Clock speed is imprecise, particularly when comparing generations or processor families, but the industry is not quite ready to abandon conventional measures of hardware performance in favour of "lol vln can do 150 internets per hour on this bitch".
Small claims court and complaints to regulators can make a difference with larger companies that would typically care more about publicity. I'm yet to work for a large corporation happy to adopt a "see you in court" response to threats of legal action. Going to court is not cheap, can involve disclosure of information that a company would rather avoid, and looks bad when word gets around.
Small claims is far less useful when it comes to cowboy operations, such as dodgy builders, who'll if under financial pressure, will can the company, to resurface under a new name. That process isn't quite as easy as that, as it risks criminal charges if assets are improperly hidden or moved around prior to or during the process of winding down the former company. Still, I wouldn't hold out much hope of reclaiming money from a cowboy. I would be reasonably optimistic though if I have a good case against a larger corporation.
That sounds more like a job for a regulator. Of course this only works if regulators are well funded, independent of government and industry control, and have a specific mandate to act as an advocate for customers of the industry in question.
I found it scary that Romney was indeed the less crazy choice, but then next to Perry and Santorum it's not difficult to appear an intelligent and compassionate centrist. I'm very curious to see his VP choice, and I'd hope he won't repeat McCain's clusterfuck of a choice.
He was arrested this time because he criticised an Olympic swimmer. And the indecent/obscene nature of this and other tweets are grounds for arrest.
So how many times prior to this did he make threats that were subsequently reported to the police? If similar has happened before, and reports were reported by dismissed, then yes there is a problem. I've no doubt the nature of his target is related, but mainly because it draws a lot of attention to the issue and a threat of violence from a stranger to a public figure (i.e. one who is pretty easy to find) is different to a tweet made to a stranger on the other side of the planet. Doesn't mean that all threats shouldn't be responded to, just that the nature of the target is obviously a factor, just not necessarily in the way your post implies.
Have we become so paranoid, so fearful, so concerned that everyone out there is a maniac, that we are now going to preemptively arrest any kid who trash-talks via the current equivalent of CB radio?
No, and that's a dishonest spinning of the situation. The kid made death threats. Even though the threats are probably not credible, there's a different between threats of violence and the "u fucking suck" comments that invariably come. We shouldn't criminalise the causing of offence to be taken - that's batshit crazy and way open to abuse. What should be dealt with harshly are harassment of the kind that's sustained and clearly unwelcome, and threats of illegal behaviour. The tricky part here is in drawing a line, which I'll admit is not always an easy one. I disagree with the changes made against the Robin Hood Airport guy, but they were not directed at an individual. Sure it'd find for police to call the guy and tell him to be more careful, but not to charge him. I don't think this kid should be charged unless he has a habit of doing this.
If you don't like it, plan better so that there is no crunch time.
You can make a lot of money showing corporations and pretty much everybody how to plan sufficiently so as to completely eliminate times when demand outstrips normal capacity. Even if you don't want to get rich, use the proceeds to fund the glorious revolution.
Amen! I've no sympathy for Ubisoft customers, and sincerely hope they get exploited to high heaven. It'll warn them away from Ubisoft, and as a bonus, would trigger a flood of lawsuits to take a decent bite out of this odious company.
Hey, Beyonce's music shows a great deal of variation! She covers all themes from "I strong independent woman and I gots my man but why he not put ring on muh finger?" through to "We honeys be single confident woman dancing and whooping, and 'aint gon be needin' no man to put a ring on us fingers". The music itself is just as varied and interesting as her lyrics.
Bullshit. Neither Orthodox Jews nor yourself are the arbiter of devoutness. Any belief requiring scriptural literalism would by definition require literalism of its devout followers.
Do you have another source for this story? I'm very conscious that the bulk of the information appears to be coming from a single source.
The story I'm seeing says quite clearly that TSA agents were yelling and threatening to close the airport, because the child was an "uncooperative suspect". Where does it suggest that the family behaving stupidly?
Slashdot doesn't require people to sign on with real names. Also Slashdot and Facebook have very different goals. Slashdot is a news site that gives us a place to share our bullshit opinions, which in turn attracts people here to read bullshit and leave behind some of their own. Facebook is there to suck information out of users and to present this in a consolidated form, with lines drawn between all aspects of a personal life. What's the point in profiling MysteriousPreacher? Without some way of tracing it back to a person or other alter egos, what's there to gain?
Eyez will weigh less than 200 grams, slightly more than a standard pair of sunglasses. When the glasses are worn the weight will be distributed equally on both ears.
Assuming 200 grams is the maximum, this is not just *slightly* more than a standard pair of sunglasses. even 100 grams would be pretty heavy for sunglasses, and heavy for 3D glasses. Around 80 grams would be the weight of two Twinkies (international standard of weight), which is fine for 3D glasses that are typically worn when seated. These things are going to have to be pretty light to be worn while physically active. Also, anyone seen the quality of video that normally comes from having a camera mounted on the head? Without a lot of self-control, you may as well be attaching a camera to a piece of string, twirling it around your head. They're going to have to be using pretty good image stabilization to avoid most of the footage coming out like shit.
Using z instead of s is not cool. It never was, except among 10-year-old boys and old men trying to impress aforementioned boys.
The title of this story is misleading. There is nothing about firing in the source article.
Yeah, this is an egregious example of editorializing.
If it's true that firings are happening, wouldn't it make sense to add a link to a news article to substantiate this rather dramatic claim? RIM had some substantial layoffs last year, yet I see nothing in the news about layoffs happening in tandem with this story.
What exactly do Slashdot editors do before posting a story? Samzenpus, did you click the link and read the short article before posting this story?
Not sure how your story is relevant. Oh, wait a minute....you've got a teleporting car?
Not yet, but facetious comments aside, the point is without the car (or player) being centralised on screen, the user has to scan the map to re-orientate themselves. It's far easier if the car can always be found in the same relative spot.
Yes, I'd certainly appreciate that when I'm using the GPS in the passenger seat. Oh wait, no I wouldn't.
Good point. Yes, my idea is flawed. There'd have to be another way found to prevent or discourage drivers from fiddling around with screens while their vehicles are in motion.
Very good point. It's an odd example, but kind of applies. In the game Angband (a roguelike), there is an option to keep the map centred on the player. Normally I don't use this, because it slows things down on slower hardware, and the game has my full attention. If however I get teleported somewhere, I do fine myself needing to spend time trying to locate myself, as it's not immediately obvious. It seems silly to place drivers in the situation where they must spend time scanning the map for their car.
Ideally though maybe it's best that devices are required to blank the map when the car is traveling above a certain speed, relying only on audio prompts. Driving along, slavishly following the visual instructions on screen seems about as safe as the practice of trying to read a conventional map while driving. Look at people walking down the road, looking at their mobile phones. Does anyone not regularly have to get out of the way of these people? this shit is too distracting. The last couple of times I've had near misses as a pedestrian have oddly enough been while people were talking on phones, except of course for fucking cyclists who think that stop signals don't apply to them, and will happily weave through a line of people crossing.
Correlation does not equal causation. For instance, do you know what else we've improved since then? Cockpit security. And we have increased civilian awareness about the dangers of successful plane hijackings.
This! It's why we've not seen a repeat of planes being used as missiles. Prior to 9/11, in America when hijacked it seemed best to simply behave and hope to be released when the plane lands wherever it'll end up. On realising that terrorists are on suicide runs, passengers have become far more likely to risk tackling them, and the security of cockpit doors makes it far more difficult anyway to grab the controls. We need a proper and impartial study of TSA policy to separate the useful from the pointless. We need to examine everything they do, and ask the following questions.
1) Is doing x effective in either interrupting attacks or by deterring them? If having me take off my shoes actually has some use outside of absolutely fringe cases, then do it. Does intelligence suggest that restricting liquids and having us remove our shoes has had an appreciable impact on terrorists? Economically, does this security theatre make passengers feel safer, thus making them more likely to travel?
2) Is it worth the inconvenience and intrusions in to privacy? We can never have 100% security, even if all passengers were strip searched and background checked before being allowed to board. Everything done is about trade-offs and level of risk aversion. How far are we willing to go, and how many rights being taken away, before we say "fuck it" and just go with something workable but not as secure? Acceptance of the DHS seems akin to appointing a Caesar to ensure that we all sleep safely at night, the price be damned. I'm particularly skeptical when I see the DHS sprawling over in to areas that have fuck all to do with the original reason the agency was created. It's as if the National Guard were to be given jurisdiction over parking violations, tackling the problem with the tools originally provided for tackling military attacks. In the UK we've actually seen something similar in how anti-terror legislation has been used by local councils for pursuing people for leaving their bins out on the wrong days. The extradition treaty too is a nice example of something put in to place ostensibly to tackle serious crimes, such as terrorism, being used for white collar stuff that should have either been brought as charges in the UK, or America being politely told to take a hike. If it's not a crime in the UK, or the DPP decides it has insufficient evidence to prosecute in British courts, then don't extradite.
Look as well at the situation at UC Davis where rentacops used pepper spray to discomfit peaceful protestors. Pepper spray and similar are used to tackled people where there's a serious risk of violence - not as a convenient way to shift a bunch of people seated peacefully in protest.
Kazakhstan greatest country in the world.
All other countries are run by little girls.
Kazakhstan number one exporter of potassium.
Other countries have inferior potassium.
Kazakhstan home of Tinshein swimming pool.
Itâ(TM)s length thirty meter and width six meter.
Filtration system a marvel to behold.
It remove 80 percent of human solid waste.
Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan you very nice place.
From Plains of Tarashek to Northern fence of Jewtown.
Kazakhstan friend of all except Uzbekistan.
They very nosey people with bone in their brain.
Kazakhstan industry best in world.
We invented toffee and trouser belt.
Kazakhstanâ(TM)s prostitutes cleanest in the region.
Except of course for Turkmenistanâ(TM)s.
Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan you very nice place.
From Plains of Tarashek to Northern fence of Jewtown.
Come grasp the mighty penis of our leader.
From junction with the testes to tip of its face!
Slashdot Mirror
Clock speed is imprecise, particularly when comparing generations or processor families, but the industry is not quite ready to abandon conventional measures of hardware performance in favour of "lol vln can do 150 internets per hour on this bitch".
Small claims court and complaints to regulators can make a difference with larger companies that would typically care more about publicity. I'm yet to work for a large corporation happy to adopt a "see you in court" response to threats of legal action. Going to court is not cheap, can involve disclosure of information that a company would rather avoid, and looks bad when word gets around.
Small claims is far less useful when it comes to cowboy operations, such as dodgy builders, who'll if under financial pressure, will can the company, to resurface under a new name. That process isn't quite as easy as that, as it risks criminal charges if assets are improperly hidden or moved around prior to or during the process of winding down the former company. Still, I wouldn't hold out much hope of reclaiming money from a cowboy. I would be reasonably optimistic though if I have a good case against a larger corporation.
That sounds more like a job for a regulator. Of course this only works if regulators are well funded, independent of government and industry control, and have a specific mandate to act as an advocate for customers of the industry in question.
Agreed! Damn shame the party missed the opportunity to inject some sanity back in to its politics.
I found it scary that Romney was indeed the less crazy choice, but then next to Perry and Santorum it's not difficult to appear an intelligent and compassionate centrist. I'm very curious to see his VP choice, and I'd hope he won't repeat McCain's clusterfuck of a choice.
In cases like that I agree. Work shouldn't a death march in to poverty.
He was arrested this time because he criticised an Olympic swimmer. And the indecent/obscene nature of this and other tweets are grounds for arrest.
So how many times prior to this did he make threats that were subsequently reported to the police? If similar has happened before, and reports were reported by dismissed, then yes there is a problem. I've no doubt the nature of his target is related, but mainly because it draws a lot of attention to the issue and a threat of violence from a stranger to a public figure (i.e. one who is pretty easy to find) is different to a tweet made to a stranger on the other side of the planet. Doesn't mean that all threats shouldn't be responded to, just that the nature of the target is obviously a factor, just not necessarily in the way your post implies.
Have we become so paranoid, so fearful, so concerned that everyone out there is a maniac, that we are now going to preemptively arrest any kid who trash-talks via the current equivalent of CB radio?
No, and that's a dishonest spinning of the situation. The kid made death threats. Even though the threats are probably not credible, there's a different between threats of violence and the "u fucking suck" comments that invariably come. We shouldn't criminalise the causing of offence to be taken - that's batshit crazy and way open to abuse. What should be dealt with harshly are harassment of the kind that's sustained and clearly unwelcome, and threats of illegal behaviour. The tricky part here is in drawing a line, which I'll admit is not always an easy one. I disagree with the changes made against the Robin Hood Airport guy, but they were not directed at an individual. Sure it'd find for police to call the guy and tell him to be more careful, but not to charge him. I don't think this kid should be charged unless he has a habit of doing this.
If you don't like it, plan better so that there is no crunch time.
You can make a lot of money showing corporations and pretty much everybody how to plan sufficiently so as to completely eliminate times when demand outstrips normal capacity. Even if you don't want to get rich, use the proceeds to fund the glorious revolution.
Probably off being just as dumb as those people who think the private sector to be the magic bullet that fixes everything.
Amen! I've no sympathy for Ubisoft customers, and sincerely hope they get exploited to high heaven. It'll warn them away from Ubisoft, and as a bonus, would trigger a flood of lawsuits to take a decent bite out of this odious company.
Would be even better if they dropped the repetition. I would only have wasted 30 seconds of my life.
Add a woooop woop wooooooop wooop, looped a few dozen times, and you'll have surefire dubstep hit.
Friends don't let friends listen to Kiss.
Hey, Beyonce's music shows a great deal of variation! She covers all themes from "I strong independent woman and I gots my man but why he not put ring on muh finger?" through to "We honeys be single confident woman dancing and whooping, and 'aint gon be needin' no man to put a ring on us fingers". The music itself is just as varied and interesting as her lyrics.
Bullshit. Neither Orthodox Jews nor yourself are the arbiter of devoutness. Any belief requiring scriptural literalism would by definition require literalism of its devout followers.
Do you have another source for this story? I'm very conscious that the bulk of the information appears to be coming from a single source.
The story I'm seeing says quite clearly that TSA agents were yelling and threatening to close the airport, because the child was an "uncooperative suspect". Where does it suggest that the family behaving stupidly?
Slashdot doesn't require people to sign on with real names. Also Slashdot and Facebook have very different goals. Slashdot is a news site that gives us a place to share our bullshit opinions, which in turn attracts people here to read bullshit and leave behind some of their own. Facebook is there to suck information out of users and to present this in a consolidated form, with lines drawn between all aspects of a personal life. What's the point in profiling MysteriousPreacher? Without some way of tracing it back to a person or other alter egos, what's there to gain?
You should have quoted the entire answer:
Eyez will weigh less than 200 grams, slightly more than a standard pair of sunglasses. When the glasses are worn the weight will be distributed equally on both ears.
Assuming 200 grams is the maximum, this is not just *slightly* more than a standard pair of sunglasses. even 100 grams would be pretty heavy for sunglasses, and heavy for 3D glasses. Around 80 grams would be the weight of two Twinkies (international standard of weight), which is fine for 3D glasses that are typically worn when seated. These things are going to have to be pretty light to be worn while physically active. Also, anyone seen the quality of video that normally comes from having a camera mounted on the head? Without a lot of self-control, you may as well be attaching a camera to a piece of string, twirling it around your head. They're going to have to be using pretty good image stabilization to avoid most of the footage coming out like shit.
Using z instead of s is not cool. It never was, except among 10-year-old boys and old men trying to impress aforementioned boys.
Of course they're all terrorists. Have you ever bumped in to one of these GNU/Linux types?
http://stallman.org/rms-bw.jpeg
Where's McCarthy when we need him?
The title of this story is misleading.
There is nothing about firing in the source article.
Yeah, this is an egregious example of editorializing.
If it's true that firings are happening, wouldn't it make sense to add a link to a news article to substantiate this rather dramatic claim? RIM had some substantial layoffs last year, yet I see nothing in the news about layoffs happening in tandem with this story.
What exactly do Slashdot editors do before posting a story? Samzenpus, did you click the link and read the short article before posting this story?
You wouldn't accept a pledge from Santorum to stop beating his wife within 5 years.
That would rank among Santorum's least ideas.
Not sure how your story is relevant. Oh, wait a minute....you've got a teleporting car?
Not yet, but facetious comments aside, the point is without the car (or player) being centralised on screen, the user has to scan the map to re-orientate themselves. It's far easier if the car can always be found in the same relative spot.
Yes, I'd certainly appreciate that when I'm using the GPS in the passenger seat. Oh wait, no I wouldn't.
Good point. Yes, my idea is flawed. There'd have to be another way found to prevent or discourage drivers from fiddling around with screens while their vehicles are in motion.
Very good point. It's an odd example, but kind of applies. In the game Angband (a roguelike), there is an option to keep the map centred on the player. Normally I don't use this, because it slows things down on slower hardware, and the game has my full attention. If however I get teleported somewhere, I do fine myself needing to spend time trying to locate myself, as it's not immediately obvious. It seems silly to place drivers in the situation where they must spend time scanning the map for their car.
Ideally though maybe it's best that devices are required to blank the map when the car is traveling above a certain speed, relying only on audio prompts. Driving along, slavishly following the visual instructions on screen seems about as safe as the practice of trying to read a conventional map while driving. Look at people walking down the road, looking at their mobile phones. Does anyone not regularly have to get out of the way of these people? this shit is too distracting. The last couple of times I've had near misses as a pedestrian have oddly enough been while people were talking on phones, except of course for fucking cyclists who think that stop signals don't apply to them, and will happily weave through a line of people crossing.
Correlation does not equal causation. For instance, do you know what else we've improved since then? Cockpit security. And we have increased civilian awareness about the dangers of successful plane hijackings.
This! It's why we've not seen a repeat of planes being used as missiles. Prior to 9/11, in America when hijacked it seemed best to simply behave and hope to be released when the plane lands wherever it'll end up. On realising that terrorists are on suicide runs, passengers have become far more likely to risk tackling them, and the security of cockpit doors makes it far more difficult anyway to grab the controls. We need a proper and impartial study of TSA policy to separate the useful from the pointless. We need to examine everything they do, and ask the following questions.
1) Is doing x effective in either interrupting attacks or by deterring them? If having me take off my shoes actually has some use outside of absolutely fringe cases, then do it. Does intelligence suggest that restricting liquids and having us remove our shoes has had an appreciable impact on terrorists? Economically, does this security theatre make passengers feel safer, thus making them more likely to travel?
2) Is it worth the inconvenience and intrusions in to privacy? We can never have 100% security, even if all passengers were strip searched and background checked before being allowed to board. Everything done is about trade-offs and level of risk aversion. How far are we willing to go, and how many rights being taken away, before we say "fuck it" and just go with something workable but not as secure? Acceptance of the DHS seems akin to appointing a Caesar to ensure that we all sleep safely at night, the price be damned. I'm particularly skeptical when I see the DHS sprawling over in to areas that have fuck all to do with the original reason the agency was created. It's as if the National Guard were to be given jurisdiction over parking violations, tackling the problem with the tools originally provided for tackling military attacks. In the UK we've actually seen something similar in how anti-terror legislation has been used by local councils for pursuing people for leaving their bins out on the wrong days. The extradition treaty too is a nice example of something put in to place ostensibly to tackle serious crimes, such as terrorism, being used for white collar stuff that should have either been brought as charges in the UK, or America being politely told to take a hike. If it's not a crime in the UK, or the DPP decides it has insufficient evidence to prosecute in British courts, then don't extradite.
Look as well at the situation at UC Davis where rentacops used pepper spray to discomfit peaceful protestors. Pepper spray and similar are used to tackled people where there's a serious risk of violence - not as a convenient way to shift a bunch of people seated peacefully in protest.
The lyrics from this fine song:
Kazakhstan greatest country in the world.
All other countries are run by little girls.
Kazakhstan number one exporter of potassium.
Other countries have inferior potassium.
Kazakhstan home of Tinshein swimming pool.
Itâ(TM)s length thirty meter and width six meter.
Filtration system a marvel to behold.
It remove 80 percent of human solid waste.
Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan you very nice place.
From Plains of Tarashek to Northern fence of Jewtown.
Kazakhstan friend of all except Uzbekistan.
They very nosey people with bone in their brain.
Kazakhstan industry best in world.
We invented toffee and trouser belt.
Kazakhstanâ(TM)s prostitutes cleanest in the region.
Except of course for Turkmenistanâ(TM)s.
Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan you very nice place.
From Plains of Tarashek to Northern fence of Jewtown.
Come grasp the mighty penis of our leader.
From junction with the testes to tip of its face!
Oh this is precious!