I'm not joking around here. If Microsoft put out a Linux distro that didn't use systemd, with some guarantee that it never would, I'd very much consider using it. It sounds absolutely crazy, but things have gotten so fucked up in the Linux ecosystem lately that the thought of Microsoft putting out the best Linux distro has actually become plausible.
Of course it's plausible. It's radically different than how most MSFT products are designed, but they still have a huge amount of money and a lot of great engineers. If they decided to put out the best linux distro in the world, they would have a good shot.
Because they need to relay verbal commands and respond to certain calls which may not be easily recognisable.
Have you ever heard how garbled a radio is? Imagine running voice recognition on that.
This. Remember the first indicator they had of an airplane hijacking on September 11 was a garbled transmission. An automated ATC probably wouldn't have realized what it was.
The History Channel has a lock on "OMG!!! the Nazis almost won the war, what if their super secret had been built, we would all be speaking GERMAN and eating sauerkraut, OMG!!!". Of course was either only a prototype or was never built at all, but who cares, RATINGS!!!
So no Nazi atom bomb is a big dower for them.
I talked to a producer who knew some History Channel people, and she said they called it the Hitler Channel. No mater what series, if you could tie something to Hitler or the Nazis then it was a big plus. She said that when they had a series on the Spartans they compared them to Germany during WWII, and the management was thrilled.
The Nazis could easily have won the war, if Hitler wasn't insane and had settled for controlling mainland Europe west of Stalin. Only an idiot fights on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots invades Russia during the winter. If Hitler had not betrayed Stalin, he could have held mainland Europe indefinitely. If he had not declared war after Pearl Harbor, but had let Japan fight the United States alone, the war would have dragged for an extra decade. But an extended war against the biggest industrial powers in the world is impossible without technological advantage that cannot be countered.
No, there is no tax payer expense. These government backed loans stay with the students their entire lives and cannot be discharged via bankruptcy except for exceptionally rare cases.
Wrong. They can't be discharged in bankruptcy but they do get forgiven after a certain number of years of income-based repayment. Somehow they snuck it into the budget as if it didn't cost anything, but it will cost a fortune 15-25 years down the road.
Thanks to the US education establishment, there's a millionaire made every day... usually via lawsuits. I'd say this young man won't need to worry about college debt.
This is part of the story, although it may be hard to get a texas story to agree that cops shouldn't have been suspicious. You can certainly try, though.
First priority: make sure kid doesn't go to Juvee. Big difference between if he was actually calling it a bomb or using it as a hoax device or if he just built it, so be sure. Get attorney, get good public relations guy, get stories in paper, get stories in some religious and educational magazines and blogs, etc... Get story out there and make DA and school board and maybe governor feel pressure for "science while muslim" and the like.
Useful side-effect: If your kid really is bright and you can pull him through the trauma, you can likely spin this into a great college essay that significantly boosts his chances of getting into a great college.
Honestly, is this something you would ever say to anyone,
if you had nothing to hide?
These accusations are preposterpous!
Absolutely.
This is part of the structure of most lawsuits. They file a complaint, you file a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted (i.e. they said it wrong), you file an answer, you get cross-motions for summary judgment (both sides argue that even taking all of the facts as favoring the other party, they still win), and finally in one in a thousand cases you go to trial.
Calling a claim "without merit" can generally mean one of two things--it doesn't really matter, or it's BS. Then you explain why it doesn't matter or why it's BS. "The facts show X, here's evidence" or "Even if the facts were what they say they are, they'd still lose."
I've been saying this for a decade. If the computer that the student uses is a general-purpose computer and can do 10,000 things, of which only one thing is that which the student should be doing, the student is going to be overwhelmingly tempted to do one of the rest of those 9,999 things instead, especially if that other thing is more fun.
Even in professional School this is the case. If you look from the back of a large classroom in law school, you will see sports on a large number of guys' laptops and shopping on a large number of girls' laptops. Some profs ban laptops, but that's pretty rare and is a good way to get people not to take your class.
Of course, in law school your entire grade or 90% of your grade is also based on one final exam, so they have to learn material anyway. They just might not pay as much attention to the lecture.
The hypocrisy is astounding. You think that somehow the US kangaroo courts are any more just? Microsoft was even convicted of crimes and after much political pressure and bribes escaped with slap on the wrist. Probably also bullshit verdict, since it was under antitrust laws that have so much wiggle room? You really think there is any justice in US courts? Think again.
I assume that bribery is less common in US Federal Courts than in Russian Courts, for a variety of reasons. For example, organized crime is a law firm in one soviet states, and the head of state of another soviet state personally tortures people on his exercise equipment but is protected by Putin. The US federal system leaves something to be desired--its judges are about 50/50 really bright jurists from the best schools in the country on the one hand and sometimes thick politically successful figures in local state politics on the other, all confirmed by a Congress of people elected mostly for their tendency to say nothing at all. But I think bribery is a less important part of the charging decisions and probably of the outcome.
1) Micky Mouse 2) your mom 3) Someone from Russia. (The country whose laws Google broke.)
You're assuming they broke the law. It's antitrust, which means there's so much wiggle room in it the judges can decide whatever they want. And it's Russia, so everything is about who bribed whom.
There's a lot of competition in the Smartphone O/S space. While every operator builds something of its own structural monopoly, you can still pick a windows phone or an apple phone or even a blackberry.
So antitrust complaints against google are pretty much bullshit.
Been going on since advertising was invented. And if you honestly looked at this phone and said "now I can take my phone snorkling", well, that's a problem at your end.
Doesn't make it legal or okay. It turns out false advertising is a thing society does a little bit to punish.
Of course, the practical result is more puffery. Advertising has evolved over the last century to present as little information as possible so that none of it is false.
There are pretty strict laws for money transmitters and big, established players are like big banks: they're going to be incredible conservative and never risk having their business hurt by government regulators.
The government should have to pay for the lawyers when they erroneously arrest someone and get caught, regardless of whether the person is living in poverty or not. Or at least a part of the cost--like coinsurance, make them pay *something* to encourage them to be a little more careful before they go destroying people's lives and using lots of government resources.
Now, she should be liable for the costs of the suit.
Not really. This is a social policy decision, but especially in discrimination cases there are very good reasons for *not* making an unsuccessful plaintiff pay for the costs of the suit.
First, it gives the defendant an incentive to hire a more expensive legal team to encourage settlement.
Second, while *most* discrimination claims brought to court are bullshit, a lot of legit discrimination claims are never brought to court. We allow the *most* bullshit claims because we think it's *important* to allow the non-bullshit claims. If the plaintiff has to pay costs if they lose, that makes plaintiffs who have actually been discriminated against a lot less willing and able to sue, because it will wreck their lives if they fail. And those plaintiffs are the ones least likely to sue.
What should happen in theory is that the companies that are found *to have discriminated* should have to pay a tax that covers at least a part of the legal expenses of every other company that gets sued over this, because it's the companies that actually discriminate which make all of that litigation necessary. In practice that's politically untenable, though, at least for a while.
Yes, it's certainly an acceptable style on its own, but combined with the fact that they were trying to *define* it, it became obvious that it was written badly for a non-technical audience.
I love how you decided that you get to define what everyone is for and what everyone should be against. Fucking fascist pig. If the taxpayer-funded egg board had been FOR the vegan side you'd be arguing the opposite viewpoint. Seen this flip-flop too many times, "we have always been friends with Eurasia."
I love how you set up a straw man by deciding what I've said without taking the moment to read it. You're turning me into your Vegan Boogeyman.:)
The Egg Board is an advocate for the consumption of eggs. What's the problem?
This article seems more like a slashvertisement for Hampton Creek
The problem is a fraud on the public. Advocating a position that is based on who pays you, without regard to reason or truth or the benefit to mankind, without so much as a notice of your bias, causes massive amounts of harm to the public by sustaining inefficient practices.
It is perhaps the single most harmful activity to society a person can engage in--it wastes other people's lives. It perpetuates the spread of misinformation.
And it is fundamentally contrary to the ideals of Nerds, Geeks, and those who believe in the potential of science and information to help mankind get out of the mess we've made of our world and our societies.
Actually, I'm surprised they still feel somewhat obliged to justify anything. We're past the stage they should actually say "shut up and comply or we'll kill you and your family".
Human beings rationalize. It's not like the intelligence agencies take away your privacy rights because they're trying to be the bad guys--they're trying to be the good guys and save everyone and go after the big bad criminals, it's just that their profession gives them a really warped view of what privacy should look like and the consequences of losing it. Basically they trust themselves with your information so most of them don't seriously believe or really understand how much of a threat it is to democracy for a government force operating mostly in secret to have that information.
It's a little like trying to make today's Americans understand the vitriol of the Protestant-Catholic wars, or the Sunni-Shiite divide. There's no real frame of reference or an inability to project that frame of reference onto the conflict.
This is an everyday occurrence. Maybe not this particular variety, but a whole bunch of stuff "falls off the truck." I had an aunt who had all of her wedding gifts stolen by the moving company basically the same way, a fortune worth of irreplaceable gifts. The town plumber when I was out east would poke his head out of jobs every few minutes to check on his truck because another plumber had just had his truck stolen with all of his plumbing equipment in it. When I suggested a camera, he pointed out, "yeah, but I'd rather not get shot."
Engineers don't usually knowingly deal with real criminals, fortunately. But it turns out crime is a thing.
I know someone who gardens on a friend's small farm. The neighbor's mother had a neurodegenerative disorder, the neighbor's neighbor's son had a neurodegenerative disorder, and the neighbor has been beginning to show signs of a neurodegenerative disorder for the last year or so.
I asked one of the top prion researchers in the country if there could be a problem with prions in the soil being absorbed into the various plants on the property that people eat (garden, apple trees, etc...)
anyone not know this already?.. it seems pretty obvious
Pretty obvious the world is flat too, but it's helpful to use the scientific method to confirm whether or not it actually is.
Actually, it's pretty obvious that the world is round if you have some basic math. Or stand up on a westward-facing beach and watch the sun set a second time. We've known the world was round since way before Columbus, it's just that we could do the math and knew it was WAY too far around the ocean to India to make it, so nobody else was stupid enough to try. Columbus was REALLY lucky there was a landmass in the middle.
However, in my experience the connection between colds and sleep is even more obvious. The more sleep you have, the weaker the cold becomes, and vice-versa. Vary your sleep a little and you'll see it's as directly observable as "When I drop a rock on my foot, OUCH!"
Slashdot Mirror
people are using energy from nuclear fission to power their cars, whether or not the reactor is attached to the car is irrelevant.
It's pretty damn relevant to the guy driving around with the nuclear reactor in his car.
I'm not joking around here. If Microsoft put out a Linux distro that didn't use systemd, with some guarantee that it never would, I'd very much consider using it. It sounds absolutely crazy, but things have gotten so fucked up in the Linux ecosystem lately that the thought of Microsoft putting out the best Linux distro has actually become plausible.
Of course it's plausible. It's radically different than how most MSFT products are designed, but they still have a huge amount of money and a lot of great engineers. If they decided to put out the best linux distro in the world, they would have a good shot.
Because they need to relay verbal commands and respond to certain calls which may not be easily recognisable.
Have you ever heard how garbled a radio is? Imagine running voice recognition on that.
This. Remember the first indicator they had of an airplane hijacking on September 11 was a garbled transmission. An automated ATC probably wouldn't have realized what it was.
The History Channel has a lock on "OMG!!! the Nazis almost won the war, what if their super secret had been built, we would all be speaking GERMAN and eating sauerkraut, OMG!!!". Of course was either only a prototype or was never built at all, but who cares, RATINGS!!!
So no Nazi atom bomb is a big dower for them.
I talked to a producer who knew some History Channel people, and she said they called it the Hitler Channel. No mater what series, if you could tie something to Hitler or the Nazis then it was a big plus. She said that when they had a series on the Spartans they compared them to Germany during WWII, and the management was thrilled.
The Nazis could easily have won the war, if Hitler wasn't insane and had settled for controlling mainland Europe west of Stalin. Only an idiot fights on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots invades Russia during the winter. If Hitler had not betrayed Stalin, he could have held mainland Europe indefinitely. If he had not declared war after Pearl Harbor, but had let Japan fight the United States alone, the war would have dragged for an extra decade. But an extended war against the biggest industrial powers in the world is impossible without technological advantage that cannot be countered.
No, there is no tax payer expense. These government backed loans stay with the students their entire lives and cannot be discharged via bankruptcy except for exceptionally rare cases.
Wrong. They can't be discharged in bankruptcy but they do get forgiven after a certain number of years of income-based repayment. Somehow they snuck it into the budget as if it didn't cost anything, but it will cost a fortune 15-25 years down the road.
Thanks to the US education establishment, there's a millionaire made every day... usually via lawsuits. I'd say this young man won't need to worry about college debt.
This is part of the story, although it may be hard to get a texas story to agree that cops shouldn't have been suspicious. You can certainly try, though.
First priority: make sure kid doesn't go to Juvee. Big difference between if he was actually calling it a bomb or using it as a hoax device or if he just built it, so be sure. Get attorney, get good public relations guy, get stories in paper, get stories in some religious and educational magazines and blogs, etc... Get story out there and make DA and school board and maybe governor feel pressure for "science while muslim" and the like.
Useful side-effect: If your kid really is bright and you can pull him through the trauma, you can likely spin this into a great college essay that significantly boosts his chances of getting into a great college.
Honestly, is this something you would ever say to anyone,
if you had nothing to hide?
These accusations are preposterpous!
Absolutely.
This is part of the structure of most lawsuits. They file a complaint, you file a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted (i.e. they said it wrong), you file an answer, you get cross-motions for summary judgment (both sides argue that even taking all of the facts as favoring the other party, they still win), and finally in one in a thousand cases you go to trial.
Calling a claim "without merit" can generally mean one of two things--it doesn't really matter, or it's BS. Then you explain why it doesn't matter or why it's BS. "The facts show X, here's evidence" or "Even if the facts were what they say they are, they'd still lose."
I've been saying this for a decade. If the computer that the student uses is a general-purpose computer and can do 10,000 things, of which only one thing is that which the student should be doing, the student is going to be overwhelmingly tempted to do one of the rest of those 9,999 things instead, especially if that other thing is more fun.
Even in professional School this is the case. If you look from the back of a large classroom in law school, you will see sports on a large number of guys' laptops and shopping on a large number of girls' laptops. Some profs ban laptops, but that's pretty rare and is a good way to get people not to take your class.
Of course, in law school your entire grade or 90% of your grade is also based on one final exam, so they have to learn material anyway. They just might not pay as much attention to the lecture.
Oh wow, a message from the 1980ies.
Okay, "Soviet" isn't the right term. :) But nevertheless accurate today.
The hypocrisy is astounding. You think that somehow the US kangaroo courts are any more just? Microsoft was even convicted of crimes and after much political pressure and bribes escaped with slap on the wrist. Probably also bullshit verdict, since it was under antitrust laws that have so much wiggle room? You really think there is any justice in US courts? Think again.
I assume that bribery is less common in US Federal Courts than in Russian Courts, for a variety of reasons. For example, organized crime is a law firm in one soviet states, and the head of state of another soviet state personally tortures people on his exercise equipment but is protected by Putin. The US federal system leaves something to be desired--its judges are about 50/50 really bright jurists from the best schools in the country on the one hand and sometimes thick politically successful figures in local state politics on the other, all confirmed by a Congress of people elected mostly for their tendency to say nothing at all. But I think bribery is a less important part of the charging decisions and probably of the outcome.
1) Micky Mouse
2) your mom
3) Someone from Russia. (The country whose laws Google broke.)
You're assuming they broke the law. It's antitrust, which means there's so much wiggle room in it the judges can decide whatever they want. And it's Russia, so everything is about who bribed whom.
There's a lot of competition in the Smartphone O/S space. While every operator builds something of its own structural monopoly, you can still pick a windows phone or an apple phone or even a blackberry.
So antitrust complaints against google are pretty much bullshit.
Been going on since advertising was invented. And if you honestly looked at this phone and said "now I can take my phone snorkling", well, that's a problem at your end.
Doesn't make it legal or okay. It turns out false advertising is a thing society does a little bit to punish.
Of course, the practical result is more puffery. Advertising has evolved over the last century to present as little information as possible so that none of it is false.
There are pretty strict laws for money transmitters and big, established players are like big banks: they're going to be incredible conservative and never risk having their business hurt by government regulators.
The government should have to pay for the lawyers when they erroneously arrest someone and get caught, regardless of whether the person is living in poverty or not. Or at least a part of the cost--like coinsurance, make them pay *something* to encourage them to be a little more careful before they go destroying people's lives and using lots of government resources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Now, she should be liable for the costs of the suit.
Not really. This is a social policy decision, but especially in discrimination cases there are very good reasons for *not* making an unsuccessful plaintiff pay for the costs of the suit.
First, it gives the defendant an incentive to hire a more expensive legal team to encourage settlement.
Second, while *most* discrimination claims brought to court are bullshit, a lot of legit discrimination claims are never brought to court. We allow the *most* bullshit claims because we think it's *important* to allow the non-bullshit claims. If the plaintiff has to pay costs if they lose, that makes plaintiffs who have actually been discriminated against a lot less willing and able to sue, because it will wreck their lives if they fail. And those plaintiffs are the ones least likely to sue.
What should happen in theory is that the companies that are found *to have discriminated* should have to pay a tax that covers at least a part of the legal expenses of every other company that gets sued over this, because it's the companies that actually discriminate which make all of that litigation necessary. In practice that's politically untenable, though, at least for a while.
Yes, it's certainly an acceptable style on its own, but combined with the fact that they were trying to *define* it, it became obvious that it was written badly for a non-technical audience.
Why is 'root' in quotes? Why is it defined (poorly) as if it were this mysterious thing giving absolute power over "commercial" connections?
We're not the general public. We're nerds. Don't submit articles written for people who don't know what "root" is.
Nope. I confess to almost total ignorance of the egg wars.
I love how you decided that you get to define what everyone is for and what everyone should be against. Fucking fascist pig. If the taxpayer-funded egg board had been FOR the vegan side you'd be arguing the opposite viewpoint. Seen this flip-flop too many times, "we have always been friends with Eurasia."
I love how you set up a straw man by deciding what I've said without taking the moment to read it. You're turning me into your Vegan Boogeyman. :)
The Egg Board is an advocate for the consumption of eggs. What's the problem?
This article seems more like a slashvertisement for Hampton Creek
The problem is a fraud on the public. Advocating a position that is based on who pays you, without regard to reason or truth or the benefit to mankind, without so much as a notice of your bias, causes massive amounts of harm to the public by sustaining inefficient practices.
It is perhaps the single most harmful activity to society a person can engage in--it wastes other people's lives. It perpetuates the spread of misinformation.
And it is fundamentally contrary to the ideals of Nerds, Geeks, and those who believe in the potential of science and information to help mankind get out of the mess we've made of our world and our societies.
Actually, I'm surprised they still feel somewhat obliged to justify anything. We're past the stage they should actually say "shut up and comply or we'll kill you and your family".
Human beings rationalize. It's not like the intelligence agencies take away your privacy rights because they're trying to be the bad guys--they're trying to be the good guys and save everyone and go after the big bad criminals, it's just that their profession gives them a really warped view of what privacy should look like and the consequences of losing it. Basically they trust themselves with your information so most of them don't seriously believe or really understand how much of a threat it is to democracy for a government force operating mostly in secret to have that information.
It's a little like trying to make today's Americans understand the vitriol of the Protestant-Catholic wars, or the Sunni-Shiite divide. There's no real frame of reference or an inability to project that frame of reference onto the conflict.
Modern Day version of it "fell off the truck"
This is an everyday occurrence. Maybe not this particular variety, but a whole bunch of stuff "falls off the truck." I had an aunt who had all of her wedding gifts stolen by the moving company basically the same way, a fortune worth of irreplaceable gifts. The town plumber when I was out east would poke his head out of jobs every few minutes to check on his truck because another plumber had just had his truck stolen with all of his plumbing equipment in it. When I suggested a camera, he pointed out, "yeah, but I'd rather not get shot."
Engineers don't usually knowingly deal with real criminals, fortunately. But it turns out crime is a thing.
I know someone who gardens on a friend's small farm. The neighbor's mother had a neurodegenerative disorder, the neighbor's neighbor's son had a neurodegenerative disorder, and the neighbor has been beginning to show signs of a neurodegenerative disorder for the last year or so.
I asked one of the top prion researchers in the country if there could be a problem with prions in the soil being absorbed into the various plants on the property that people eat (garden, apple trees, etc...)
His response: "That's a FASCINATING hypothesis!"
anyone not know this already?.. it seems pretty obvious
Pretty obvious the world is flat too, but it's helpful to use the scientific method to confirm whether or not it actually is.
Actually, it's pretty obvious that the world is round if you have some basic math. Or stand up on a westward-facing beach and watch the sun set a second time. We've known the world was round since way before Columbus, it's just that we could do the math and knew it was WAY too far around the ocean to India to make it, so nobody else was stupid enough to try. Columbus was REALLY lucky there was a landmass in the middle.
However, in my experience the connection between colds and sleep is even more obvious. The more sleep you have, the weaker the cold becomes, and vice-versa. Vary your sleep a little and you'll see it's as directly observable as "When I drop a rock on my foot, OUCH!"