They send enough drugs for cash, just return the cash. And anyone can make tacos. Then grow pot.in USA, and sell it back to Mexico cheaper.
I'm sorry, but I cannot distill a coherent plan from this. You want to return cash to Mexico, and sell tacos and pot them? I, err, have seen more compelling business plans.
Since you seem to believe this is a good idea, can you explain why Mexico would ever pay for the wall? Because for me that is the most unrealistic part of a highly unrealistic plan. What's in it for Mexico?
Net neutrality was introduced to stop nasty things that were planned or introduced by the ISPs. There was an imminent threat when it was introduced, and the ISPs certainly haven't become any nicer in the meantime.
This is exactly the level of refined use of logic and truthfulness that we have to come to expect from Donald Trump and his supporters. Reasonable people have some problems dealing with this because all the eye rolling we do makes us dizzy, so excuse me while I sit down for a bit.
The companies dominating the Internet have been censoring the right since at least 2015.
I hope to see you killed in the street, and soon.
With that last sentence you are on the border of incitement. I certainly hope that any civilised country draws the line at incitement, and this has nothing to do with left, right, up, down, black, white, purple, or yellow. Encouraging people to be killed should be just as illegal on the internet as in other media.
Is building a heavy launch vehicle an ego trip as well, according you you? Normally first launches like this have just a dummy load: bags of sand or whatever else can make up sufficient payload. If somebody wants to stretch the goals by adding a car to this dummy load and aiming for Mars in this first launch, I fail to see why that deserves so much grousing. Personally I think it is a waste of a perfectly fine car, but hey, he built the thing himself, and he seems to like to have fun with things like this, so who am I to judge him on that.
I have seen a lot of demonization of Hilary Clinton. Decades worth of it. Bengaaaaazzzzziii!! Butheremails!!!! Nothing significant ever stuck, but yes, this demonization produced the stink of corruption. It is very disappointing.
What amazes me is that almost issue-by-issue there were similar allegations against Donald Trump, and in his case there is a lot of substance, but somehow it doesn't seem to matter. Just take the supposed corruption with the charity foundation of the Clintons. A lot of mud has been thrown, but nothing substantial was ever proved. Whereas Donald Trump's charity foundation was used to pay off a prosecution and buy a portrait of Donald Trump; this is fairly well documented.
Similar for that stupid pizzagate versus DJT harrasment of lots of women; the uranium nonsense versus foreign diplomats staying in Trump hotels to please the president; Trump's 'original' way to handle state secrets; and there is Trump's past history as a shady business man, and I haven't even used the word Russia or Twitter yet...
Given all that, I try to understand why so many people still go for Trump, and all those 'isms' seem to be the most plausible explanation. And despite all evidence I still hope that enough people now realise what a danger to the country (and indeed the world) the current president is, and that THAT will backfire on him.
The main reason Hillary failed is that for most people it doesn't matter whether a bitch or a jackass is president, they want neither.
Where 'bitch' in this case supposedly means a person lacking a certain body part, and in possession of a pair of other body parts that the other candidate doesn't have.
Sadly, there seems quite a lot of truth in this statement, so it is more accurate to say that for many voters the presidential elections should be a 'cur-and-pony' show.
He is demonstrably wrong. True, some security problems are bugs, but there are also security problems that are bad design choices, that are misconfigurations, that are counting use of old technology (e.g. RSA 1024), that are poor use cases (nobody follows policy, because it is too complex and/or convoluted). You can't secure systems with just code reviews and patching. No way, no how.
You are completely missing Linus' point. He is saying in the context of kernel development that security issues don't get privileged treatment. There is one set of rules for all issues, be they outright bugs, bad design choices in any aspect, misconfiguration in any aspect, etc.
I'm growing weary of the trumped up "the sky is falling" ("the temperature is going up") global Armageddon coming from the press and the obvious confirmation bias by the likes of you who claim "the science is settled" on this. No it's not, Actually the jury is still out on the big question on this whole thing and that is "What does this mean?" What's going to happen because of this? Apparently Al Gore got it wrong some 20 years ago, so what makes you think we have it right now? Are we somehow working with better models or data? Have the theories changed any? Nope, same data, generally the same models and the theories are the same. Al was wrong, why do you now think we understand this better now?
And I have grown weary a long, long time ago of people that keep putting words in Al Gore's mouth and then declaring he was wrong. What exactly did he say, documented by a transcript or a video, that was so wrong? And don't come up with some tiny detail: was the overall message wrong?
The models were actually pretty good at the time, and the predicted effects have been observed. And yes, the models and data are better nowadays. Besides, some of the effects are basic physics: water gets hotter -> water expands -> sea levels rise. Unless you want to dispute that the ocean temperatures have risen, there is simply not much wiggle room there. Similarly, the greenhouse effect is also pretty difficult to argue against.
This is why so many people don't take global warming sceptics seriously. They only hear what they want to hear, only remember what they want to remember, even if they have to invent it, and then accuse the other side of deception.
Where 'started' probably means something like 'the Clinton staff looked into it as part of oppo research when Hilary was running against Obama, but dropped it as insane nonsense.'
But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Hillary ever uttered the phrase 'birth certificate' in this context, does that mean it is suddenly not a sadly laughable conspiracy theory? Because Hilary would somehow have blessed it?
My estimate of the US voter has never been as low as in the last few years. In any sensible democracy DJT the politician would have sunk without a trace purely for peddling the birther theories, not to mention at least 10 other things at the same level of sad insanity.
Kinda crazy to sign off on allowing Iran to get nukes and pay them a few hundred billion dollars when the Iranian regime is working closely with al Qaeda, isn't it?
Those lies never get old, do they? As part of the deal, Iran stopped working on their nuclear program, and allowed extensive verification of this. How can you possibly spin this into 'allowing Iran to get nukes'? The money was not a payment, it was Iranian money that was frozen as part of the sanctions against Iran. Big difference.
And to trot out an old quote: You don't make peace with your friends. You make peace with your enemies.
And remember, despite what anyone tells you, it is not different this time.
That seems implausible. So many products, ranging from Siri and similar to data mining, rely on AI that there will be a demand for at leat the current level of AI for the foreseeable future. And that completely ignores the strong signals that the current boom is not ending yet.
Even for presidential candidates there are only 24 hours in a day.
But I know, the US electorate always votes for the most entertaining candidate, and well, DJT got that angle covered by dominating the news during the elections with his pratfalls.
Slashdot Mirror
They send enough drugs for cash, just return the cash. And anyone can make tacos. Then grow pot.in USA, and sell it back to Mexico cheaper.
I'm sorry, but I cannot distill a coherent plan from this. You want to return cash to Mexico, and sell tacos and pot them? I, err, have seen more compelling business plans.
Simple.
He's going to get Mexico to pay for it!
and it's going to be YUGE!
Exactly. Get Mexico to pay for the wall [...]
Since you seem to believe this is a good idea, can you explain why Mexico would ever pay for the wall? Because for me that is the most unrealistic part of a highly unrealistic plan. What's in it for Mexico?
"obabas congress" is a rather misleading term. A better phrase would be "the congress that Obama had to fight and circumvent to get anything done".
Net neutrality was introduced to stop nasty things that were planned or introduced by the ISPs. There was an imminent threat when it was introduced, and the ISPs certainly haven't become any nicer in the meantime.
Are you really insinuating that Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, and Steve Wozniak are shills? You're sure you're not a shill yourself?
This is exactly the level of refined use of logic and truthfulness that we have to come to expect from Donald Trump and his supporters. Reasonable people have some problems dealing with this because all the eye rolling we do makes us dizzy, so excuse me while I sit down for a bit.
The companies dominating the Internet have been censoring the right since at least 2015.
I hope to see you killed in the street, and soon.
With that last sentence you are on the border of incitement. I certainly hope that any civilised country draws the line at incitement, and this has nothing to do with left, right, up, down, black, white, purple, or yellow. Encouraging people to be killed should be just as illegal on the internet as in other media.
Science isn't done just to inform you.
Is building a heavy launch vehicle an ego trip as well, according you you? Normally first launches like this have just a dummy load: bags of sand or whatever else can make up sufficient payload. If somebody wants to stretch the goals by adding a car to this dummy load and aiming for Mars in this first launch, I fail to see why that deserves so much grousing. Personally I think it is a waste of a perfectly fine car, but hey, he built the thing himself, and he seems to like to have fun with things like this, so who am I to judge him on that.
I have seen a lot of demonization of Hilary Clinton. Decades worth of it. Bengaaaaazzzzziii!! Butheremails!!!! Nothing significant ever stuck, but yes, this demonization produced the stink of corruption. It is very disappointing.
What amazes me is that almost issue-by-issue there were similar allegations against Donald Trump, and in his case there is a lot of substance, but somehow it doesn't seem to matter. Just take the supposed corruption with the charity foundation of the Clintons. A lot of mud has been thrown, but nothing substantial was ever proved. Whereas Donald Trump's charity foundation was used to pay off a prosecution and buy a portrait of Donald Trump; this is fairly well documented.
Similar for that stupid pizzagate versus DJT harrasment of lots of women; the uranium nonsense versus foreign diplomats staying in Trump hotels to please the president; Trump's 'original' way to handle state secrets; and there is Trump's past history as a shady business man, and I haven't even used the word Russia or Twitter yet...
Given all that, I try to understand why so many people still go for Trump, and all those 'isms' seem to be the most plausible explanation. And despite all evidence I still hope that enough people now realise what a danger to the country (and indeed the world) the current president is, and that THAT will backfire on him.
The main reason Hillary failed is that for most people it doesn't matter whether a bitch or a jackass is president, they want neither.
Where 'bitch' in this case supposedly means a person lacking a certain body part, and in possession of a pair of other body parts that the other candidate doesn't have.
Sadly, there seems quite a lot of truth in this statement, so it is more accurate to say that for many voters the presidential elections should be a 'cur-and-pony' show.
Your analogies have zero relevance to how HPCs work.
They are relevant. What is zero is your willingness to learn, or at least accept that other people know what they are doing.
You are missing the point! This way the can emulate 750 core system at an fraction of the cost.
So, what point am I missing? The Xeon phi 7290 is 4k$ and has 72 cores, you can get 10 of those and get way more speed, shared memory benefit etc...
Entirely different architecture. The point of this scale model is to have a cluster of compute nodes with TCP/IP communication between them.
Your dad's cancer was never "free", it was paid for either by debt (ie. taxes on future generation) or theft from others hard earned wages.
Or perhaps from a pool of money that Canadians happily pay into so that they don't have to worry about bankruptcy from health problems.
>When the hell did asking questions become something to belittle people over?
In Soviet America, stupid people judge YOU!
This seems to be the new /. tag line.
You never heard rumours that came from Facebook either?
I highly recommend the 'rm -rf' compiler for all VB6 projects. Fast and efficient.
He is demonstrably wrong. True, some security problems are bugs, but there are also security problems that are bad design choices, that are misconfigurations, that are counting use of old technology (e.g. RSA 1024), that are poor use cases (nobody follows policy, because it is too complex and/or convoluted). You can't secure systems with just code reviews and patching. No way, no how.
You are completely missing Linus' point. He is saying in the context of kernel development that security issues don't get privileged treatment. There is one set of rules for all issues, be they outright bugs, bad design choices in any aspect, misconfiguration in any aspect, etc.
I'm growing weary of the trumped up "the sky is falling" ("the temperature is going up") global Armageddon coming from the press and the obvious confirmation bias by the likes of you who claim "the science is settled" on this. No it's not, Actually the jury is still out on the big question on this whole thing and that is "What does this mean?" What's going to happen because of this? Apparently Al Gore got it wrong some 20 years ago, so what makes you think we have it right now? Are we somehow working with better models or data? Have the theories changed any? Nope, same data, generally the same models and the theories are the same. Al was wrong, why do you now think we understand this better now?
And I have grown weary a long, long time ago of people that keep putting words in Al Gore's mouth and then declaring he was wrong. What exactly did he say, documented by a transcript or a video, that was so wrong? And don't come up with some tiny detail: was the overall message wrong?
The models were actually pretty good at the time, and the predicted effects have been observed. And yes, the models and data are better nowadays. Besides, some of the effects are basic physics: water gets hotter -> water expands -> sea levels rise. Unless you want to dispute that the ocean temperatures have risen, there is simply not much wiggle room there. Similarly, the greenhouse effect is also pretty difficult to argue against.
Well yes, some of us do trigger on insinuation, especially if there is zero proof. I consider this a good thing.
This is why so many people don't take global warming sceptics seriously. They only hear what they want to hear, only remember what they want to remember, even if they have to invent it, and then accuse the other side of deception.
Where 'started' probably means something like 'the Clinton staff looked into it as part of oppo research when Hilary was running against Obama, but dropped it as insane nonsense.'
But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Hillary ever uttered the phrase 'birth certificate' in this context, does that mean it is suddenly not a sadly laughable conspiracy theory? Because Hilary would somehow have blessed it?
My estimate of the US voter has never been as low as in the last few years. In any sensible democracy DJT the politician would have sunk without a trace purely for peddling the birther theories, not to mention at least 10 other things at the same level of sad insanity.
Kinda crazy to sign off on allowing Iran to get nukes and pay them a few hundred billion dollars when the Iranian regime is working closely with al Qaeda, isn't it?
Those lies never get old, do they? As part of the deal, Iran stopped working on their nuclear program, and allowed extensive verification of this. How can you possibly spin this into 'allowing Iran to get nukes'? The money was not a payment, it was Iranian money that was frozen as part of the sanctions against Iran. Big difference.
And to trot out an old quote: You don't make peace with your friends. You make peace with your enemies.
And remember, despite what anyone tells you, it is not different this time.
That seems implausible. So many products, ranging from Siri and similar to data mining, rely on AI that there will be a demand for at leat the current level of AI for the foreseeable future. And that completely ignores the strong signals that the current boom is not ending yet.
Even for presidential candidates there are only 24 hours in a day.
But I know, the US electorate always votes for the most entertaining candidate, and well, DJT got that angle covered by dominating the news during the elections with his pratfalls.