I think those are supposed to be (sub-)headlines. First the GP talks about how a wildly successful new kind of imperialism ("smash imperialism", cf. "smash hit") sides with a workers' revolution. The first subheadline tells us that the smash imperialism is reforging the "Fourth International" (sounds like an army corps to me) and the second one tells us that workers (presumably those of the aforementioned revolution) are going to power something - perhaps the reforging of the Fourth International army corps.
So it's just a Twitter-sized newsflash about imperialists and workers working hand in hand to build an international army. A bit unsettling if you ask me; I wonder if the UN has already responded.
You don't need patriotism. That's belief in and love for one's country. You need belief in and love for that country's founders' values. Much harder to come by.
Well, I would assume that him nearly returning blind from WW1 due to a poison gas attack might have changed his outlook on life a bit (however, much of his ideology comes from living in student dormitories, where antisemitism was rather popular at the time). Also, reparations for WW1 exacerbated the impact of the global economic crisis and gave the receiving countried a bad image in Germany.
As always, it's a mix of causes, in this case with violence as much among them as economic trouble. One cannot take any single cause and make meaningful predictions based on that. To get back at my original statement, though: Without WW1 the Great Depression wouldn't have occurred like it did (as it was instigated by sudden overproduction after the war), Hitler wouldn't have been like he was and he wouldn't have had the chance to rise to power like he did. So I do think that one can say that violence was an important factor in making that man anything other than a failed artist.
Violence also caused him. I doubt that without WW1 (both the direct effect on him and the effect on Germany) he would've become what he did. Also, violence (an assassination plus an unhealthy desire to wage war on someone) caused WW1. The fact that violence solved a problem it caused is not a net win for violence.
40? For a while you could get a new Nokia 1110i for ten bucks. Twenty to thirty is definitely a possible range for a low-end phone, even from reputable manufacturers.
I think it shouldn't be hard to have something Flashblock-like for - the element is completely replaced with a placeholder and only loaded when you click on it.
Just because they haven't been up to this specific case of scumbaggery doesn't mean they haven't been scumbagging the last couple years. They're scumbags; they keep demonstrating that. It's somewhat reasonable to expect further scumbaggery from them in the future.
Plus, it took them ages to start suing over VFAT. That still didn't help TomTom. Any concerns over.NET/Mono may be unsubstantiated but we could only tell if we knew exactly how Microsoft is going to act over the next couple years. Since I'm not aware of any decent psychics in the F/OSS scene all we can do is make assumptions.
You assume that sine they haven't sued anyone over Mono yet they won't do it in the future. I assume that since they habitually use morally questionable tactics they're likely to weaponize the.NET patents in the future. I have no idea who of us is going to end up being right so I err on the side of caution and stay away from.NET as a development platform and from Mono in general.
The problem is that Microsoft has an extremely bad reputation. We expect them to do absolutely everything they think could be to their advantage because, well, that's how they behaved in the past - even going as far as subverting ISO to get their document format declared a standard.
As long as Microsoft retains any control over.NET I won't feel safe around the platform simply because they could decide to screw over everyone at any time and given their past behavior I expect them to.
Whatever Microsoft comes up with, it's either a fully integrated part of their software stack or too hot to get involved with. I don't want to get caught in the fallout of a patent lawsuit. That sounds paranoid but, well, Microsoft's actions so far have been fairly consistent.
Don't worry, they'll fix it in the sequel where they have to use the alloy "canobtanium" to build a vessel that can bore through water in order to restart the Gulf Strem using hydrogen bombs because without the Gulf Stream's magnetic field Earth will be hit by Africa-sized asteroids. In the end they have the vessel jump out of the water and toss the last H-bomb between the asteroids, blowing them into harmless dust. Then the plucky hacker tells the world end everyone believes him.
I accidentally said that baby bathtime pictures do not fall under the BGH definition of "not obscene". Of course that's wrong. They do fall under the definition and are thus not obscene.
I live in Germany and I have never heard of anyone getting arrested over having pictures of their (grand)children (excluding, of course, pictures showing actual sex etc.). And it seems obviously wrong enough that I don't expect the police to actually go through with something like that.
As for the definition of pornography: The German legal system has three main definitions used, a definition by the BGH (Federal Court of Justice; our Supreme Court) from 1969, a comment by a Bundestag commission on criminal law reform from 1973 and a decision by the OLG (Provincial Court of Appeal) Düsseldorf from 1974.
The BGH defined suspected pornography as not obscene if it "is not brashly coarsening or attention-grabbing and thus disturbing or seriously endangering matters of the community"*.
Baby bathtime pictures would not fall under this. Remember, Europe has much more relaxed views on nudity than the States.
The Bundestag commission was of the opinion that pornographic publications** "express that they exclusively or predominantly aim for the excitation of a sexual stimulus in the viewer and in the process clearly transgress the boundaries of sexual decency drawn in accord with general societal moral concepts"*.
Baby bathtime pictures do not fall under this, either - neither is their intention to sexually stimulate the viewer, nor do they transgress the boundaries of sexual decency in any way.
The OLG Düsseldorf found that pornography is "gross depictions of the sexual which degrade the human to a mere interchangable object of sexual desire in a way spurring the sex drive. Theye depictions remain without connection of meaning to other manifestations of life and take vestigial notional matters only as a pretense for provocating sexuality"*.
Again, a bathing baby is not covered, unless you count bathing as sexual objectification.
Child pornography does not have a separate definition; it's defined as pornography with people below the age of 14 (14-18 would be "youth pornography", which carries lower sentences).
So, German legal culture seems to be pretty clear about it: A picture that merely shows a naked kid is not pornography, especially not something that mommy shot because parents just love to fill albums with embarassing pictures with which they can later torture their children.
* Bad translations mine; some of the terms are 1960s/70s legalese and not easy to understand even for a native speaker...
** Literally "writing"; German legal term used for just about anything publishable.
I responded to "It would not surprise me that the rest of the world is also in the predicament". Not every country in the world has English as their main language and many do indeed translate movies before showing them.
All we know is that at some point the autopilot disengaged after equipment started failing (which is exactly what you were calling for - the equipment is no longer trustworthy so the FCS transfers more control to the pilot), then more equipment failed and finally the plane crashed. Everything else is speculation and indeed I see nothing in the article you linked to that would back up the theory of autopilot/FCS error. All they say is that systems failed, the autopilot disengaged and jetliners at maximum speed are hard to fly by hand. They do talk about the gyroscopes being problematic but that's an instrument, not the FCS.
To quote the article: "You can never disregard any possibility until you can prove what happened". The FCS yould've gone suicidal, the electronics could've broken down, the pilot could've screwed up... It could've been a meteorite for all we know at the moment. I think we should wait for the black box to appear before we start making statements on what transpired and why it did.
This page details just what the different "Laws" mean. Look at "Alternate Law" (which the Air France plane operated in when it crashed) and "Direct Law", as well as "Mechanical Backup". These kick in when the computers (remember, everything is multiply redundant) detect anomalies or outright fail or when the pilot specifically takes them offline. Essentially, AFAIK if the majority of a certain system dones't show the same data, that system is considered untrustworthy and disabled.
Of course if all relevant sensors fail in an identical way the computer will not compensate (unless the sensor data doesn't match what the heuristics expect based on other data)... but then again, when the instrument insists on showing the wrong data, would the polit be able to detect the situation and react fast enough? In order for, say, all altimeters failing and the computer not noticing a dive, not only would most of the altimeters have to show the same incorrect value, the tilt sensors would also have to fail, as well as pretty much everything else involved with telemetry. The only plausible scenario I could imagine would be the entire plane losing power. And in that case Airbuses revert to the mechanical backup controls.
Also, as far as I have heard, so far most of the crashes involving a pilot vs. autopilot scenario occurred because of pilot error (like accidentally telling the autopilot to abort a landing and then trying to force the plane down).
Yes, but in the end it's still spending 250 Euros on a contract vs. spending 60 Euros on a phone, a prepaid card and a recharge. Losses don't simply disappear just because I spread them out.
Only with Boeing is that possible, with airbus, regardless of the situation, the computer takes precedence.
Actually, Airbus FCS are designed to degrade gracefully (as has been pointed out in other threads) and indeed the plane in question did fly in "alternate law", where the pilot can override virtually everything. So in essence a Boeing would not have been much safer because the pilot already was in control.
In the ten to thirty Euro range Bluetooth is nonexistant. For example, Nokia's cheapest Bluetooth phone is the 2630, which goes for sixty bucks. The cheapest Samsung I could find was the SGH-J150 for 120 bucks. Sagem my411X, 100 Euros. Motorola PEBL, 100 Euros. I wasn't able to find much out about BenQ and Sony; BenQs German site doesn't mention mobile phones and Sony uses a Flash widget incompatible with my player.
Fact is, Bluetooth in mobile phones is still seen as a premium feature and if you're not ready to pay three digits (with the laudable exception of Nokia) you won't get it. Of course you can go with a contract but if you don't want to pay horrendous sums for a mobile phone you usually don't want to pay horrendous sums for a contract either. NB: I'm in Germany where "twenty bucks a month" is considered horrendously expensive by the casual talker - prepaid or semiprepaid is a much better deal.
PS: Yes, since most manufacturers will sell you the data cable separately, for those unwilling to spend much on their mobile phone the SIM is the only way of moving data to and from their phone. Well, most likely only from.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously that means we already had it in the Thirties but apparently someone lost the blueprints.
I think those are supposed to be (sub-)headlines. First the GP talks about how a wildly successful new kind of imperialism ("smash imperialism", cf. "smash hit") sides with a workers' revolution. The first subheadline tells us that the smash imperialism is reforging the "Fourth International" (sounds like an army corps to me) and the second one tells us that workers (presumably those of the aforementioned revolution) are going to power something - perhaps the reforging of the Fourth International army corps.
So it's just a Twitter-sized newsflash about imperialists and workers working hand in hand to build an international army. A bit unsettling if you ask me; I wonder if the UN has already responded.
You don't need patriotism. That's belief in and love for one's country. You need belief in and love for that country's founders' values. Much harder to come by.
Well, I would assume that him nearly returning blind from WW1 due to a poison gas attack might have changed his outlook on life a bit (however, much of his ideology comes from living in student dormitories, where antisemitism was rather popular at the time). Also, reparations for WW1 exacerbated the impact of the global economic crisis and gave the receiving countried a bad image in Germany.
As always, it's a mix of causes, in this case with violence as much among them as economic trouble. One cannot take any single cause and make meaningful predictions based on that. To get back at my original statement, though: Without WW1 the Great Depression wouldn't have occurred like it did (as it was instigated by sudden overproduction after the war), Hitler wouldn't have been like he was and he wouldn't have had the chance to rise to power like he did. So I do think that one can say that violence was an important factor in making that man anything other than a failed artist.
Violence also caused him. I doubt that without WW1 (both the direct effect on him and the effect on Germany) he would've become what he did. Also, violence (an assassination plus an unhealthy desire to wage war on someone) caused WW1. The fact that violence solved a problem it caused is not a net win for violence.
40? For a while you could get a new Nokia 1110i for ten bucks. Twenty to thirty is definitely a possible range for a low-end phone, even from reputable manufacturers.
I think it shouldn't be hard to have something Flashblock-like for - the element is completely replaced with a placeholder and only loaded when you click on it.
Just because they haven't been up to this specific case of scumbaggery doesn't mean they haven't been scumbagging the last couple years. They're scumbags; they keep demonstrating that. It's somewhat reasonable to expect further scumbaggery from them in the future.
.NET/Mono may be unsubstantiated but we could only tell if we knew exactly how Microsoft is going to act over the next couple years. Since I'm not aware of any decent psychics in the F/OSS scene all we can do is make assumptions. .NET patents in the future. I have no idea who of us is going to end up being right so I err on the side of caution and stay away from .NET as a development platform and from Mono in general.
Plus, it took them ages to start suing over VFAT. That still didn't help TomTom. Any concerns over
You assume that sine they haven't sued anyone over Mono yet they won't do it in the future. I assume that since they habitually use morally questionable tactics they're likely to weaponize the
The problem is that Microsoft has an extremely bad reputation. We expect them to do absolutely everything they think could be to their advantage because, well, that's how they behaved in the past - even going as far as subverting ISO to get their document format declared a standard.
.NET I won't feel safe around the platform simply because they could decide to screw over everyone at any time and given their past behavior I expect them to.
As long as Microsoft retains any control over
Whatever Microsoft comes up with, it's either a fully integrated part of their software stack or too hot to get involved with. I don't want to get caught in the fallout of a patent lawsuit. That sounds paranoid but, well, Microsoft's actions so far have been fairly consistent.
Depends. /b/? /d/? I'd definitely buy from /d/.
Don't worry, they'll fix it in the sequel where they have to use the alloy "canobtanium" to build a vessel that can bore through water in order to restart the Gulf Strem using hydrogen bombs because without the Gulf Stream's magnetic field Earth will be hit by Africa-sized asteroids. In the end they have the vessel jump out of the water and toss the last H-bomb between the asteroids, blowing them into harmless dust. Then the plucky hacker tells the world end everyone believes him.
Hence the magnetic ocean theory.
...Wait.
That's not consensus among climate scientists; that's consensus among feminists.
I accidentally said that baby bathtime pictures do not fall under the BGH definition of "not obscene". Of course that's wrong. They do fall under the definition and are thus not obscene.
I live in Germany and I have never heard of anyone getting arrested over having pictures of their (grand)children (excluding, of course, pictures showing actual sex etc.). And it seems obviously wrong enough that I don't expect the police to actually go through with something like that.
As for the definition of pornography: The German legal system has three main definitions used, a definition by the BGH (Federal Court of Justice; our Supreme Court) from 1969, a comment by a Bundestag commission on criminal law reform from 1973 and a decision by the OLG (Provincial Court of Appeal) Düsseldorf from 1974.
The BGH defined suspected pornography as not obscene if it "is not brashly coarsening or attention-grabbing and thus disturbing or seriously endangering matters of the community"*.
Baby bathtime pictures would not fall under this. Remember, Europe has much more relaxed views on nudity than the States.
The Bundestag commission was of the opinion that pornographic publications** "express that they exclusively or predominantly aim for the excitation of a sexual stimulus in the viewer and in the process clearly transgress the boundaries of sexual decency drawn in accord with general societal moral concepts"*.
Baby bathtime pictures do not fall under this, either - neither is their intention to sexually stimulate the viewer, nor do they transgress the boundaries of sexual decency in any way.
The OLG Düsseldorf found that pornography is "gross depictions of the sexual which degrade the human to a mere interchangable object of sexual desire in a way spurring the sex drive. Theye depictions remain without connection of meaning to other manifestations of life and take vestigial notional matters only as a pretense for provocating sexuality"*.
Again, a bathing baby is not covered, unless you count bathing as sexual objectification.
Child pornography does not have a separate definition; it's defined as pornography with people below the age of 14 (14-18 would be "youth pornography", which carries lower sentences).
So, German legal culture seems to be pretty clear about it: A picture that merely shows a naked kid is not pornography, especially not something that mommy shot because parents just love to fill albums with embarassing pictures with which they can later torture their children.
* Bad translations mine; some of the terms are 1960s/70s legalese and not easy to understand even for a native speaker...
** Literally "writing"; German legal term used for just about anything publishable.
I wouldn't want to live in a country where baby bathtime pictures are considered pornographic...
I responded to "It would not surprise me that the rest of the world is also in the predicament". Not every country in the world has English as their main language and many do indeed translate movies before showing them.
Nah. Movies and documentaries are translated anyway so we just change the values to metric in the process.
Somewhere you can also use LAMs as stepping stones to climb a tall building snd get behind the scenes without cheating. Paris, IIRC.
All we know is that at some point the autopilot disengaged after equipment started failing (which is exactly what you were calling for - the equipment is no longer trustworthy so the FCS transfers more control to the pilot), then more equipment failed and finally the plane crashed. Everything else is speculation and indeed I see nothing in the article you linked to that would back up the theory of autopilot/FCS error. All they say is that systems failed, the autopilot disengaged and jetliners at maximum speed are hard to fly by hand. They do talk about the gyroscopes being problematic but that's an instrument, not the FCS.
To quote the article: "You can never disregard any possibility until you can prove what happened". The FCS yould've gone suicidal, the electronics could've broken down, the pilot could've screwed up... It could've been a meteorite for all we know at the moment. I think we should wait for the black box to appear before we start making statements on what transpired and why it did.
This page details just what the different "Laws" mean. Look at "Alternate Law" (which the Air France plane operated in when it crashed) and "Direct Law", as well as "Mechanical Backup". These kick in when the computers (remember, everything is multiply redundant) detect anomalies or outright fail or when the pilot specifically takes them offline. Essentially, AFAIK if the majority of a certain system dones't show the same data, that system is considered untrustworthy and disabled.
Of course if all relevant sensors fail in an identical way the computer will not compensate (unless the sensor data doesn't match what the heuristics expect based on other data)... but then again, when the instrument insists on showing the wrong data, would the polit be able to detect the situation and react fast enough? In order for, say, all altimeters failing and the computer not noticing a dive, not only would most of the altimeters have to show the same incorrect value, the tilt sensors would also have to fail, as well as pretty much everything else involved with telemetry. The only plausible scenario I could imagine would be the entire plane losing power. And in that case Airbuses revert to the mechanical backup controls.
Also, as far as I have heard, so far most of the crashes involving a pilot vs. autopilot scenario occurred because of pilot error (like accidentally telling the autopilot to abort a landing and then trying to force the plane down).
Yes, but in the end it's still spending 250 Euros on a contract vs. spending 60 Euros on a phone, a prepaid card and a recharge. Losses don't simply disappear just because I spread them out.
Actually, Airbus FCS are designed to degrade gracefully (as has been pointed out in other threads) and indeed the plane in question did fly in "alternate law", where the pilot can override virtually everything. So in essence a Boeing would not have been much safer because the pilot already was in control.
In the ten to thirty Euro range Bluetooth is nonexistant. For example, Nokia's cheapest Bluetooth phone is the 2630, which goes for sixty bucks. The cheapest Samsung I could find was the SGH-J150 for 120 bucks. Sagem my411X, 100 Euros. Motorola PEBL, 100 Euros. I wasn't able to find much out about BenQ and Sony; BenQs German site doesn't mention mobile phones and Sony uses a Flash widget incompatible with my player.
Fact is, Bluetooth in mobile phones is still seen as a premium feature and if you're not ready to pay three digits (with the laudable exception of Nokia) you won't get it. Of course you can go with a contract but if you don't want to pay horrendous sums for a mobile phone you usually don't want to pay horrendous sums for a contract either. NB: I'm in Germany where "twenty bucks a month" is considered horrendously expensive by the casual talker - prepaid or semiprepaid is a much better deal.
PS: Yes, since most manufacturers will sell you the data cable separately, for those unwilling to spend much on their mobile phone the SIM is the only way of moving data to and from their phone. Well, most likely only from.
Last entirely positive news? Must've been when they bought our (German) monorail tech. It s been a couple of years, though.