Well, yes and no. He had strong and not always rational views on many things. I still remember him arguing that Basic was a superior language over C. The real reason was that he just did not understand C, but the dizzying logic he used to come up with an alternative explanation for his preference was both scary and entertaining. Similar for his political views: they were a disappointment because they were argued just as poorly.
However, the main reason they were a disappointment was that on many other things he HAD a very rational and well-reasoned view. He knew what he wanted, he was very willing to spend time and money to get what he wanted, and he was very rational about it, on his own terms. That was important at the time as a counterweight to all those lofty ideas about what computers could and could not do, and all the technological geekery that went on in the rest of Byte. Arguing that Byte went downhill because of him is therefore just not reasonable. He was an important feature in Byte, and he had a unique view on the computer world that was important for that world.
Except they are not increasing in frequency or intensity.
The last few hurricanes have been and still are breaking records all over the place, so how can you reasonably argue that intensity is not increasing? Yes, they may be outliers, but then again, they may be indicating a trend. Confidently declaring that intensities are not increasing does not suggest an open mind on this.
Slashdot should be ashamed of what it's become, click-bait for cultists.
I must assume that you're one of these cultists then, because the article certainly has baited the denialists into clicking and commenting on the article.
I agree that the campaign donations corrupt the US elections, but I fail to see why you single out Hillary Clinton. Just about every US politician, no matter what side of the isle, and from candidate dog catcher to presidential candidate, needs campaign donations. And yes, it's a real scandal that so much money is pumped into all those elections.
Integrity of a US politician seems to be determined by how much the campaign donations influence their politics. Some of them seem to be pretty clean despite the corrupt system; Sanders seems to be good example of this. Some of them are pretty obviously in the pocket of large donors. I have never seen any concrete evidence that Hillary Clinton is on the corrupt side of this scale.
But yes, taking money out to the US election process seems a pretty obvious thing to do to reduce corruption.
The allure of the paper system is that everyone understands it, not just he high priests of computer technology.
Regarding that ballot stuffing scenario: it is an old trick with many variations, but that's why there are observers in voting stations, preferably from multiple parties in the election.
Governments are incapable of creating secure systems.
The paper system is pretty secure, if it is implemented and executed properly. In stable democracies it is. In corrupt democracies it is, well, corrupt.
More realistically: they wanted to repeal to stick it to President Obama, but when they got the chance the people let them know they liked their ACA health-insurance. In other words, they were listening to the people.
Essentially, the very first rule a security neophyte needs to learn is, there is no such thing as "making it harder". There is only possible and not possible.
Making a brute-force search require 10000 centuries on average is just "making it harder", but it is in practice the same as impossible.
Read the quoted paragraph again, and actually put some thought into it this time.
We will exclude you from interaction if you insult, demean or harass anyone.
By excluding people who insult, demean or harass anyone, the Rust community has itself created a socially marginalized group that consists of these people who insult, demean or harass anyone.
In particular, we don’t tolerate behavior that excludes people in socially marginalized groups.
By excluding this socially marginalized group of people that they've created, the Rust community itself inherently violates of its own code of conduct, which says it's unacceptable to exclude people in socially marginalized groups.
The Rust Code of Conduct is so inherently contradictory that merely by following the policies of the Rust Code of Conduct one inherently ends up violating the Rust Code of Conduct!
That's nonsense. You can always choose not to be an asshole.
That is no longer an option for liberals or people that want to have their respect. Toe the line or else is the current climate. Simply not showing enough anger and outrage fast enough will get you labeled as a Nazi-sympathizer, misogynist, or racist. It no longer even matters if the subject being discussed is related to those terms.
You want respect? Just come with grownup arguments instead of schoolyard bullshit. No, you don't have to agree with everything; there isn't even general agreement. However, the left is getting extremely tired of all the incessantly repeated bullshit, pretzel logic, and carefully dishonest talking points that are being spouted about climate change, racism, supremacy movements, and the appalling incompetence and corruption of the current US president.
I can see you are really in love with your theory, but:
(1) this incident did not happen in the "open ocean"; it happened in one of the busiest shipping lanes of the world.
(2) I haven't read any reports of the tanker doing something odd until right before the collision, and that was probably an evasive manoeuvre. And even if that last dash was caused by GPS spoofing, what was the destroyer doing so near the tanker in the first place?
(3) The tanker also had other sensors available next to GPS, including the good old Mk 1 eyeball, making GPS spoofing implausible.
(4) No matter what, a destroyer from any decent naval power should not be vulnerable to a deliberate attack by a tanker, even if it was hijacked by twenty madmen on a suicide mission. The destroyer can outmanoeuvre and outrun the tanker by a vast margin. Being surprised is not an excuse because (a) the crew should have been alert in this busy shipping lane anyways, and (b) safety margins.
Since a lot is still unknown I will label your theory 'implausible' rather than 'tinfoil', but either an unfortunately timed technical failure or plain old incompetence seem far more plausible.
I give you one thing, your theory is more plausible than the 'cyber attack' theory that was the excuse for this/. post.
Because... they're removable?? Are you really that dumb? Damn! No wonder Trump is president!
Because... they're removable??
Well, it is true that if you remove the battery from the phone and hand it over to experts for safe disposal you are left with an far safer device. However, the problem is that said device is no longer a phone, because it doesn't function as such any more. Therefore, engineers generally recommend that you do not remove the battery from the phone, despite the increased safety issues.
You might argue that carrying the battery and the rest of the phone separately increases safety. Given that the biggest threat to a battery is structural damage, and given that phones form a sturdy box around their battery, I strongly doubt this is true in practice. Scientific studies to the contrary are welcome.
Are you really that dumb? Damn! No wonder Trump is president!
I agree that Donald Trump's election to president is still at many levels an event that requires further analysis, and the intelligence of the US voter is certainly an issue here, but I strongly doubt that the issue of removable batteries in cellphones is relevant to this discussion.
See? you're exactly one of the stupid people I'm talking about, precisely the reason we need more regulation. The government has a right to make sure what we buy is safe. I don't want your phone to bring down the airplane I'm riding in.
Please explain how making batteries removable makes phones safer, because I don't see it.
The Clinton Global Initiative took millions in foreign aid during the election and was labelled a charitable organization for global outreach and support, taking advantage of laws that benefit non-profit charitable NGOs. The right claimed it was a pay-to-play political operation but there was no proof.
Sorry, but I don't see the problem here. How can spending (supposedly US) foreign aid through a charity be 'pay-to-play'? Nobody is buying influence in US politics that way; the flow of money is simply wrong for that. Conceivably foreign aid could be used to buy influence in another country, but I doubt that is what you're complaining about.
Then she lost the election and The Clinton Global Initiative was immediately shuttered, with all funds being dumped into the Clinton Foundation.
Ok. So?
Never mind the million dollars Russia gave Clinton at a key moment to sell a large percentage of our uranium reserves to Russia at an incredibly low price. If anyone is colluding with Russia it was her.
I never heard anything about this beyond Bengazi-level conspiracy theories, but if this is true I hope it is investigated just as much as the accusations against Trump are.
Spin it all you want. Evil is evil.
I try very much to keep this as factual as possible. I stated some facts about the Clinton foundation, the Trump foundation, and US law.
> I generally prefer to determine if a crime was committed by the outcome of the trial.
The funny thing about that is that you need a FUCKING INDICTMENT first. That means you SPELL OUT EXACTLY what crime was committed and by whom.
They are not at the stage of a trial yet. They are now investigating whether or not a crime has been committed, and if so what the indictment would read like. All extremely standard operating procedure.
How is this something that Clinton didn't do, with the Clinton foundation?
The Clinton foundation is for charity, it is not an election campaign fund. Paying any election-related activities, or anything at all that benefits the Clintons, from the funds of the Clinton foundation would be illegal, and would get the foundation into trouble with the IRS.
This is not theoretical, Donald Trump's charity did get into trouble with the IRS for this exact violation: see http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru...
Because all they need to do is send a malicious RDS message through the FM network to a vulnerable car radio. Many radios are on the CANBUS these days, and it is highly unlikely that the developers of the radio software care about security or that secure channels for expedient software updates were designed in.
Given that the RDS protocol is really simple, I really doubt you can p0wn a car radio through RDS. Fixed message sizes and few undefined bits make it almost trivial to implement robust parsers for the protocol. You'll have to find another weakness, I think.
Now, that is true. Lots of people, especially in the US, do not listen to good advice from anybody named Obama. Their loss, but they don't. But hey, Darwinism in action.
may I ask where this 'warmonger' label comes from?
Officially started when she voted for the Iraq war in the senate. She has always been pro war in every theater (including Syria) before and since. She is a big time arms dealer (smuggler actually, that's what they're trying to hide about Benghazi, the weapons shipments to terrorists in Syria).
And she's a regular machine politician, of the same kind as Richard Daley (both) in Chicago.
Thank you for the reply, but based on the facts in your motivation the label 'warmonger' could be applied to a large majority of US politicians.
The 'machine politician' label seems to be off topic, and is again something that I have never seen any rational substantiation for.
As an interested spectator of this pie fight (if we're unlucky some of the pie might land here in Europe, or there may be some other collateral damage), may I ask where this 'warmonger' label comes from? I've heard it a few times before, but I don't know of anything about senator Clinton that can even be spun to justify that label.
Who needs radiation hardening? Just send a Proliant rack server up there and call it good! That's why we're SpaceX and they're luddites!
Unless I've missed something and HPE has been sold to him, Elon Musk is just the owner of the company that will deliver this computer to the ISS. He did not design the experiment.
If that's true, it's just more evidence that the right is a plague on this country, and planet.
So? Politics is a fact of life. Are you ok with destroying the planet as long as it is someone else's fault? Advocates of climate action knew (or should have known) that using a partisan politician as their champion would have a strong negative effect on building consensus and actually getting anything done.
This assumes a level of coordination among advocates of climate action that is simply not there.
This assumes that anybody else would have been able to escape the incessant smear job of the anti-climate-change lobby.
The left still assumes that people are intelligent enough to see through the relentless propaganda aimed at people like Gore, Obama, and the Clintons. Recent developments have shown that was too optimistic, but what's the alternative?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes and no. He had strong and not always rational views on many things. I still remember him arguing that Basic was a superior language over C. The real reason was that he just did not understand C, but the dizzying logic he used to come up with an alternative explanation for his preference was both scary and entertaining. Similar for his political views: they were a disappointment because they were argued just as poorly.
However, the main reason they were a disappointment was that on many other things he HAD a very rational and well-reasoned view. He knew what he wanted, he was very willing to spend time and money to get what he wanted, and he was very rational about it, on his own terms. That was important at the time as a counterweight to all those lofty ideas about what computers could and could not do, and all the technological geekery that went on in the rest of Byte. Arguing that Byte went downhill because of him is therefore just not reasonable. He was an important feature in Byte, and he had a unique view on the computer world that was important for that world.
Except they are not increasing in frequency or intensity.
The last few hurricanes have been and still are breaking records all over the place, so how can you reasonably argue that intensity is not increasing? Yes, they may be outliers, but then again, they may be indicating a trend. Confidently declaring that intensities are not increasing does not suggest an open mind on this.
Slashdot should be ashamed of what it's become, click-bait for cultists.
I must assume that you're one of these cultists then, because the article certainly has baited the denialists into clicking and commenting on the article.
I agree that the campaign donations corrupt the US elections, but I fail to see why you single out Hillary Clinton. Just about every US politician, no matter what side of the isle, and from candidate dog catcher to presidential candidate, needs campaign donations. And yes, it's a real scandal that so much money is pumped into all those elections.
Integrity of a US politician seems to be determined by how much the campaign donations influence their politics. Some of them seem to be pretty clean despite the corrupt system; Sanders seems to be good example of this. Some of them are pretty obviously in the pocket of large donors. I have never seen any concrete evidence that Hillary Clinton is on the corrupt side of this scale.
But yes, taking money out to the US election process seems a pretty obvious thing to do to reduce corruption.
The allure of the paper system is that everyone understands it, not just he high priests of computer technology.
Regarding that ballot stuffing scenario: it is an old trick with many variations, but that's why there are observers in voting stations, preferably from multiple parties in the election.
Governments are incapable of creating secure systems.
The paper system is pretty secure, if it is implemented and executed properly. In stable democracies it is. In corrupt democracies it is, well, corrupt.
More realistically: they wanted to repeal to stick it to President Obama, but when they got the chance the people let them know they liked their ACA health-insurance. In other words, they were listening to the people.
Essentially, the very first rule a security neophyte needs to learn is, there is no such thing as "making it harder". There is only possible and not possible.
Making a brute-force search require 10000 centuries on average is just "making it harder", but it is in practice the same as impossible.
Read the quoted paragraph again, and actually put some thought into it this time.
By excluding people who insult, demean or harass anyone, the Rust community has itself created a socially marginalized group that consists of these people who insult, demean or harass anyone.
By excluding this socially marginalized group of people that they've created, the Rust community itself inherently violates of its own code of conduct, which says it's unacceptable to exclude people in socially marginalized groups.
The Rust Code of Conduct is so inherently contradictory that merely by following the policies of the Rust Code of Conduct one inherently ends up violating the Rust Code of Conduct!
That's nonsense. You can always choose not to be an asshole.
Really. It's time to learn a new language, for those who can.
Such as? Yes, there are a few potential successors, such as Rust or Scala, but none of them is a breakthrough language.
That is no longer an option for liberals or people that want to have their respect. Toe the line or else is the current climate. Simply not showing enough anger and outrage fast enough will get you labeled as a Nazi-sympathizer, misogynist, or racist. It no longer even matters if the subject being discussed is related to those terms.
You want respect? Just come with grownup arguments instead of schoolyard bullshit. No, you don't have to agree with everything; there isn't even general agreement. However, the left is getting extremely tired of all the incessantly repeated bullshit, pretzel logic, and carefully dishonest talking points that are being spouted about climate change, racism, supremacy movements, and the appalling incompetence and corruption of the current US president.
I can see you are really in love with your theory, but:
(1) this incident did not happen in the "open ocean"; it happened in one of the busiest shipping lanes of the world.
(2) I haven't read any reports of the tanker doing something odd until right before the collision, and that was probably an evasive manoeuvre. And even if that last dash was caused by GPS spoofing, what was the destroyer doing so near the tanker in the first place?
(3) The tanker also had other sensors available next to GPS, including the good old Mk 1 eyeball, making GPS spoofing implausible.
(4) No matter what, a destroyer from any decent naval power should not be vulnerable to a deliberate attack by a tanker, even if it was hijacked by twenty madmen on a suicide mission. The destroyer can outmanoeuvre and outrun the tanker by a vast margin. Being surprised is not an excuse because (a) the crew should have been alert in this busy shipping lane anyways, and (b) safety margins.
Since a lot is still unknown I will label your theory 'implausible' rather than 'tinfoil', but either an unfortunately timed technical failure or plain old incompetence seem far more plausible.
I give you one thing, your theory is more plausible than the 'cyber attack' theory that was the excuse for this /. post.
Because... they're removable?? Are you really that dumb? Damn! No wonder Trump is president!
Because... they're removable??
Well, it is true that if you remove the battery from the phone and hand it over to experts for safe disposal you are left with an far safer device. However, the problem is that said device is no longer a phone, because it doesn't function as such any more. Therefore, engineers generally recommend that you do not remove the battery from the phone, despite the increased safety issues.
You might argue that carrying the battery and the rest of the phone separately increases safety. Given that the biggest threat to a battery is structural damage, and given that phones form a sturdy box around their battery, I strongly doubt this is true in practice. Scientific studies to the contrary are welcome.
Are you really that dumb? Damn! No wonder Trump is president!
I agree that Donald Trump's election to president is still at many levels an event that requires further analysis, and the intelligence of the US voter is certainly an issue here, but I strongly doubt that the issue of removable batteries in cellphones is relevant to this discussion.
See? you're exactly one of the stupid people I'm talking about, precisely the reason we need more regulation. The government has a right to make sure what we buy is safe. I don't want your phone to bring down the airplane I'm riding in.
Please explain how making batteries removable makes phones safer, because I don't see it.
The Clinton Global Initiative took millions in foreign aid during the election and was labelled a charitable organization for global outreach and support, taking advantage of laws that benefit non-profit charitable NGOs. The right claimed it was a pay-to-play political operation but there was no proof.
Sorry, but I don't see the problem here. How can spending (supposedly US) foreign aid through a charity be 'pay-to-play'? Nobody is buying influence in US politics that way; the flow of money is simply wrong for that. Conceivably foreign aid could be used to buy influence in another country, but I doubt that is what you're complaining about.
Then she lost the election and The Clinton Global Initiative was immediately shuttered, with all funds being dumped into the Clinton Foundation.
Ok. So?
Never mind the million dollars Russia gave Clinton at a key moment to sell a large percentage of our uranium reserves to Russia at an incredibly low price. If anyone is colluding with Russia it was her.
I never heard anything about this beyond Bengazi-level conspiracy theories, but if this is true I hope it is investigated just as much as the accusations against Trump are.
Spin it all you want. Evil is evil.
I try very much to keep this as factual as possible. I stated some facts about the Clinton foundation, the Trump foundation, and US law.
> I generally prefer to determine if a crime was committed by the outcome of the trial.
The funny thing about that is that you need a FUCKING INDICTMENT first. That means you SPELL OUT EXACTLY what crime was committed and by whom.
They are not at the stage of a trial yet. They are now investigating whether or not a crime has been committed, and if so what the indictment would read like. All extremely standard operating procedure.
How is this something that Clinton didn't do, with the Clinton foundation?
The Clinton foundation is for charity, it is not an election campaign fund. Paying any election-related activities, or anything at all that benefits the Clintons, from the funds of the Clinton foundation would be illegal, and would get the foundation into trouble with the IRS.
This is not theoretical, Donald Trump's charity did get into trouble with the IRS for this exact violation: see http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru...
Because all they need to do is send a malicious RDS message through the FM network to a vulnerable car radio. Many radios are on the CANBUS these days, and it is highly unlikely that the developers of the radio software care about security or that secure channels for expedient software updates were designed in.
Given that the RDS protocol is really simple, I really doubt you can p0wn a car radio through RDS. Fixed message sizes and few undefined bits make it almost trivial to implement robust parsers for the protocol. You'll have to find another weakness, I think.
So petty virtue signalling is better than telling Trump things he needs to hear.
That was what Elon Musk said months ago when he got flak for joining one of these councils. To his credit, he was a quick learner.
Yes, there are plenty of things Trump needs to hear, but he doesn't listen.
What were the politics of those who practically wiped out the Native Americans?
Colonialism. The views on many political issues at that time were so different that comparison to modern politics is a dangerous minefield at best.
Not from anybody named Obama, that's for sure.
Now, that is true. Lots of people, especially in the US, do not listen to good advice from anybody named Obama. Their loss, but they don't. But hey, Darwinism in action.
may I ask where this 'warmonger' label comes from?
Officially started when she voted for the Iraq war in the senate. She has always been pro war in every theater (including Syria) before and since. She is a big time arms dealer (smuggler actually, that's what they're trying to hide about Benghazi, the weapons shipments to terrorists in Syria).
And she's a regular machine politician, of the same kind as Richard Daley (both) in Chicago.
Thank you for the reply, but based on the facts in your motivation the label 'warmonger' could be applied to a large majority of US politicians.
The 'machine politician' label seems to be off topic, and is again something that I have never seen any rational substantiation for.
As an interested spectator of this pie fight (if we're unlucky some of the pie might land here in Europe, or there may be some other collateral damage), may I ask where this 'warmonger' label comes from? I've heard it a few times before, but I don't know of anything about senator Clinton that can even be spun to justify that label.
It's the MacArthur principle. Take credit for whatever is going so long as you are somewhere sort of near where it is happening.
Unless I've missed something, Elon Musk is not trying to take credit for this experiment.
Who needs radiation hardening? Just send a Proliant rack server up there and call it good! That's why we're SpaceX and they're luddites!
Unless I've missed something and HPE has been sold to him, Elon Musk is just the owner of the company that will deliver this computer to the ISS. He did not design the experiment.
If that's true, it's just more evidence that the right is a plague on this country, and planet.
So? Politics is a fact of life. Are you ok with destroying the planet as long as it is someone else's fault? Advocates of climate action knew (or should have known) that using a partisan politician as their champion would have a strong negative effect on building consensus and actually getting anything done.