This is a 'troll'? Somebody must have changed the moderation guidelines again.
No, somebody just works for a telecom company and thinks net neutrality is a bad idea, so they're resenting the fact that bribery played a part in the legislation and are reacting to the presence of a fact they don't like.
Either that, or it's a paid proxy for a telecom company downvoting it. I believe I've noticed a trend on slashdot of downmoderation of comments opposed to institutions of the sort who hire propaganda people, but haven't done a thorough analysis so it's only anecdotal.
Windows file-sharing on home machines has pretty much always been terrible. It's like a bunch of monkeys put it together. I am guessing they tasked one or two guys to add it to home machines when the bulk of a group was working on corporate file sharing (which is at least a bit more reliable), and the result was just a really bad design and code that has been sitting around the kernel forever. Getting two machines to talk to each other over an Ethernet cable has always been much harder than in linux. (I was going to say and less secure, but I remember the telnet and ftp days...)
Why would you need a book? Just read the TCP/IP Kernel code for open-source operating systems.
I especially liked reading the the TCP code in OS/X which had been modified from the code of the early 90s and helpfully preserved the now wildly inaccurate original comments in case you felt the need to explore what it would really feel like to drink a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster.
You know that this period of the US will read about in history books as such an obvious time of corruption. The occurrence of dynasties is not a good sign of a healthy democratic republic. Save the last two terms, there has been a Bush or a Clinton as President since 1989. Counting VP, they've occupied those two offices since 1981. If you start to count Secretary of State and such, these two families have held top offices continuously for nearly 35 years. And the next race may well be a Bush vs a Clinton, again.
Of the more than 100 million eligible citizens in the US, is the best candidate for President another Bush or Clinton? Really???
It gets worse. They went to the same schools and one was the head of the CIA.
I often wonder how someone can be so wrong, but still feel so authoritative on a subject as to leave a comment like yours.
Then, you say there's plenty of free stuff - but then undermine your point by mentioning netflix, which isn't free. Is there so much free stuff we don't need to pirate, or do not need to pirate because Netflix is supposed to provide us everything? Because *that's* a huge joke. I get stuff via torrent that you just can't get other ways.
Read the comment without having prejudged the answer.
There is plenty of free stuff--hulu, ctv, the major networks, etc...
But there are also low cost sources of large quantities of online entertainment, such as Netflix.
The one point doesn't undermine the other--it provides an additional reason why piracy is not longer reasonable.
There is stuff you can get via torrent you can't get other ways. That doesn't mean you need to get that stuff. As more stuff becomes available for free or at low-cost, the legitimate arguments for piracy begin to evaporate. It's actually okay to skip a season of Game of Thrones every now and then.
... but the fact that they have their fingers in the pie and don't want to pay for it is as reprehensible as it gets.
Microsoft is paying for a *LOT*--just via employees rather than corporate taxes. The benefits to Washington State from having MSFT located there are massive.
As a pirate, I haven't involuntarily seen a commercial for over 5 years. Much love to the release groups who strip all that out for me. Those guys make TV worth watching.
Stop it. There's no excuse for piracy of television these days--the free offerings over the internet have gotten too numerous, as have the relatively low-cost online streaming services. If you're paying for an internet connection you have access to lots of media for free. And netflix gives you a pretty big library if you pay for that too.
You can't give "things" that have nothing to lose that power, it should always be a human that the same could happen too.
Really? Because the consensus on Slashdot seems to be that pilot-less airliners and driver-less automobiles are a good thing that removes human error from the equation. We're to believe that software engineers are smart enough to account for all conceivable air disaster scenarios but not smart enough to build an IFF system into an armed autonomous weapons system?
Personally I think both ideas are bad ones, I just find it curious that the group-think around here views humans behind the controls of an airliner as a problem but desires them behind the controls of a hellfire missile platform.
Those are easier scenarios to program. I believe we also have plenty of computer-fired weapons systems, but only for very specific scenarios.
And how do you enforce these wishes? A valid defense to your enforcement will always be "My robots are bigger than your robots. Therefore, I am not guilty."
Enforcement of military rules of engagement are usually the responsibility of the power whose military is engaged. Sometimes there are agreements in place (e.g. ICJ jurisdiction for crimes against humanity). Sometimes the only way it happens is by regime change. Kaderov, for example, is a murdering despot who is a head of state protected by the Kremlin; so long as Stalin supports him, there's nothing that can be done.
there are a lot of people who won't give up their national sovereignty to a world government (even if it's a democratic one).
Sounds good until you get to the details. What does a democratic world government look like? Each nation gets one vote = North and South America are fucked. Each human gets one vote = China tells everyone what to do.
Hence a multicameral system. That's a part of the reason we have two houses in the US--one by popular representation and one by state representation.
The real trick will be what happens when their critical interests (real or perceived) conflict with those of another Great Power. My assumption and hope is that we'll be able to come to an understanding that both sides can live with. In any case, you'll more than China's activities in the South China Sea to convince me that they're a greater threat to world peace than barbarians with an end times ideology that refuse to play by the rules of the civilized world. The Chinese think differently than Westerners do, but they're still rational human beings that you can have a meeting of the minds with.
People have hoped that throughout history. It only works if the political and interpersonal dynamics of the situation allow for it. The biggest problem is probably that international rational narratives of countries are critically distinct from internal nationalist narratives of international relations--both countries work to hammer out a deal that lets them each present the same rational agreement as something their constitutents will like. As a result they're both lying to their constituents all the time. Eventually those national narratives can come into conflict with each other to the point where an international agreement is untenable.
Think of how difficult it is right now to make an agreement with Iran--it might well happen but there's A LOT of pushback because of domestic narratives.
It is a military drone but not exactly modern top-of-the-line, hence "basic" but with enough info to make it clear I'm talking about a drone with military specs.
It's clear that some drones can achieve the 100mph+ range, so I see no problem with putting the limit in. A basic predator drone has a 135 mph top speed.
One time, I used a command prompt instruction to circumvent the 'security' our high school computer lab teacher had used to prevent students from accessing the Control Panel in Windows 3.1. The mouse tracking speed had been set too high, and the computer was difficult to use, so I fixed it. The teacher accused me of "hacking" and I was kicked out of the computer lab for the rest of the school year. That teacher probably still runs a computer lab; I grew up and went to work for Microsoft. I hope this kid is as lucky.
We had some kind of educational shell preventing you from running programs or getting to explorer, etc... on our high school computers. We found it hysterical that you could "insert an object" into a Word document. The object could be explorer.exe
And there was SimTower and XCom. And there was much rejoicing.
If there wasn't a history of other students doing the same thing, filing misdemeanor criminal charges in juvenile court with a pre-arranged deal where they charges would be dismissed and the arrest expunged within 1-2 years would not be inappropriate.
What are you smoking?
Criminal charges are NOT appropriate for most juvenile behavior. Unless they're ganging up and physically attacking an adult, for example, you deal with it in a much less permanent way. Minor (unarmed, no injuries) Fighting in school once? Talk to them. Twice? Do push-ups until it's out of their system. Three times? Make them mop up the gym for a week.
They are RARELY appropriate for adult behavior, even when it crosses the line of legality. They can seriously mess up someone's life. You usually should not bring criminal charges unless it's necessary to protect someone's life or safety.
Proof matters if you're dealing with an impartial evaluation that understands more about a person's life than one photograph. If you are perceptive and spend several days with a person in their ordinary life, for example, you understand a lot more than any jury or claims evaluator ever will.
There are people on disability who shouldn't be.
I know people who are on one kind of disability or another who absolutely could do certain kinds of jobs and should, but any clinical evaluation is going to say they're unable to. One person's brain basically shuts down when dealing with certain kinds of problems--some strange sort of situational aphasia, maybe--but they can do plenty of useful tasks and could almost certainly hold the right kind of job.
I also know people who the system continually tries to get fired who have good days and bad days, who don't get disability.
I know veteran's who should get disability and don't.
And I've heard of veterans who get disability and shouldn't.
And I know other people who would no way in hell ever be able to hold a job--they can't even go to the toilet without help.
There are a *lot* of cases out there. Understanding any individual case takes more than a photograph of them smiling or swinging an axe. As scientists, we understand that anecdotal evidence is the least reliable kind. But to a jury or claims adjuster or functionary, anecdotal evidence is pretty much the only kind that matters. It gives you drama. It gives you the story. Decisions are made on pathos, not logic--on emotion, not reason.
Is the less than 100 mph limit really necessary? And if so, how soon until those speeds are safe enough for the limit to be removed? I mean, if we have the capability to safely use >100mph drones for deliveries of any sort, we should be doing so immediately.
Nothing on the magnitude of North Korea or Iran. Not even on the same order as Russia. But it's clear that China is not in the global market for altrustic purposes. They're an economic superpower, and they're going defend that. They're unlike to attack the US, though. But mostly beause they sell most of their products to us, not for any other reason. If I were in the Chinese government, I'd be scared of North Korea and want to maintain a defense.
So the US DoD and DoC have to weigh the slight risk of China deciding some day to come in and take over the US against the more immediate benefits of China drawing NK's attention away from us and being part of the general defense against NK's batshit craziness.
Yes, if I were China I would be heavily investing in tactical nukes to deal with North Korea in the event of serious invasion. They would be a backup plan, but a backup plan I'd want to have.
I would also invest in conventional preparedness for it. Fundamentally you need to maintain air superiority, have good surveillance, and have a whole lot of cluster bombs. For political reasons you'd want some smart bombs too, but mostly you'd want cluster bombs.
Third, you'd be ready for a full propaganda war undermining the effectiveness of dear leader. In this day and age it would probably include manipulated video of him that totally undermines their image of him.
And finally, with China's resources, you'd probably want to have a plan ready for a rapid massive airborne assault on the palace. You don't need to defeat the million-man army if you can capture its leader.
Because it's risk management, it would be a much higher military priority for me than the invasion of Taiwan, for example.
That's a funny answer, but an illegal one. He took great care to make sure that the deadline set by law for their answer is ahead of the exam date.
Just because he gets the answers legally doesn't mean he's allowed to use them and not be cheating. Cheating isn't usually illlegal, but it does have academic consequences. Personally I would probably give him a little award of some kind he can stick on his resume (e.g. a commendation for original thinking) but tell him he can't sit for the exam on that date.
There are a lot of people who really are disabled but who are periodically able to do more serious activities despite the disability, or who try to get better by doing such activities. When an insurance company or benefits arm of the government sees that, they often try to take benefits away. It creates perverse incentives to not try to get better, and it results in disabled people being hurt because they're trying to get better.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a 'troll'? Somebody must have changed the moderation guidelines again.
No, somebody just works for a telecom company and thinks net neutrality is a bad idea, so they're resenting the fact that bribery played a part in the legislation and are reacting to the presence of a fact they don't like.
Either that, or it's a paid proxy for a telecom company downvoting it. I believe I've noticed a trend on slashdot of downmoderation of comments opposed to institutions of the sort who hire propaganda people, but haven't done a thorough analysis so it's only anecdotal.
Here is some basic information about the legalized purchase of the relevant legislation:
Lobbying:
https://www.opensecrets.org/in...
Contributions:
https://www.opensecrets.org/in...
Windows file-sharing on home machines has pretty much always been terrible. It's like a bunch of monkeys put it together. I am guessing they tasked one or two guys to add it to home machines when the bulk of a group was working on corporate file sharing (which is at least a bit more reliable), and the result was just a really bad design and code that has been sitting around the kernel forever. Getting two machines to talk to each other over an Ethernet cable has always been much harder than in linux. (I was going to say and less secure, but I remember the telnet and ftp days...)
Why would you need a book? Just read the TCP/IP Kernel code for open-source operating systems.
I especially liked reading the the TCP code in OS/X which had been modified from the code of the early 90s and helpfully preserved the now wildly inaccurate original comments in case you felt the need to explore what it would really feel like to drink a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster.
BTW I went to a £30k/year British boarding school, so I have no axe to grind, nor insecurity about describing things as they are.
That's a lot of weight to gain in a year.
You know that this period of the US will read about in history books as such an obvious time of corruption. The occurrence of dynasties is not a good sign of a healthy democratic republic. Save the last two terms, there has been a Bush or a Clinton as President since 1989. Counting VP, they've occupied those two offices since 1981. If you start to count Secretary of State and such, these two families have held top offices continuously for nearly 35 years. And the next race may well be a Bush vs a Clinton, again.
Of the more than 100 million eligible citizens in the US, is the best candidate for President another Bush or Clinton? Really???
It gets worse. They went to the same schools and one was the head of the CIA.
I often wonder how someone can be so wrong, but still feel so authoritative on a subject as to leave a comment like yours.
Then, you say there's plenty of free stuff - but then undermine your point by mentioning netflix, which isn't free. Is there so much free stuff we don't need to pirate, or do not need to pirate because Netflix is supposed to provide us everything? Because *that's* a huge joke. I get stuff via torrent that you just can't get other ways.
Read the comment without having prejudged the answer.
There is plenty of free stuff--hulu, ctv, the major networks, etc...
But there are also low cost sources of large quantities of online entertainment, such as Netflix.
The one point doesn't undermine the other--it provides an additional reason why piracy is not longer reasonable.
There is stuff you can get via torrent you can't get other ways. That doesn't mean you need to get that stuff. As more stuff becomes available for free or at low-cost, the legitimate arguments for piracy begin to evaporate. It's actually okay to skip a season of Game of Thrones every now and then.
... but the fact that they have their fingers in the pie and don't want to pay for it is as reprehensible as it gets.
Microsoft is paying for a *LOT*--just via employees rather than corporate taxes. The benefits to Washington State from having MSFT located there are massive.
"the free offerings over the internet have gotten too numerous, as have the relatively low-cost online streaming services"
That may be true for your country, not everyone is so lucky nor treated the same way.
Yeah, I have no objection to your pirating video in North Korea.
As a pirate, I haven't involuntarily seen a commercial for over 5 years. Much love to the release groups who strip all that out for me. Those guys make TV worth watching.
Stop it. There's no excuse for piracy of television these days--the free offerings over the internet have gotten too numerous, as have the relatively low-cost online streaming services. If you're paying for an internet connection you have access to lots of media for free. And netflix gives you a pretty big library if you pay for that too.
Yes, some of the violence is utterly overdone. But overall the series seems to be done pretty well.
You can't give "things" that have nothing to lose that power, it should always be a human that the same could happen too.
Really? Because the consensus on Slashdot seems to be that pilot-less airliners and driver-less automobiles are a good thing that removes human error from the equation. We're to believe that software engineers are smart enough to account for all conceivable air disaster scenarios but not smart enough to build an IFF system into an armed autonomous weapons system?
Personally I think both ideas are bad ones, I just find it curious that the group-think around here views humans behind the controls of an airliner as a problem but desires them behind the controls of a hellfire missile platform.
Those are easier scenarios to program. I believe we also have plenty of computer-fired weapons systems, but only for very specific scenarios.
And how do you enforce these wishes? A valid defense to your enforcement will always be "My robots are bigger than your robots. Therefore, I am not guilty."
Enforcement of military rules of engagement are usually the responsibility of the power whose military is engaged. Sometimes there are agreements in place (e.g. ICJ jurisdiction for crimes against humanity). Sometimes the only way it happens is by regime change. Kaderov, for example, is a murdering despot who is a head of state protected by the Kremlin; so long as Stalin supports him, there's nothing that can be done.
there are a lot of people who won't give up their national sovereignty to a world government (even if it's a democratic one).
Sounds good until you get to the details. What does a democratic world government look like? Each nation gets one vote = North and South America are fucked.
Each human gets one vote = China tells everyone what to do.
Hence a multicameral system. That's a part of the reason we have two houses in the US--one by popular representation and one by state representation.
The real trick will be what happens when their critical interests (real or perceived) conflict with those of another Great Power. My assumption and hope is that we'll be able to come to an understanding that both sides can live with. In any case, you'll more than China's activities in the South China Sea to convince me that they're a greater threat to world peace than barbarians with an end times ideology that refuse to play by the rules of the civilized world. The Chinese think differently than Westerners do, but they're still rational human beings that you can have a meeting of the minds with.
People have hoped that throughout history. It only works if the political and interpersonal dynamics of the situation allow for it. The biggest problem is probably that international rational narratives of countries are critically distinct from internal nationalist narratives of international relations--both countries work to hammer out a deal that lets them each present the same rational agreement as something their constitutents will like. As a result they're both lying to their constituents all the time. Eventually those national narratives can come into conflict with each other to the point where an international agreement is untenable.
Think of how difficult it is right now to make an agreement with Iran--it might well happen but there's A LOT of pushback because of domestic narratives.
It is a military drone but not exactly modern top-of-the-line, hence "basic" but with enough info to make it clear I'm talking about a drone with military specs.
It's clear that some drones can achieve the 100mph+ range, so I see no problem with putting the limit in. A basic predator drone has a 135 mph top speed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
One time, I used a command prompt instruction to circumvent the 'security' our high school computer lab teacher had used to prevent students from accessing the Control Panel in Windows 3.1. The mouse tracking speed had been set too high, and the computer was difficult to use, so I fixed it. The teacher accused me of "hacking" and I was kicked out of the computer lab for the rest of the school year. That teacher probably still runs a computer lab; I grew up and went to work for Microsoft. I hope this kid is as lucky.
We had some kind of educational shell preventing you from running programs or getting to explorer, etc... on our high school computers. We found it hysterical that you could "insert an object" into a Word document. The object could be explorer.exe
And there was SimTower and XCom. And there was much rejoicing.
If there wasn't a history of other students doing the same thing, filing misdemeanor criminal charges in juvenile court with a pre-arranged deal where they charges would be dismissed and the arrest expunged within 1-2 years would not be inappropriate.
What are you smoking?
Criminal charges are NOT appropriate for most juvenile behavior. Unless they're ganging up and physically attacking an adult, for example, you deal with it in a much less permanent way. Minor (unarmed, no injuries) Fighting in school once? Talk to them. Twice? Do push-ups until it's out of their system. Three times? Make them mop up the gym for a week.
They are RARELY appropriate for adult behavior, even when it crosses the line of legality. They can seriously mess up someone's life. You usually should not bring criminal charges unless it's necessary to protect someone's life or safety.
Because it's not always fraud.
Not always. But sometimes. Proof matters.
Proof matters if you're dealing with an impartial evaluation that understands more about a person's life than one photograph. If you are perceptive and spend several days with a person in their ordinary life, for example, you understand a lot more than any jury or claims evaluator ever will.
There are people on disability who shouldn't be.
I know people who are on one kind of disability or another who absolutely could do certain kinds of jobs and should, but any clinical evaluation is going to say they're unable to. One person's brain basically shuts down when dealing with certain kinds of problems--some strange sort of situational aphasia, maybe--but they can do plenty of useful tasks and could almost certainly hold the right kind of job.
I also know people who the system continually tries to get fired who have good days and bad days, who don't get disability.
I know veteran's who should get disability and don't.
And I've heard of veterans who get disability and shouldn't.
And I know other people who would no way in hell ever be able to hold a job--they can't even go to the toilet without help.
There are a *lot* of cases out there. Understanding any individual case takes more than a photograph of them smiling or swinging an axe. As scientists, we understand that anecdotal evidence is the least reliable kind. But to a jury or claims adjuster or functionary, anecdotal evidence is pretty much the only kind that matters. It gives you drama. It gives you the story. Decisions are made on pathos, not logic--on emotion, not reason.
Is the less than 100 mph limit really necessary? And if so, how soon until those speeds are safe enough for the limit to be removed? I mean, if we have the capability to safely use >100mph drones for deliveries of any sort, we should be doing so immediately.
F=mv^2
Some kind of upper limit on v seems appropriate.
Nothing on the magnitude of North Korea or Iran. Not even on the same order as Russia. But it's clear that China is not in the global market for altrustic purposes. They're an economic superpower, and they're going defend that. They're unlike to attack the US, though. But mostly beause they sell most of their products to us, not for any other reason. If I were in the Chinese government, I'd be scared of North Korea and want to maintain a defense.
So the US DoD and DoC have to weigh the slight risk of China deciding some day to come in and take over the US against the more immediate benefits of China drawing NK's attention away from us and being part of the general defense against NK's batshit craziness.
Yes, if I were China I would be heavily investing in tactical nukes to deal with North Korea in the event of serious invasion. They would be a backup plan, but a backup plan I'd want to have.
I would also invest in conventional preparedness for it. Fundamentally you need to maintain air superiority, have good surveillance, and have a whole lot of cluster bombs. For political reasons you'd want some smart bombs too, but mostly you'd want cluster bombs.
Third, you'd be ready for a full propaganda war undermining the effectiveness of dear leader. In this day and age it would probably include manipulated video of him that totally undermines their image of him.
And finally, with China's resources, you'd probably want to have a plan ready for a rapid massive airborne assault on the palace. You don't need to defeat the million-man army if you can capture its leader.
Because it's risk management, it would be a much higher military priority for me than the invasion of Taiwan, for example.
That's a funny answer, but an illegal one. He took great care to make sure that the deadline set by law for their answer is ahead of the exam date.
Just because he gets the answers legally doesn't mean he's allowed to use them and not be cheating. Cheating isn't usually illlegal, but it does have academic consequences. Personally I would probably give him a little award of some kind he can stick on his resume (e.g. a commendation for original thinking) but tell him he can't sit for the exam on that date.
Those are only the unclassified ones.
And reducing fraud is a bad thing.... why?
Because it's not always fraud.
There are a lot of people who really are disabled but who are periodically able to do more serious activities despite the disability, or who try to get better by doing such activities. When an insurance company or benefits arm of the government sees that, they often try to take benefits away. It creates perverse incentives to not try to get better, and it results in disabled people being hurt because they're trying to get better.