First, his gender identity issues are nothing new. It seems to me that they are only now coming out and being paraded around by news and other organizations that have reason to see him trampled into the ground. It seems this would have been more likely brought out a year or more ago, to fully discredit him. I presume they're doing it now to discredit him after sentencing to prevent others from finding any credibility in him and protesting or following in his steps, as far as whistleblowing.
In short, this is not relevant in any way whatsoever. He did what he did and made the sacrifice he has been made to pay, whether he is a he, a she, or a guy who is confused.
Now, why is it on Slashdot? Because as the Slashdot audience has gotten older, they've gone from defiant linux nerds spouting freedom, encryption, and open information to old men who can't help themselves but to spout their political, religious, and other bullshit on here even when it is only barely remotely related to anything, as if they were commenting in the Disqus forum at the bottom of a CBS or CNS news article linked to by Drudgereport.
Manning didn't release over 10,000 documents. He handed them over to established news organizations who then WORKED WITH THE GOVERNMENT TO DETERMINE WHICH DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED.
Convenient how people overlook that very important piece of information, isn't it?
1) It sounds like the code was copied. Still wrong, but "stolen" makes it sound like they can't possibly go on with their project, because they don't have the code they wrote anymore.
2) I'm sure it would be easy to work with Steam and say "don't accept any games that come through based on XYZ code" in this case. On the other hand, Steam has given very few shits about extremely iffy projects in the past.
It would be fucking amazing. I would settle for living a normal life span, but just one year at a time. Every century, bring me back for one year. By the time I die, I'll have gotten to experience some 8,000 years of man's progression. It would be absolutely fantastic.
One of the things which makes me the saddest when contemplating death is simply knowing that there is boundless potential humanity will reach but I won't be able to witness. Space travel. Colonization of other planets. Meeting other species. Curing cancer. Creating actual brain-facilitated VR so that you are basically living out all those sci-fi fantasies.
Instead, with such short lives lived consecutively, you come in with the corded home phone and die with the cell phone. Meh.
For $100k, I'll turn you into a unicorn after you die.
Also, who really believes this stuff? Like they don't immediately harvest your organs to install into existing buyers who are just waiting for you to kick it, anyway.
Who doesn't want immortality? The lifespan of the average person is fucking bullshit. It's just enough to get a taste and not enough to satisfy. Unfortunately, freezing you after you die is a problem. The damage the freezing does to you is a problem. The cost of doing the entire body is a problem. The probability of something going wrong with the storage and maintenance of patients for hundreds or thousands of years is a problem. Should everything work out, you then have to realize that when we are finally able to reach this potential, nobody will want to bother bringing you back to life (and, in fact, may legally be forbidden from doing so). The last thing people who may have nearly infinite life would want to do is bring back people who have no connection to them (because it'd be hundred of years and not just a few decades) to compete for precious resources in the face of ever-growing populations.
The funny thing is, it took most people more than five years to catch on to his bullshit, while -- if you paid attention to the news and recalled what he campaigned on -- he was shitting all over everything from the first quarter of his first term.
Don't worry, people will vote the same way in 2016. They'll be positive that we're only ONE ELECTION away from everything getting better. Until it doesn't and the guy that wins fucks them in the ass again.
It's cool that he is handing it off to the community, but other than that -- there isn't much of a story here. Developers -- especially game developers -- prototype ideas and work on them for months all the time. Ultimately, they often result in nothing. Things don't work. Technology isn't there yet. The userbase shows no interest. Or, probably most often, the developer just loses their passion for that project/prototype and moves on to something else. Notch could go through twenty of these before he finally lands on something that he feels passionate about for the long-haul.
Bingo. Who gives a shit that a bunch of youtube videos weren't able to play for two minutes? Now, if 40% of all protocol requests on the internet ceased functioning because of a google outage, that would be a huge fucking deal. An HD youtube video could account for tens or even hundreds of thousands of non-video-streaming requests being served throughout the internet. This "40%" thing is only relevant insofar as "look how much bandwidth google uses!" rather than "look how much of the internet is dependent on google's existing absolutely every minute of the day".
I find that, occurring in a two minute period, to be highly unlikely. In a two minute period, most people are probably on the same page or site that they clicked on from their search.
Someone sure got pissy and I suppose that clearly indicates who the fanboy is, here.
I don't know how much clearer I can make my question. There is a world of difference between "40% of internet data transmission" and "40% of internet traffic/pages served/whatever". It can mean the difference between a video on youtube and a wikipedia article having the same weight because they are both a request that is fulfilled or... a youtube video equalling a million wikipedia pages being served.
All of the articles about the incident say things like "two minute google outage halts 40% of internet traffic". That's incredibly non-specific and quite misleading. It gives people the impression that, say, a backbone went out and suddenly a whole chunk of the internet stopped functioning, when the truth is that just a service or two stopped functioning for a couple minutes. So what, google went out -- did Wikipedia stop serving pages? Did slashdot? Did Netflix?
And who says there is anything to prove? Why are you so defensive? I was simply saying that it would be important for them to put more emphasis on what "40% of traffic" meant, instead of the hyperbole people are spouting in articles, making it sound like google practically shut down the internet and that they are some pivotal piece without which everything non-google would cease to function.
So let's go back to both the point I was making and the think you clearly don't understand, from your final two sentences:
Do you really think that 40% of all traffic (as in, transmitted data, which I think is the actual statistic here rather than protocol requests, which is more *important*) at any given moment is from youtube, gmail, and people performing searches on google? Seriously? If so, when the hell do people actually spend time *consuming* the content they are searching for?
First of all, gmail does not account for that significant of an amount of data transmission compared to the whole of the internet. Second, neither do google searches which return text-only results. Also, not all searches are performed on Google. So if you factor in all the other search engines out there, what -- are you suggesting that 50% of all web traffic (or all people, or all queries -- whatever) are searches? Wha...???
Second of all, Youtube accounts for 17% of traffic (data). So the other 23% is all email and the chronic google searchers who can't seem to drag themselves away from google search long enough to actually read/watch the content they click on?
Third of all, presuming almost all the traffic (data) is Youtube with a nice chunk being searches and gmail, that does not in any way whatsoever "break the internet" like everyone has been trying to spread fear of the last day or two with their "oh no, the internet is too dependent on Google and their outage killed 40% of the net!" bullshit. . . so what? Then the actual story is simply "google has outage". Tough shit. So what?
Netflix accounts for 35% of internet traffic. If Netflix has an outage, that means Netflix "halts" or "takes out" 35% of the internet for however long its outage is. Which means jack fucking shit -- because the rest of the internet still functions. Just not Netflix.
Sorry this got so fucking wordy, but christ, I guess I have to draw diagrams to re-explain everything.
Something I haven't seen explained in the couple articles I've read on this is why all google services going out would account for 40% of all internet traffic. Am I supposed to believe that at any given moment, 40% of all internet traffic is consumed by gmail, youtube, and web searches? And out of that, how much of the traffic was accounted for by youtube? That is the ONLY seemingly viable element that could really contribute that much, because of the sheer amount of data each transaction with youtube consumes. I mean, doesn't Netflix consume something like 35% of all data traffic at night? So if Netflix went out for five minutes, you could probably say "Netflix outage causes 35% of internet usage to drop" . . .
Rather than telling us how much data usage changed (or if you do, at least break it down for us), isn't a much more relevant statistic one of what percentage page requests/transactions dropped during those two minutes?
It's jumping to irrational conclusions for people to go around saying "oh noes, at least 40% of the internet is dependent on Google to remain up!"
If you watch the video, he discusses that. He does about 40-60% of his coding with this system and he does keep voice-strain in mind (in fact, he was sucking on a hard candy during the demonstration to keep his voice from drying out). You may not do 100% of your work in it, but just imagine if you could cut the amount of typing you do down to about half of normal? Suddenly, you're spreading some of the load to your voice, keeping either from being excessively stressed.
I wasn't aware of that (I don't follow Windows development). If what they mean is that they'll release an annual update to the current operating system (ala service packs), then business as usual. If what they're talking about is OSX-style "tiny iterations for a decade", then that sounds awful. It barely works for OSX, because OSX is a pretty decent system (not perfect, by any means, but...). Doing that with Windows 8? Good grief. Essentially, I feel major version releases encourage rolling out new fundamental paradigms that can kick things forward a bit. Annually updating the same OS with point-releases seems like a fantastic way to drag-on a tired or even unwanted paradigm for far longer than would otherwise happen.
Currently, every police car is equipped with facilities to allow the tracking of license plates (cars) of citizens throughout the city.
Strapping cameras to their heads turns every cop into a non-stop surveillance machine in ways that would otherwise be difficult to implement in most cities (ie, throwing cameras up all over the place, UK-style).
It's a pretty sad statement on law-enforcement that they are either so commonly incompetent or corrupt that they and their encounters with the public need to be documented on video.
Well, every major version of Windows going back to 1.0 has come out around 3-4 years apart (except XP->Vista, which took 6+ years). So it's likely that Windows 9 would come out in in the beginning of 2016 or 2017... If it mirrors XP->Vista, then more like the beginning of 2019. However, with the lack of Windows 8 adoption and appreciation, I would suspect we're more likely to see it in '16 or '17 than later . . . which is still a hell of a long time to have to deal with Windows 8 (or... 7, for people with some self-respect).
"Polygraph machines" are nothing but a tool that facilitates the accusation and judgement of the person operating it. If the person wants to find you suspicious, they will conclude that the results from the machine indicate suspicion. This has been demonstrated repeatedly and there's a strong reason why polygraphs are not admissible in court (except the few states where they are -- but only if all parties involved agree to it).
Slashdot Mirror
First, his gender identity issues are nothing new. It seems to me that they are only now coming out and being paraded around by news and other organizations that have reason to see him trampled into the ground. It seems this would have been more likely brought out a year or more ago, to fully discredit him. I presume they're doing it now to discredit him after sentencing to prevent others from finding any credibility in him and protesting or following in his steps, as far as whistleblowing.
In short, this is not relevant in any way whatsoever. He did what he did and made the sacrifice he has been made to pay, whether he is a he, a she, or a guy who is confused.
Now, why is it on Slashdot? Because as the Slashdot audience has gotten older, they've gone from defiant linux nerds spouting freedom, encryption, and open information to old men who can't help themselves but to spout their political, religious, and other bullshit on here even when it is only barely remotely related to anything, as if they were commenting in the Disqus forum at the bottom of a CBS or CNS news article linked to by Drudgereport.
It's okay to joke about rape, because he's a dude.
Well.. shit, wait...
Manning didn't release over 10,000 documents. He handed them over to established news organizations who then WORKED WITH THE GOVERNMENT TO DETERMINE WHICH DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED.
Convenient how people overlook that very important piece of information, isn't it?
1) It sounds like the code was copied. Still wrong, but "stolen" makes it sound like they can't possibly go on with their project, because they don't have the code they wrote anymore.
2) I'm sure it would be easy to work with Steam and say "don't accept any games that come through based on XYZ code" in this case. On the other hand, Steam has given very few shits about extremely iffy projects in the past.
Uncle Sam doesn't want to hear from you.
Uncle Sam wants you to feel like you've been heard.
It would be fucking amazing. I would settle for living a normal life span, but just one year at a time. Every century, bring me back for one year. By the time I die, I'll have gotten to experience some 8,000 years of man's progression. It would be absolutely fantastic.
One of the things which makes me the saddest when contemplating death is simply knowing that there is boundless potential humanity will reach but I won't be able to witness. Space travel. Colonization of other planets. Meeting other species. Curing cancer. Creating actual brain-facilitated VR so that you are basically living out all those sci-fi fantasies.
Instead, with such short lives lived consecutively, you come in with the corded home phone and die with the cell phone. Meh.
For $100k, I'll turn you into a unicorn after you die.
Also, who really believes this stuff? Like they don't immediately harvest your organs to install into existing buyers who are just waiting for you to kick it, anyway.
Who doesn't want immortality? The lifespan of the average person is fucking bullshit. It's just enough to get a taste and not enough to satisfy. Unfortunately, freezing you after you die is a problem. The damage the freezing does to you is a problem. The cost of doing the entire body is a problem. The probability of something going wrong with the storage and maintenance of patients for hundreds or thousands of years is a problem. Should everything work out, you then have to realize that when we are finally able to reach this potential, nobody will want to bother bringing you back to life (and, in fact, may legally be forbidden from doing so). The last thing people who may have nearly infinite life would want to do is bring back people who have no connection to them (because it'd be hundred of years and not just a few decades) to compete for precious resources in the face of ever-growing populations.
The funny thing is, it took most people more than five years to catch on to his bullshit, while -- if you paid attention to the news and recalled what he campaigned on -- he was shitting all over everything from the first quarter of his first term.
Don't worry, people will vote the same way in 2016. They'll be positive that we're only ONE ELECTION away from everything getting better. Until it doesn't and the guy that wins fucks them in the ass again.
It's cool that he is handing it off to the community, but other than that -- there isn't much of a story here. Developers -- especially game developers -- prototype ideas and work on them for months all the time. Ultimately, they often result in nothing. Things don't work. Technology isn't there yet. The userbase shows no interest. Or, probably most often, the developer just loses their passion for that project/prototype and moves on to something else. Notch could go through twenty of these before he finally lands on something that he feels passionate about for the long-haul.
Bingo. Who gives a shit that a bunch of youtube videos weren't able to play for two minutes? Now, if 40% of all protocol requests on the internet ceased functioning because of a google outage, that would be a huge fucking deal. An HD youtube video could account for tens or even hundreds of thousands of non-video-streaming requests being served throughout the internet. This "40%" thing is only relevant insofar as "look how much bandwidth google uses!" rather than "look how much of the internet is dependent on google's existing absolutely every minute of the day".
I find that, occurring in a two minute period, to be highly unlikely. In a two minute period, most people are probably on the same page or site that they clicked on from their search.
Someone sure got pissy and I suppose that clearly indicates who the fanboy is, here.
I don't know how much clearer I can make my question. There is a world of difference between "40% of internet data transmission" and "40% of internet traffic/pages served/whatever". It can mean the difference between a video on youtube and a wikipedia article having the same weight because they are both a request that is fulfilled or... a youtube video equalling a million wikipedia pages being served.
All of the articles about the incident say things like "two minute google outage halts 40% of internet traffic". That's incredibly non-specific and quite misleading. It gives people the impression that, say, a backbone went out and suddenly a whole chunk of the internet stopped functioning, when the truth is that just a service or two stopped functioning for a couple minutes. So what, google went out -- did Wikipedia stop serving pages? Did slashdot? Did Netflix?
And who says there is anything to prove? Why are you so defensive? I was simply saying that it would be important for them to put more emphasis on what "40% of traffic" meant, instead of the hyperbole people are spouting in articles, making it sound like google practically shut down the internet and that they are some pivotal piece without which everything non-google would cease to function.
So let's go back to both the point I was making and the think you clearly don't understand, from your final two sentences:
Do you really think that 40% of all traffic (as in, transmitted data, which I think is the actual statistic here rather than protocol requests, which is more *important*) at any given moment is from youtube, gmail, and people performing searches on google? Seriously? If so, when the hell do people actually spend time *consuming* the content they are searching for?
First of all, gmail does not account for that significant of an amount of data transmission compared to the whole of the internet. Second, neither do google searches which return text-only results. Also, not all searches are performed on Google. So if you factor in all the other search engines out there, what -- are you suggesting that 50% of all web traffic (or all people, or all queries -- whatever) are searches? Wha...???
Second of all, Youtube accounts for 17% of traffic (data). So the other 23% is all email and the chronic google searchers who can't seem to drag themselves away from google search long enough to actually read/watch the content they click on?
Third of all, presuming almost all the traffic (data) is Youtube with a nice chunk being searches and gmail, that does not in any way whatsoever "break the internet" like everyone has been trying to spread fear of the last day or two with their "oh no, the internet is too dependent on Google and their outage killed 40% of the net!" bullshit. . . so what? Then the actual story is simply "google has outage". Tough shit. So what?
Netflix accounts for 35% of internet traffic. If Netflix has an outage, that means Netflix "halts" or "takes out" 35% of the internet for however long its outage is. Which means jack fucking shit -- because the rest of the internet still functions. Just not Netflix.
Sorry this got so fucking wordy, but christ, I guess I have to draw diagrams to re-explain everything.
Something I haven't seen explained in the couple articles I've read on this is why all google services going out would account for 40% of all internet traffic. Am I supposed to believe that at any given moment, 40% of all internet traffic is consumed by gmail, youtube, and web searches? And out of that, how much of the traffic was accounted for by youtube? That is the ONLY seemingly viable element that could really contribute that much, because of the sheer amount of data each transaction with youtube consumes. I mean, doesn't Netflix consume something like 35% of all data traffic at night? So if Netflix went out for five minutes, you could probably say "Netflix outage causes 35% of internet usage to drop" . . .
Rather than telling us how much data usage changed (or if you do, at least break it down for us), isn't a much more relevant statistic one of what percentage page requests/transactions dropped during those two minutes?
It's jumping to irrational conclusions for people to go around saying "oh noes, at least 40% of the internet is dependent on Google to remain up!"
It works with both vi and emacs.
I dunno. I think typing is a lot like a handjob -- all fingers work a lot better than just two.
If you watch the video, he discusses that. He does about 40-60% of his coding with this system and he does keep voice-strain in mind (in fact, he was sucking on a hard candy during the demonstration to keep his voice from drying out). You may not do 100% of your work in it, but just imagine if you could cut the amount of typing you do down to about half of normal? Suddenly, you're spreading some of the load to your voice, keeping either from being excessively stressed.
I wasn't aware of that (I don't follow Windows development). If what they mean is that they'll release an annual update to the current operating system (ala service packs), then business as usual. If what they're talking about is OSX-style "tiny iterations for a decade", then that sounds awful. It barely works for OSX, because OSX is a pretty decent system (not perfect, by any means, but...). Doing that with Windows 8? Good grief. Essentially, I feel major version releases encourage rolling out new fundamental paradigms that can kick things forward a bit. Annually updating the same OS with point-releases seems like a fantastic way to drag-on a tired or even unwanted paradigm for far longer than would otherwise happen.
Currently, every police car is equipped with facilities to allow the tracking of license plates (cars) of citizens throughout the city.
Strapping cameras to their heads turns every cop into a non-stop surveillance machine in ways that would otherwise be difficult to implement in most cities (ie, throwing cameras up all over the place, UK-style).
It's a pretty sad statement on law-enforcement that they are either so commonly incompetent or corrupt that they and their encounters with the public need to be documented on video.
As opposed to when President Obama threatened to murder the Jonas Brothers with predator drones, several years ago?
Richard Nixon once said "If the president does it, then it is *not* illegal."
Likewise, whatever some cute 'lil country thinks, "If the US does it, then it is *not* illegal."
Opinions may vary with this statement, but a history of actions prove otherwise.
Agree with its content or not, it's also FREE speech.
Well, every major version of Windows going back to 1.0 has come out around 3-4 years apart (except XP->Vista, which took 6+ years). So it's likely that Windows 9 would come out in in the beginning of 2016 or 2017... If it mirrors XP->Vista, then more like the beginning of 2019. However, with the lack of Windows 8 adoption and appreciation, I would suspect we're more likely to see it in '16 or '17 than later . . . which is still a hell of a long time to have to deal with Windows 8 (or... 7, for people with some self-respect).
"Polygraph machines" are nothing but a tool that facilitates the accusation and judgement of the person operating it. If the person wants to find you suspicious, they will conclude that the results from the machine indicate suspicion. This has been demonstrated repeatedly and there's a strong reason why polygraphs are not admissible in court (except the few states where they are -- but only if all parties involved agree to it).