Most of them are script kiddies who don't have the technical or engineering knowledge to understand what is wrong with Julian Assange's overall vision.
So why don't you educate us? What is wrong with Julian Assange's vision, which, as far as I can tell, is letting people know what their government is doing in their name? Well?
If you're saying some Anon are patriotic then that is fine and dandy but some Anon act like domestic terrorists and are unpatriotic and you have to accept that truth as well. The Julian Assange faction of Anon is misguided.
If publishing the truth makes you "unpatriotic", then frankly, your country is unworthy of patriotism.
Hope they all go down. These guys play Robin Hood, but they've victimized the "poor" too many times with their antics.
But once they're down, the Sheriff of Nottingham can focus all his attention on you.
And besides, haven't you got the memo? Robin Hood was a socialist who took from the job creators and distributed to the looters. We should be rooting for Prince John, the brave entrepreneur who stood up against the governmental authority of King Richards. Indeed, John and the Sheriff should go live off of a perpetual motion engine in seclusion - all those darn looters will beg them to return in no time, but they'll just shrug and let em' die, being the true heroes they are.
And if their maps wrongly placed their destination in completely the wrong place, they'd be equally screwed.
Not really. Old-style navigation relies on topology, GPS relies on coordinates. That is, when you navigate with a map, your instructions are in the style of "go straight for two intersections, then turn right to Main Street, then turn left towards Somewheretown." On the other hand, when you navigate with a GPS, you turn right on particular coordinates, and the actual road you take can be pretty much anything.
GPS based navigation is far more fragile than the traditional style of map + road signs. That doesn't matter when you're in a city or someplace else where navigational errors amount to irritation and inconvenience, but if your life depends on finding there on time, you'll want a traditional map.
Well... yes. Use Google maps, then switch to the satellite view to see if there's actually anything there. Seems like a cheap life insurance if you insist on driving to unknown locations in the Death Continent. Or any hostile environment, for that matter.
It wouldn't surprise me ONE BIT if he DID piss someone off in Belize.
Or it could be even simpler: his neighbour/enemy turned up dead, he bolted, the police want him for questioning, and now he's making excuses to avoid justice.
Nothing in this case seems to suggest any kind of corruption on Belize authorities part, so why assume it? McAfee, on the other hand, sure is making everything he possibly can to appear as a criminal on the run.
And we all know how well things worked for King Louis XVI.
Louie didn't have an automated drone army fighting for him. He still needed other human beings to make stuff for him. So it's not really a comparable situation.
No shit Sherlock. Doesn't defeat the point, does it?
It kinda does, since it makes it a false analogy.
Now tell us, why isn't someone that is happy all the time not considered sick?
Mania is considered a sickness. Being non-manic but happy isn't, because why would it be? The poor happy bastard doesn't suffer from it.
Apparently being locked in an emotional or behavioral state is only evidence of a problem if its not an emotional or behavioral state on the approved list.
That's literally true since mental illnesses are enumerated, which is a good thing since it various quacks from just arbitrarily declaring that someone they disagree with is ill and needs to be treated.
On a non-trivial level, for something to be illness it must cause some kind of problem, such as suffering. Depression causes suffering and usually other problems too, non-manic happiness doesn't.
Yet another way to look at this is that the whole point of treating anything is to get happier. Being generally happy is the desired end goal of most (all?) human activity, so why would it be considered a mental problem?
Checked exceptions are valuable in Java. Those that are against them don't understand that they are very useful for certain classes of problems - systems that have to be reliable.
Except that they're completely useless there, because as you demonstrated, they're easily wrapped into non-checked exceptions. Or better yet, just declare each and every function as throwing Exception. And of course our old friend NullPointerException is not checked, nor are stack- or heap overflow errors.
The mistake the Java designers made was that they made the library throw checked exceptions rather than unchecked ones.
No, the mistake they made was force some kind of reaction to checked exceptions. As is, it's impossible to automatically tell which functions actually handle the exceptions they might get rather than just use autogenerated copypasta to shut the compiler up. If un"handled" checked exceptions would simply default to propagating upwards the stack, it would be trivial. And besides, in most cases that's the best option anyway - if an operation fails, the chances are that the subsequent related operations can't be performed either.
The whole "you must handle checked exceptions" thing is an attempt to make people who don't care care, and that's an impossible task.
I mean, if the "workers" can't afford to buy the widgets, where's the growth in the economy produced by the" value creation"?
The rich get richer. The poor, being unnecessary for producing their toys anymore, die. In other words, a Randian utopia awaits us.
Let me rephrase: in extreme, if there aren't any buyers, what meaning the "economy" term still retains?
None. But that's inevitable anyway, since the more production is decoupled from human labour, the poorer match the classical concept of exchanging goods or services becomes. At the extreme of complete automation, you either socialize the machines and distribute everyone production credits on a daily(?) basis, or accept that whoever owns the machines is the de facto king.
I mean, really, there are people out there who *actually believe* that we have sophisticated enough GCMs to accurately model all major natural climactic influences...I mean, they *really* believe that they have got a good bead on all the myriad possible natural influences...can you imagine such hubris?:)
As it happens, your claim is a perfect example of cognitive bias, also known as wilful stupidity. Specifically, it demonstrates the use of a red herring: yes, climate is extremely complicated, but no, that doesn't mean it's not subject to basic thermodynamics. Making it harder for heat to escape but not enter a system makes the system warmer, completely regardless of how that heat gets distributed within the system.
That's the beauty of this whole study - it applies to *both* sides of intelligent zealots:)
Trying to pretend there's two equivalent sides is another example of cognitive bias, specifically false equivalence. There isn't: there's science on one side and people who think reality will go away if they ignore it long enough on the other.
Here's the rub, though, we can discern the science from the pseudo-science by looking for the falsifiable hypothesis:)
Have fun falsifying thermodynamics.
Also, if you're embarassed enough about the bullshit you post to defend your position to feel the need to end every sentence with a smiley, perhaps you should rethink it.
The inability to copy previously copyrighted items is strangling INNOVATION? Perhaps they don't understand the word innovation.
Advancement requires building on that which came before. Copyright's concept of derivative works interferes very badly with this.
Not that it really matters, copyright is dead and buried in everywhere except large-scale commercial distribution and will eventually die even there. It's a classic case of thightening the grip too much and having every star system slip past the fingers. Even the fear of Death Fines can't save the Empire anymore.
Its not Godwin to point out that if you cant afford a child in the current environment, you shouldn't have one. It is basic pragmatism and the sign of an Intelligent Being.
It is, however, also pragmatic to consider the consequences of allowing this state of affairs to persist. Society needs replacements for expiring members, and while it's possible to support it through immigration, the scale required will cause a shift in culture and demographics and thus social unrest, especially since the newcomers will likely find their dream of a better life running headfirst into the brutal reality of poverty that caused the problem in the first place. Furthermore, is it really such a good idea to have massive amounts of people who live in misery, have nothing to tie them down, and can only realistically improve their situation through winning a lottery or staking a revolution?
You should, if you want any hope of really dealing with the error, wrap every call in its own try/catch.
And how would you deal with the error? Simply keep trying the failing sub-operation until you succeed or the user reboots? Cancel the whole operation, in which case letting the exception propagate up the code stack until it hits a try/catch wrapper is the correct thing to do. Or program the rest of the function so it can proceed with this operation having failed, which may or may not be theoretically possible in the general case but certainly isn't practical.
The problem is that there simply isn't a good way to handle errors. The model of computing we use only allows two options: either everything goes perfectly or everything goes to Hell. Contrast this with, say, the human nervous system, which can maintain function even when errors are introduced - a drunken man gets progressively less steady on his feet, while a computer program encountering an unhandled error crashes unrecoverably.
I'm all for having opinions, but the way RMS spouts them as absolute irrefutable fact has always annoyed me (even when I agree with them). Obviously most users probably don't share this view.
So it annoys you when others state their opinions as irrefutable facts since they contradict your opinions which actually are irrefutable facts, being obviously probably right despite "obvious" and "probable" being mutually exclusive and you not actually "getting it", according to yourself.
This is the worst comment on this article. You've imagined he's a libertarian caricature solely so that you can create an opportunity to bust out this stock liberal attack on libertarians, with not a shred of fact to go with any of it.
According to BBC, "He moved to Belize about three years ago seeking lower taxes".
Also, I never once said anything about libertarians. That you instantly associate "tax evasion" with "libertarians" is their own fault, not mine.
What is wrong with you?
Utter disgust with people who refuse to do their share to support society yet start whining when it turns out they're not the top predator in the jungle.
He ran from the US because he had built a custom hang-glider and the test flyer died, prompting a wrongful death lawsuit from the guy's family. McAfee, assuming they would win and bankrupt him, grabbed what funds he had left and ran for it.
So he's not only a tax evader but also a fugitive from justice, thinks an independent court would find him guilty of at the very least criminal negligence, and doesn't want to pay damages for the harm he's caused. Much better.
He's paranoid and desperate, not political.
I never claimed he was political. That's your own strawman. All I said he ran to avoid taxes. That you piled more wrongdoings on top of that doesn't exactly make this seem any less of a case of getting what he had coming, though.
I just have to ask why Nintendo does anything like this.
To make it more likely that you're tired or drunk and thus easier prey when visiting their store? Or it could be image reason - "it's not our fault you let your children stay up at night". Or maybe someone there wants the online shop to fail for reasons of office politics.
No matter what the reason, what this tells me is that WiiU should be avoided until things stabilize.
Every time somebody whines like you just did I will eat the closest analog to the species they are whining about, that I can lay hands on.
Fuck the rabbit and the rocket he rode in on.
Protip: if you put the tourniquet on and leave it there for an hour or so before removing your limb, it should be numb by the time you do. You'll want to have all the incredients at hand before you start, because going shopping with a severed stump could get ackward. Finally, it's unlikely that eating your own flesh can give you parasites you didn't already have, so consider saving energy and eating it tartar-style.
Just FYI, guys, it's not cruelty. You don't actually cut their wings, just their feathers, and you have to keep cutting them because they grow back all the time.
If you were to keep a dog in handcuffs all the time so it couldn't run, I'm pretty sure it would be considered cruel despite causing no physical damage (except lack of exercise, which clipped wings will almost certainly also cause).
reprocessing reduces waste and recycles most of the material, which could be used in future reactors.
I wonder if this is the real reason to oppose reprocessing. There are plenty of people who are opposed to nuclear power on an ideological level, which gives them an incentive to oppose a technology that can extend the fuel supply.
About the only thing that would change is that instead of thousands of people with FPGAs and GPUs in their basement generating all the blocks, they'll all be generated with one guy with a few boards with chips on them. Expect transaction fees to rise.:)
Except the system to collapse entirely, since it now requires everyone trusting that one guy rather than that the majority of the network won't cooperate in fraud.
We are talking about a money printing machine. You would obviously operate it yourself if it made more money than it cost, or you would sell it to suckers if you could sell it for more than it would make.
All your arguments also apply to stocks, yet the stock market exists and conducts trade all the time.
The thing is, people have different tolerance for risk, and sometimes you want a fixed payoff rather than an uncertain payoff which might be larger but could also be smaller. And some time you need money now rather than more money later. After all, building these machines is not free, so waiting until they churn out enough Bitcoins to pay for themselves might be less profitable than selling them and using the profits to build more.
True, but we're not really talking about colonists - those would come later. We're talking about the adventurers who go on ahead to establish a beachhead in hostile territory.
We're talking about people who are supposed to establish and maintain large living quarters for later arrivals. This requires at least some of them to stay alive and functional until those later arrivals arrive. It doesn't matter if you call them colonists, pioneers or super janitors, the point still remains: sending a replacement takes hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, so you can't treat the crew as disposable.
Also, advertising this as an "adventure" attracts precisely the wrong crowd: the risk-takers. What you want is the types who obsessively check every last item in a hundred-item checklist every time they do a task, several times every day, for the rest of their lives.
Also, I think I pointed out I was talking those rare 80 year olds that can reasonably expect to live to 100.
As opposed to those plentiful 30 years old who can reasonably expect to live to 50? Who, because the pool is so much larger, almost certainly include people suitable in ways other than "is no likely to die of old age in the next few years"?
Look, I understand an 80 year old might want to go, but it just doesn't make sense to send him.
It depends heavily on the risk profile - as long as you're far more likely to die due to an accident than "old age" then it doesn't really matter how old you are to begin with, younger people will have just lost more potential longevity when the accident gets them.
If the colonists at 80 are more likely to die from accidents than old age, the colony has no chance of survival whatsoever, because you simply can't replace the personnel fast enough. Also, any non-lethal accident that happens results in more downtime the older you get, because injuries heal slower. Finally, at 80, your body is basically at the brink of collapse and could die at any moment, no matter how healthy you might look; if you can only send 20 people it would be insane to waste space sending someone like that instead of someone at his prime.
It's a pleasant fantasy to imagine yourself forever young and strong, just wrapped in wrinkly skin, but it's just that: a fantasy.
Slashdot Mirror
So why don't you educate us? What is wrong with Julian Assange's vision, which, as far as I can tell, is letting people know what their government is doing in their name? Well?
If publishing the truth makes you "unpatriotic", then frankly, your country is unworthy of patriotism.
But once they're down, the Sheriff of Nottingham can focus all his attention on you.
And besides, haven't you got the memo? Robin Hood was a socialist who took from the job creators and distributed to the looters. We should be rooting for Prince John, the brave entrepreneur who stood up against the governmental authority of King Richards. Indeed, John and the Sheriff should go live off of a perpetual motion engine in seclusion - all those darn looters will beg them to return in no time, but they'll just shrug and let em' die, being the true heroes they are.
Not really. Old-style navigation relies on topology, GPS relies on coordinates. That is, when you navigate with a map, your instructions are in the style of "go straight for two intersections, then turn right to Main Street, then turn left towards Somewheretown." On the other hand, when you navigate with a GPS, you turn right on particular coordinates, and the actual road you take can be pretty much anything.
GPS based navigation is far more fragile than the traditional style of map + road signs. That doesn't matter when you're in a city or someplace else where navigational errors amount to irritation and inconvenience, but if your life depends on finding there on time, you'll want a traditional map.
Well... yes. Use Google maps, then switch to the satellite view to see if there's actually anything there. Seems like a cheap life insurance if you insist on driving to unknown locations in the Death Continent. Or any hostile environment, for that matter.
Or it could be even simpler: his neighbour/enemy turned up dead, he bolted, the police want him for questioning, and now he's making excuses to avoid justice.
Nothing in this case seems to suggest any kind of corruption on Belize authorities part, so why assume it? McAfee, on the other hand, sure is making everything he possibly can to appear as a criminal on the run.
Louie didn't have an automated drone army fighting for him. He still needed other human beings to make stuff for him. So it's not really a comparable situation.
It kinda does, since it makes it a false analogy.
Mania is considered a sickness. Being non-manic but happy isn't, because why would it be? The poor happy bastard doesn't suffer from it.
That's literally true since mental illnesses are enumerated, which is a good thing since it various quacks from just arbitrarily declaring that someone they disagree with is ill and needs to be treated.
On a non-trivial level, for something to be illness it must cause some kind of problem, such as suffering. Depression causes suffering and usually other problems too, non-manic happiness doesn't.
Yet another way to look at this is that the whole point of treating anything is to get happier. Being generally happy is the desired end goal of most (all?) human activity, so why would it be considered a mental problem?
There must be a terminal near the shore!
Except that they're completely useless there, because as you demonstrated, they're easily wrapped into non-checked exceptions. Or better yet, just declare each and every function as throwing Exception. And of course our old friend NullPointerException is not checked, nor are stack- or heap overflow errors.
No, the mistake they made was force some kind of reaction to checked exceptions. As is, it's impossible to automatically tell which functions actually handle the exceptions they might get rather than just use autogenerated copypasta to shut the compiler up. If un"handled" checked exceptions would simply default to propagating upwards the stack, it would be trivial. And besides, in most cases that's the best option anyway - if an operation fails, the chances are that the subsequent related operations can't be performed either.
The whole "you must handle checked exceptions" thing is an attempt to make people who don't care care, and that's an impossible task.
The rich get richer. The poor, being unnecessary for producing their toys anymore, die. In other words, a Randian utopia awaits us.
None. But that's inevitable anyway, since the more production is decoupled from human labour, the poorer match the classical concept of exchanging goods or services becomes. At the extreme of complete automation, you either socialize the machines and distribute everyone production credits on a daily(?) basis, or accept that whoever owns the machines is the de facto king.
As it happens, your claim is a perfect example of cognitive bias, also known as wilful stupidity. Specifically, it demonstrates the use of a red herring: yes, climate is extremely complicated, but no, that doesn't mean it's not subject to basic thermodynamics. Making it harder for heat to escape but not enter a system makes the system warmer, completely regardless of how that heat gets distributed within the system.
Trying to pretend there's two equivalent sides is another example of cognitive bias, specifically false equivalence. There isn't: there's science on one side and people who think reality will go away if they ignore it long enough on the other.
Have fun falsifying thermodynamics.
Also, if you're embarassed enough about the bullshit you post to defend your position to feel the need to end every sentence with a smiley, perhaps you should rethink it.
Advancement requires building on that which came before. Copyright's concept of derivative works interferes very badly with this.
Not that it really matters, copyright is dead and buried in everywhere except large-scale commercial distribution and will eventually die even there. It's a classic case of thightening the grip too much and having every star system slip past the fingers. Even the fear of Death Fines can't save the Empire anymore.
It is, however, also pragmatic to consider the consequences of allowing this state of affairs to persist. Society needs replacements for expiring members, and while it's possible to support it through immigration, the scale required will cause a shift in culture and demographics and thus social unrest, especially since the newcomers will likely find their dream of a better life running headfirst into the brutal reality of poverty that caused the problem in the first place. Furthermore, is it really such a good idea to have massive amounts of people who live in misery, have nothing to tie them down, and can only realistically improve their situation through winning a lottery or staking a revolution?
And how would you deal with the error? Simply keep trying the failing sub-operation until you succeed or the user reboots? Cancel the whole operation, in which case letting the exception propagate up the code stack until it hits a try/catch wrapper is the correct thing to do. Or program the rest of the function so it can proceed with this operation having failed, which may or may not be theoretically possible in the general case but certainly isn't practical.
The problem is that there simply isn't a good way to handle errors. The model of computing we use only allows two options: either everything goes perfectly or everything goes to Hell. Contrast this with, say, the human nervous system, which can maintain function even when errors are introduced - a drunken man gets progressively less steady on his feet, while a computer program encountering an unhandled error crashes unrecoverably.
So it annoys you when others state their opinions as irrefutable facts since they contradict your opinions which actually are irrefutable facts, being obviously probably right despite "obvious" and "probable" being mutually exclusive and you not actually "getting it", according to yourself.
That's certainly worth +5 Insightful.
According to BBC, "He moved to Belize about three years ago seeking lower taxes".
Also, I never once said anything about libertarians. That you instantly associate "tax evasion" with "libertarians" is their own fault, not mine.
Utter disgust with people who refuse to do their share to support society yet start whining when it turns out they're not the top predator in the jungle.
So he's not only a tax evader but also a fugitive from justice, thinks an independent court would find him guilty of at the very least criminal negligence, and doesn't want to pay damages for the harm he's caused. Much better.
I never claimed he was political. That's your own strawman. All I said he ran to avoid taxes. That you piled more wrongdoings on top of that doesn't exactly make this seem any less of a case of getting what he had coming, though.
To make it more likely that you're tired or drunk and thus easier prey when visiting their store? Or it could be image reason - "it's not our fault you let your children stay up at night". Or maybe someone there wants the online shop to fail for reasons of office politics.
No matter what the reason, what this tells me is that WiiU should be avoided until things stabilize.
Fuck the rabbit and the rocket he rode in on.
Protip: if you put the tourniquet on and leave it there for an hour or so before removing your limb, it should be numb by the time you do. You'll want to have all the incredients at hand before you start, because going shopping with a severed stump could get ackward. Finally, it's unlikely that eating your own flesh can give you parasites you didn't already have, so consider saving energy and eating it tartar-style.
If you were to keep a dog in handcuffs all the time so it couldn't run, I'm pretty sure it would be considered cruel despite causing no physical damage (except lack of exercise, which clipped wings will almost certainly also cause).
I wonder if this is the real reason to oppose reprocessing. There are plenty of people who are opposed to nuclear power on an ideological level, which gives them an incentive to oppose a technology that can extend the fuel supply.
Except the system to collapse entirely, since it now requires everyone trusting that one guy rather than that the majority of the network won't cooperate in fraud.
All your arguments also apply to stocks, yet the stock market exists and conducts trade all the time.
The thing is, people have different tolerance for risk, and sometimes you want a fixed payoff rather than an uncertain payoff which might be larger but could also be smaller. And some time you need money now rather than more money later. After all, building these machines is not free, so waiting until they churn out enough Bitcoins to pay for themselves might be less profitable than selling them and using the profits to build more.
We're talking about people who are supposed to establish and maintain large living quarters for later arrivals. This requires at least some of them to stay alive and functional until those later arrivals arrive. It doesn't matter if you call them colonists, pioneers or super janitors, the point still remains: sending a replacement takes hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, so you can't treat the crew as disposable.
Also, advertising this as an "adventure" attracts precisely the wrong crowd: the risk-takers. What you want is the types who obsessively check every last item in a hundred-item checklist every time they do a task, several times every day, for the rest of their lives.
As opposed to those plentiful 30 years old who can reasonably expect to live to 50? Who, because the pool is so much larger, almost certainly include people suitable in ways other than "is no likely to die of old age in the next few years"?
Look, I understand an 80 year old might want to go, but it just doesn't make sense to send him.
If the colonists at 80 are more likely to die from accidents than old age, the colony has no chance of survival whatsoever, because you simply can't replace the personnel fast enough. Also, any non-lethal accident that happens results in more downtime the older you get, because injuries heal slower. Finally, at 80, your body is basically at the brink of collapse and could die at any moment, no matter how healthy you might look; if you can only send 20 people it would be insane to waste space sending someone like that instead of someone at his prime.
It's a pleasant fantasy to imagine yourself forever young and strong, just wrapped in wrinkly skin, but it's just that: a fantasy.