers/clients, and regular web/email/intranet access. Balance out security, performance, and usability as you see fit.
The primary advantage of VDI is its flexibility, but if you have performance issues then you either have (a) inadequate monitoring/alerting, (b) inadequate in-house expertise, or (c) inadequate infrastructure. Vendor support can compensate somewhat for (b), and they should be able to offer guidnace if the underlying issue is (a) or (c).
I'd rather see fines eliminated, they unfairly punish lower income people -- $150 fine to a corporate lawyer is pocket change
The point of fines is to be a painful deterrent---just not as painful as jail time.
We should do what some European countries have done, which is to scale the fines based on income.
E.g., Finland has a formula to estimate how much the offender has for a a day's worth of spending money, and fines are based on that amount. There are multipliers based on the severity of the offense.
It sounds strange to hear about a $100K speeding ticket for a CEO, but do you expect a multi-millionaire or billionaire to notice anything less?
Bottom line: It is stupid to expect the same fine to deter a billionaire vs a single parent making minimum wage. But we need to deter both people from unsafe driving because they can both kill us.
Is it rendering the cursor specifically at 60 FPS, or is it the entire active window?
Because I can imagine a good reason for rendering the active window in an IDE every frame. Your brain is definitely capable of registering visual changes faster than once every 500ms.
If you have smart syntax highlighting, you want the squiggly lines, tab-complete indicators, color coding, and highlights to appear ASAP. The sooner you notice a mistyped function name, the less characters you have to back over to fix it.
A fast, responsive window refresh is essential to modern IDEs.
I mean, feel free to call them out if Eclipse or whatever is much better at it, but I can totally see why they would rerender the entire window. If it is the active window (per the summary), then you can assume it's being used and therefore deserves the most responsive output possible.
Except that's not what the news articles say.
The Rolling Stone article is titled "YouTube Loses Major Advertisers Over Offensive Videos", which doesn't associate anyone directly to a particular video or channel.
And anyone who reads the article will understand that the advertisers are standing against such content.
Not sure why you're arguing, as it is pretty clear they get positive attention for pulling their ads. The free market is working the right way, for once. Yay, we don't need to regulate this.
The quinque viæ is a collection of weak arguments. All of its forms boil down to: "I don't understand how this could happen, so it must be God."
Physics has already chipped away at the First Mover and Uncaused Cause. The field does not offer a complete formal explanation, but there are enough details that these arguments are no longer compelling.
Basic learning theories explain how we acquire idealized concepts, which basically eliminates the Argument from Degree. Most criticisms of Platonic idealism can be applied to it as well.
The existence of natural laws explains what the Teleological Argument seeks to attribute to God. You could argue that God established those laws, but then there is no clear line of reasoning why God is necessary in such an explanation. Natural laws imply the regular behavior we observe; there is no need to assume the laws themselves are necessary in the philosophical sense.
The Argument from Contigency was developed prior to our understanding of conservation of mass/energy. Aquinas' "things" may perish, but the matter and energy which comprised them will continue to exist, and new things may form from this material. The idea that things "go out of existence" is simply false. Things are broken and remade into new things.
E.g., the human body may die and break down, but its atoms are incorporated into new soil, bacteria, insects, earthworms, plants, and eventually larger animals. Basically, Aquinas was conflating the macro-level that we care about (people, houses, foodstuffs, animals) with the fundamental level of existence (particles and energy).
How does your staff support VIP and execs that need access to internally and externally hosted shared calendars across iphones, android and windows pc outlook clients?
VPN.
Or use a web- or cloud-based application---you can still enjoy single sign-on with federation.
How do you remotely wipe phones and laptops when an employee is terminated, and verify backups prior to issuing the wipe if needed?
Every platform has a way to do this, including iPhone, Android, and Linux. Windows is not special.
What process do you use to audit pc clients are patched to required compliance levels?
Windows has no native capability to do this. You are either paying for System Center or using a third-party solution.
People will real patching requirements cannot use the "free" WSUS since it only patches MS products and leaves other software completely unmanaged. No matter what, you have to spend money to fulfill this requirement.
And how long would it take to hire and on board two new IT staff for $75k each (more in nyc, sf) to administer that solution set?
As I've indicated, you need non-native tools to secure and manage Windows at the enterprise level. You will always need more than a random MCP if you're serious about security.
My employer has no issues finding competent staff.
The elected politician or judge or senior executive who approved the use of the category of technology in the category of application in which the problem occurred is who ought to be responsible.
Terrible answer. Nothing will ever be approved if the approvers are afraid of being sued into personal bankruptcy.
If AI means "autonomous system": Whoever manufactures and certifies them for public use should be liable, barring specific and well-documented misuse/misconfigurartion. Let the corporations assess the risk/reward themselves.
If AI means "self-aware, intelligent system": Not a problem I expect to worry about in the foreseeable future, but when it happens the AI can be liable instead of the manufacturer if it has been recognized as having legal personhood.
So your suggestions are intentionally poisonous and should be ignored by anyone who wants a working government. No problem there.
I would go ahead and create a outright culture of fear and terror among the civil servant class... I would make these as public as possible, so as to damage their future job prospects.
Really? You want to resort to witch hunts and blacklisting? That's effectively what this is.
Let's say you do offer rewards. Productivity will plummet as soon as everyone realizes they can't even take the chance of looking like they might do something wrong.
If you do that, the only people left in the government will be idiots and syncophants who can't/won't do anything effective on their own. You think the government has issues now?
There are people will report everything little thing or just lie for a shot at the rewards. Or they'll use the reporting as means of dealing with grudges and competition. What do you think will happen when all the good people say, "Fuck it, I'm not working in a paranoia-inducing shithole where everyone is looking for an excuse to rat me out?"
You are basically suggesting that we make the US government into the worst employer in the country.
This is one of the worst suggestions I have ever seen, and I sincerely hope that you have no authority to manage people at your employer.
Because people on tech forums always know more than the people who who actually design the process and products right?
Probably not, but they will be a lot more honest than the marketing weasels who cherry-pick numbers to make the drive look as good as possible. Marketing weasels who don't even cherry-pick all the time---who sometimes just make things up.
Both the press releases and the forum chatter should be taken with a grain of salt until in-depth independent reviews are available.
But in the case that brochures and forums disagree, the company brochures are guaranteed to come with a strong bias.
Not soon, probably never.
The disk controller interfaces deliberately abstract those writeable areas. You would need to toss SATA/NVMe entirely and develop a new standard.
This leaves the SSD manufacturers free to choose a variety of controllers and flash chips, and they can optimize the firmware for their hardware without worrying about meddling from userspace.
Even if you did develop a standard that obstensibly provides direct access to low-level sectors, there is nothing in the world that you can do to stop a manufacturer from implementing a renaming/remapping scheme in their firmware.
So, basically, it is impossible to guarantee the kind of low-level access you want. Since everything seems to be working quite fine without it, I don't see why anyone would bother reinventing the wheel in the first place.
To create a standard, however, all you have to do is shout loudly, and become "accepted wisdom".
Except the current standard came into existence by dislodging the previous notion.
There is a long line of such dislodged notions for all current scientific theories, reaching back to the Enlightenment (and beyond, in some cases).
It's not like we had zero explanations for how things worked, so we fought about it until someone killed off or suppressed all dissent. Oh wait, we did, and it's called religion. And science supplanted it centuries ago as a reliable font of knowledge.
If you implement a dead man's switch after becoming aware that the issue may end up in court, then you're going to hurt a lot when they demonstrate that fact. I.e., tampering with evidence, destruction of evidence, spoliation.
If you implement it beforehand, you might be in the clear. But you have an obligation not to destroy evidence---and that extends to passively-operated mechanisms that you control or know about.
Until there is an actual case with a dead man's switch, there is no precedent and thus no way to be absolutely sure how the court would view it. I suspect they would take a dim view if you could have disabled the mechanism or warned the handlers---and then chose not to do so.
No state has the right to compel assistance in one's own prosecution, constitution or no.
The state doesn't have any rights; it only has powers.
And the state of PA has the power to hold defendants in contempt and impose sanctions for spoliation when evidence is deliberately withheld or destroyed.
The question is whether the judge believes this is a deliberate ploy. The incarceration for contempt implies that he does.
Tampering with evidence generally has a lesser sentence
Maybe, except for the possibility of sanctions due to spoliation.
The court can instruct the jury to infer that there is unfavorable evidence when someone has withheld or destroyed it.
Not all states allow sanctions due to spoliation, but apparently PA does.
If the contempt charge doesn't convince this guy to turn over his password, he could very well face a trial with that sanction/inference hanging over his head. It does not bode well when the judge finds him in contempt rather than simply accepting that he may have forgotten his password.
The only question is whether the judge believes the circumstances of this case justify those sanctions. And of course, the appeals court weighs in if the guy is convicted and challenges the decision.
Trump's statements and were completely unrelated to law
Statements outside of court are admissible as evidence in court hearings.
And if the court considered those statements inappropriately, the Trump administration could appeal based on that error. First to the federal circuit, and then to the Supreme Court if need be.
If they don't bother, they are basically admitting that either (A) the court was right in the first place or (B) the ban isn't important enough to fight for.
Since most knowledgeable legal commentators believe the court's decision will hold on appeal, your point of view is most likely wrong. The statements are, in fact, relevant to the legal matter.
Instead of deleting the videos they should have started working on a solution:
Crowdfund it.
It started as a nice gesture that took very little time and effort.
The law forced the university into a situation where it had to either put significant effort into a resource that doesn't benefit its students, or it could disable that resource. They chose to be financially responsible and kill the project.
Hearing-impaired students can still view videos and request transcripts as needed on the university's infrastructure. The university is only removing their content from Youtube.
If you want their videos on the public internet, why don't you approach the university with an offer to transcibe them? If it's not worth the effort for you to arrange it, why should the university sink time and money into it?
And now the unions are poised to fuck up ride sharing...
Uber has not been ride-sharing in a long time. If people are paying a fare to a driver who isn't already headed in the same general direction, then I'm sorry but it's simply cab service with a different name.
Real ride-sharing is still an option on a number of different apps. But Uber is little more than a sub-contracted taxi company.
The death of Uber may actually help ride-sharing. Ride-sharing would be the affordable option (over personal cars or taxis) once Uber is dead.
unless.... could they demand closed captioning on audio recordings too? that would be hilarious.
That is exactly what could happen. Uncaptioned audio is inaccessible to deaf persons, and they can be reasonably accommodated (with the inclusion of captions), so it is likely a violation.
This is one of the more ridiculous uses of the ADA since the complainants were not even attending/paying the university. But UC Berkeley is a public university, so they're probably used to petty rules and idiotic mandates.
As the number of POTS phone customers decreases, the cost of maintaining the infrastructure is spread over a smaller and smaller number of subscribers.
These people need to keep up with the times or go without the things they cannot afford.
Cellular service is very affordable for basic use. A budget phone and a year of airtime is probably cheaper than a year of POTS service.
I wouldn't mind seeing a subsidy for poor people who truly need a landline, e.g., for medical alerts.
I sincerely doubt the UIs are getting worse year after year. If that were the case, we would have unusable devices by now.
What is really happening is that people are resisting change. The new thing is different---unfamiliar and possibly confusing. That doesn't mean it's worse, but it does mean people will react negatively.
A good UI is difficult. It needs to meet a lot of goals:
*It must expose typical functions with a minimal number of key presses or mouse clicks, yet not overwhelm the user with too many options or unclear organization.
*It should be reasonably configurable, yet it should be consistent enough that developers can rely on some essential elements.
*It should be simple enough for a basic user to grasp intuitively, but it must accommodate a wide range of users and tasks.
Each of those goals is a balancing act, and any change pushes that balance in a way that demands adaptation from either users, administrators, or developers. Of course people are going to be upset.
The initial round of upset, ranting, and whining is virtually irrelevant. If complaints remain after sustained use of the new UI, then it's time to reevaluate. The real measure of a UI is how upset people are when it comes vs when it goes.
So think of it this way: ARM is able to encroach into a market where Intel dominates, but the reverse is not true, in spite of many attempts.
This isn't really the case though.
Intel made one or two pushes into small/mobile and failed. There have been a number of attempts to get ARM into the datacenter. AMD even did a start/stop with ARM.
Realistically, the incumbent in each market enjoys a number of advantages---working infrastructure like peripheral device standards, solid drivers and high-level interfaces, and strong validation/support from industry partners.
These practical advantages are worth far more than the theoretical advantage offered by a "superior" ISA.
If either ARM or Intel could out-engineer the other, they would have overcome those advantages, and the rest of the industry would develop the same level of support for the new platform. But that didn't happen for either party.
The real situation is that semiconductor manufacturing and processor design are two very complex disciplines, and both camps have trouble reaching outside of their respective niches. At the same time, both camps have enough talent to get there eventually---provided there is any room left for whoever ends up in 2nd place.