I hate services that text me stuff. There is a priority order for messaging: * Look at it within a few days = email * Look at it within a few minutes = text * I need to communicate with you NOW = phone call & voice mail
I keep finding these services crop-up that use text & phone calls for things like "Don't forget that next Tuesday is a field trip! And Friday will be blue shirt day!" I do not need my phone buzzing during a work meeting for that.
The problem isn't that people sneak in without us knowing. The problem is that we can't process the asylum applications in a timely fashion, and while they are being processed we let them in. So really, we catch them then let them go. The DHS has been asking for more judges and a faster application process.
This is why a product as deadly as tobacco is legal in the US. It creates both massive profits and death, which is a win-win for any capitalist country.
That's is definitely NOT why tobacco is legal. Smoking rates are comparable or *worse* in communist nations. Tobacco was popular long before we knew it was dangerous. Humans have been smoking things for thousands of years.
I agree with your point, and I do not wish to reduce the merit - but you should understand that there is some valid reasoning behind this. We value some lives, and some modes of death, as more important than others.
For a start, we put different value on self-inflicted harm than externally inflicted harm. For example, if I overdose on drugs and die, that is less tragic than if I take a medication prescribed by my doctor and die. Similarly, "acts of god" don't make the news as much because there's not much we can do. So if the same number of people died from shootings as died from shark attacks or deer or mudslides or lightning strikes, we would feel greater moral outrage from the shootings even if they were similar in quantity. Similarly, we are more outraged when innocent children are killed than adults, so one school shooting is more significant than 10,000 heart attacks.
But to reiterate - you are right, we stress the wrong things. After 9/11 we turned the country upside-down to scan for bombs at airports when none of the terrorists brought bombs onto the places. We also overreport blacks killing whites or whites killing blacks, even if the violence wasn't racially motivated.
I wonder if you could buy smart TVs, flash the firmware to disable the smart features, and resell them for a profit. My smart TV just isn't connected to the network, but how long before you get a TV that requires you to complete a registration process and connect online before it displays an image?
I knew we'd be hearing "Asshole-speak" and I was right. I'll never use that crap.
FULL. STOP. This kind of reaction is why Donald Trump is president today. People don't want to hear the full story.
This is a case where someone wants to explain both sides of an issue and go into the nuance so that the person asking the question knows why things are the way they are, and what the real solution is. But today, people want the 10 syllable-or-less soundbite that oversimplifies things. That's why "build a wall" is so popular, when the actual solution is "fund immigration judges to reduce the number of missed asylum seekers, and execute due process" doesn't win. Because the latter takes a good 15 minutes to explain.
This is why global warming is so divisive. It takes time to explain that yes, the polar ice extent is increasing but the total volume of ice is decreasing. This is why renewable energy is so divisive: it takes time to explain the difference between baseload power, demand power, and intermittent power. It's easier to say "gas is evil" and "solar is green."
I too rail against smart TVs. This same thing is why BS is preloaded onto PCs, and phones too. It's part of why Apple products are so expensive: Apple doesn't take kickbacks to install garbage on your phone. I appreciate knowing what percentage of the TV revenue is from the smart features, and the average time people keep TVs. If you don't want to hear that, then go to another site that gives 10 word sound bites.
No it is not. A search warrant is required to search someone's property. But if you obtain evidence through other means no warrant is required. Maybe you are thinking of how a search warrant is required to put a GPS on a car. Or how a search warrant or a subpoena is required to compel the phone company to release your locayion to them. But if a company is selling the info or releasing it for free no special process is required.
Really, the police could start displaying banner ads on facebook and they have free legal access to everyone's location.
As a fellow engineer, but not a "professional engineer", I'll happily donate to his legal campaign, and I'll definitely give him an interview if his resume ever comes across my desk.
I don't want my thermostat connected to the internet.
IMHO, the problem is that we changed the internet from the peer-to-peer model to the server-based model. It should be that the devices sends the data to your local network, and you having control to expose that as you see fit. Instead, it sends it to a 3rd-party cloud provider, who then has a hole through your firewall.
All this started when we went from personal home pages to centralized systems like MySpace and then Facebook. That was the beginning. Now it is just assumed that data is placed on the cloud. Even my 10 year old son is seeing it. Some games save to the cloud: yay! When he got his new laptop, his save games were there! Other games required him to manually copy them to a flash drive and copy them across. He is smart enough to do that. BUT, he notices some games didn't save to the cloud right. And other games deleted his saved worlds when they send updates, or they lost some of his saves.
This is not neglect. It is not just that they didn't credit them. They went out of their way to remove the credit. If they had linked to the video would have credited them implicitly. Linking to the point 20-seconds into the video would have been rude, but would have credited them indirectly since it still leads to their channel. No, someone intentionally chopped the first 20 seconds off the video and uploaded that modified video. That's not neglect, that's a willful act.
The most interesting part of this is the statements about the.NET Framework. I need to look at the links he posted and really digest them. I suspect Paint.NET is pretty heavily tied to Windows right now, and he mentions COM and GDI+ which seems to confirm it. But I've been under the assumption that if you are targeting Windows, you build against the.NET Framework it is already preinstalled and optimized for that machine. If you are targeting cross-platform, then target.NET Standard and compile against the full framework for Windows machines, and the Core framework for non-Windows machines that won't already have the full framework installed. The idea that.NET Core is "superior" to the.NET Framework is new to me. I suppose just compiling against the.NET Core framework only is more consistent than using.NET Framework on Windows and.NET Core on everything else?
Are you asking what "conservative" means, or what "welfare" means in terms of conservative belief? Conservatives are more likely to support a bigger military. Do you disagree with that assessment?
Yeah, that's the heart of where I was going. I wish I had followed-up sooner. Here's the thing: In America, people conflate "conservative" with "Republican" when the Republican party is not very conservative.
Conservatives are more likely to support a bigger military.... our military is conservative welfare.
Conservatives do not believe in a big military, but Republicans do. So the military isn't "conservative welfare" it is "Republican welfare." That's the difference I was leading toward. It's very hard in America to talk about Conservative, Liberal, and Libertarian philosophies because people erroneously assign "conservative" to the "Republicans" and "liberal" to the Democrats. A similar of this is how the Nazi's called themselves "National Socialists" yet there were completely anti-Socialist. So now, people can never use the term "National Socialism" in a discussion because it immediately means Nazi. Fortunately, the word "Conservative" is not yet destroyed (I hope) because in other nations there are conservative parties that are actually conservative. And in academic circles the meaning is still preserved, kinda like the word "organic." "Organic" has a real meaning used in science, and a political meaning, and both are in active use in different contexts.
As far as "welfare", it's how conservatives justify welfare for themselves without calling it "welfare". It's a big make-jobs program.
Replace "conservatives" with "Republicans" and yeah, you are 100% spot-on. To take your point further, Republicans and Democrats both believe in welfare, they just target different groups. Republican welfare targets veterans (since they tend to vote Republican) while Democrat welfare targets minorities (since they tend to vote Democrat.) Strangely, in American political lingo, Republicans are "against welfare" and Democrats are "in favor of welfare" which makes no sense once you know the meaning of the word. Everyone is in favor of welfare! The term is used in the US Constitution, you can't be *against* it! That would be like standing against success or health.
I really wish people understood this, because it is very hard to discuss what a philosophy means if everyone around uses the words incorrectly. Imagine the confusion if a group of people used the word "red" to mean both green and orange. Now try explaining that you like green but don't like orange. They would assume you are nuts because in their heads they hear "I like red, but not red." And since this is politics, that group starts telling you that it is you who don't understand. When you point to a spectrum, and show differences between green and blue, the smart once cock their head in a confused look, but are unlikely to change their views, while the rest decry you a fool.
Anyway, that's where I was going with my leading question, I just left the thread and just came back.
Their actual plan is to get us down to only 2 humpback whales, in the hopes of attracting starships from the future. They can then capture one and harvest the technology.
When did Western nations become so rabid about copyright enforcement that they are willing to extend liability so insanely? Individuals liable for millions of dollars of copyright infringements for a handful of songs. Linking to sites is becoming sources of liability, registering a domain is now a source of liability, merely making software that could possibly be used for enforcement is a source of liability, running a file-sharing web site is a source of liability, reverse-engineering and writing research papers are sources of liability... What dystopian author could have imagined that something as mundane as copyright law would become the force of economic damage and oppression?
We are going backwards. A few years ago we reached some kind of balance, where almost any media I wanted could be purchased or downloaded without DRM for a reasonable price. Now I have to subscribe to 5 different streaming services to get access to it all, and half of those places require me to stream it through that companies' app or device. PLEASE PLEASE start buying DVDs and CDs again, or we will be back in the situation of the around Y2K when you were almost forced to pirate anything to get access to it. Only THIS time, they've closed the analog hole.
I took the OP to be saying that the government was doing it so they had an excuse to increase their powers. Here in the US, the FAA keeps trying to get people to register drones, require GPSs on them, or outright ban them, even though it is obvious that such things that will do nothing to prevent crime since criminals will simply not register them and/or turn off the GPS.
With Firefox, hold down the back button (well, on the desktop versions) and it displays a history of pages. So you can go back two pages, or 3, or more with one click. That helps to get around the nasty ones.
Slashdot does this too when accessing the site from Chrome on Android. Clicking the number of comments on a story attempts to open multiple popups, then directs you to sites full of redirects. The real problem is web site operators allowing advertising companies to put scripts onto the page. It wasn't so bad when the ads were square images with a single around them.
This isn't talkong about an Angular app with routing that uses back properly. It is talking about automatic redirects like HTTP 301 or meta refresh tags. For those the sokution is easy, Firefox has done this for years. If you hit back, and the page then auto-redirects you immediately, ignore the redirect. The user then just has to hit back a few times, but at least they aren't stuck. Even better would be if hitting back went back to the most recent page that did not have an automatic redirect in it.
Regardless of what happens, Americans should remain vigilant against the worst-case scenario here: the US government repeals Network Neutrality, and passes laws requiring ISPs to block certain web sites under the guise of protecting us from ter'rists, child pornographers, and fake news. So Google restarts the project, the feds tell their constituents that this to project them, and then it all happens over again but without the push back.
Sorry if that sounds preposterous -- hopefully it will not happen -- but we should make sure we keep an eye out for this and educate our children about the first amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate services that text me stuff. There is a priority order for messaging:
* Look at it within a few days = email
* Look at it within a few minutes = text
* I need to communicate with you NOW = phone call & voice mail
I keep finding these services crop-up that use text & phone calls for things like "Don't forget that next Tuesday is a field trip! And Friday will be blue shirt day!" I do not need my phone buzzing during a work meeting for that.
The problem isn't that people sneak in without us knowing. The problem is that we can't process the asylum applications in a timely fashion, and while they are being processed we let them in. So really, we catch them then let them go. The DHS has been asking for more judges and a faster application process.
This is why a product as deadly as tobacco is legal in the US. It creates both massive profits and death, which is a win-win for any capitalist country.
That's is definitely NOT why tobacco is legal. Smoking rates are comparable or *worse* in communist nations. Tobacco was popular long before we knew it was dangerous. Humans have been smoking things for thousands of years.
I agree with your point, and I do not wish to reduce the merit - but you should understand that there is some valid reasoning behind this. We value some lives, and some modes of death, as more important than others.
For a start, we put different value on self-inflicted harm than externally inflicted harm. For example, if I overdose on drugs and die, that is less tragic than if I take a medication prescribed by my doctor and die. Similarly, "acts of god" don't make the news as much because there's not much we can do. So if the same number of people died from shootings as died from shark attacks or deer or mudslides or lightning strikes, we would feel greater moral outrage from the shootings even if they were similar in quantity. Similarly, we are more outraged when innocent children are killed than adults, so one school shooting is more significant than 10,000 heart attacks.
But to reiterate - you are right, we stress the wrong things. After 9/11 we turned the country upside-down to scan for bombs at airports when none of the terrorists brought bombs onto the places. We also overreport blacks killing whites or whites killing blacks, even if the violence wasn't racially motivated.
I wonder if you could buy smart TVs, flash the firmware to disable the smart features, and resell them for a profit. My smart TV just isn't connected to the network, but how long before you get a TV that requires you to complete a registration process and connect online before it displays an image?
I knew we'd be hearing "Asshole-speak" and I was right. I'll never use that crap.
FULL. STOP. This kind of reaction is why Donald Trump is president today. People don't want to hear the full story.
This is a case where someone wants to explain both sides of an issue and go into the nuance so that the person asking the question knows why things are the way they are, and what the real solution is. But today, people want the 10 syllable-or-less soundbite that oversimplifies things. That's why "build a wall" is so popular, when the actual solution is "fund immigration judges to reduce the number of missed asylum seekers, and execute due process" doesn't win. Because the latter takes a good 15 minutes to explain.
This is why global warming is so divisive. It takes time to explain that yes, the polar ice extent is increasing but the total volume of ice is decreasing. This is why renewable energy is so divisive: it takes time to explain the difference between baseload power, demand power, and intermittent power. It's easier to say "gas is evil" and "solar is green."
I too rail against smart TVs. This same thing is why BS is preloaded onto PCs, and phones too. It's part of why Apple products are so expensive: Apple doesn't take kickbacks to install garbage on your phone. I appreciate knowing what percentage of the TV revenue is from the smart features, and the average time people keep TVs. If you don't want to hear that, then go to another site that gives 10 word sound bites.
No it is not. A search warrant is required to search someone's property. But if you obtain evidence through other means no warrant is required. Maybe you are thinking of how a search warrant is required to put a GPS on a car. Or how a search warrant or a subpoena is required to compel the phone company to release your locayion to them. But if a company is selling the info or releasing it for free no special process is required.
Really, the police could start displaying banner ads on facebook and they have free legal access to everyone's location.
Really?!?! I've never had this happen. How do I add something to someone else's calendar?
OMG! Star Trek is based on the Chinese!
Chinese National Space Administration logo
United Federation of Planets logo
As a fellow engineer, but not a "professional engineer", I'll happily donate to his legal campaign, and I'll definitely give him an interview if his resume ever comes across my desk.
I don't want my thermostat connected to the internet.
IMHO, the problem is that we changed the internet from the peer-to-peer model to the server-based model. It should be that the devices sends the data to your local network, and you having control to expose that as you see fit. Instead, it sends it to a 3rd-party cloud provider, who then has a hole through your firewall.
All this started when we went from personal home pages to centralized systems like MySpace and then Facebook. That was the beginning. Now it is just assumed that data is placed on the cloud. Even my 10 year old son is seeing it. Some games save to the cloud: yay! When he got his new laptop, his save games were there! Other games required him to manually copy them to a flash drive and copy them across. He is smart enough to do that. BUT, he notices some games didn't save to the cloud right. And other games deleted his saved worlds when they send updates, or they lost some of his saves.
What law are you referring to?
Agreed. No one in this thread is asserting that they did violated any license. Merely that it was dirty, and more than simple neglect.
Edit: "used for enforcement" should be "used for circumvention"
This is not neglect. It is not just that they didn't credit them. They went out of their way to remove the credit. If they had linked to the video would have credited them implicitly. Linking to the point 20-seconds into the video would have been rude, but would have credited them indirectly since it still leads to their channel. No, someone intentionally chopped the first 20 seconds off the video and uploaded that modified video. That's not neglect, that's a willful act.
My current project at work needs COM, SMO, WMI, Registry access, SCM, and P/Invoke. I wonder how much of that will be in Core 3.
The most interesting part of this is the statements about the .NET Framework. I need to look at the links he posted and really digest them. I suspect Paint.NET is pretty heavily tied to Windows right now, and he mentions COM and GDI+ which seems to confirm it. But I've been under the assumption that if you are targeting Windows, you build against the .NET Framework it is already preinstalled and optimized for that machine. If you are targeting cross-platform, then target .NET Standard and compile against the full framework for Windows machines, and the Core framework for non-Windows machines that won't already have the full framework installed. The idea that .NET Core is "superior" to the .NET Framework is new to me. I suppose just compiling against the .NET Core framework only is more consistent than using .NET Framework on Windows and .NET Core on everything else?
Are you asking what "conservative" means, or what "welfare" means in terms of conservative belief? Conservatives are more likely to support a bigger military. Do you disagree with that assessment?
Yeah, that's the heart of where I was going. I wish I had followed-up sooner. Here's the thing: In America, people conflate "conservative" with "Republican" when the Republican party is not very conservative.
Conservatives are more likely to support a bigger military.... our military is conservative welfare.
Conservatives do not believe in a big military, but Republicans do. So the military isn't "conservative welfare" it is "Republican welfare." That's the difference I was leading toward. It's very hard in America to talk about Conservative, Liberal, and Libertarian philosophies because people erroneously assign "conservative" to the "Republicans" and "liberal" to the Democrats. A similar of this is how the Nazi's called themselves "National Socialists" yet there were completely anti-Socialist. So now, people can never use the term "National Socialism" in a discussion because it immediately means Nazi. Fortunately, the word "Conservative" is not yet destroyed (I hope) because in other nations there are conservative parties that are actually conservative. And in academic circles the meaning is still preserved, kinda like the word "organic." "Organic" has a real meaning used in science, and a political meaning, and both are in active use in different contexts.
As far as "welfare", it's how conservatives justify welfare for themselves without calling it "welfare". It's a big make-jobs program.
Replace "conservatives" with "Republicans" and yeah, you are 100% spot-on. To take your point further, Republicans and Democrats both believe in welfare, they just target different groups. Republican welfare targets veterans (since they tend to vote Republican) while Democrat welfare targets minorities (since they tend to vote Democrat.) Strangely, in American political lingo, Republicans are "against welfare" and Democrats are "in favor of welfare" which makes no sense once you know the meaning of the word. Everyone is in favor of welfare! The term is used in the US Constitution, you can't be *against* it! That would be like standing against success or health.
I really wish people understood this, because it is very hard to discuss what a philosophy means if everyone around uses the words incorrectly. Imagine the confusion if a group of people used the word "red" to mean both green and orange. Now try explaining that you like green but don't like orange. They would assume you are nuts because in their heads they hear "I like red, but not red." And since this is politics, that group starts telling you that it is you who don't understand. When you point to a spectrum, and show differences between green and blue, the smart once cock their head in a confused look, but are unlikely to change their views, while the rest decry you a fool.
Anyway, that's where I was going with my leading question, I just left the thread and just came back.
Their actual plan is to get us down to only 2 humpback whales, in the hopes of attracting starships from the future. They can then capture one and harvest the technology.
When did Western nations become so rabid about copyright enforcement that they are willing to extend liability so insanely? Individuals liable for millions of dollars of copyright infringements for a handful of songs. Linking to sites is becoming sources of liability, registering a domain is now a source of liability, merely making software that could possibly be used for enforcement is a source of liability, running a file-sharing web site is a source of liability, reverse-engineering and writing research papers are sources of liability... What dystopian author could have imagined that something as mundane as copyright law would become the force of economic damage and oppression?
We are going backwards. A few years ago we reached some kind of balance, where almost any media I wanted could be purchased or downloaded without DRM for a reasonable price. Now I have to subscribe to 5 different streaming services to get access to it all, and half of those places require me to stream it through that companies' app or device. PLEASE PLEASE start buying DVDs and CDs again, or we will be back in the situation of the around Y2K when you were almost forced to pirate anything to get access to it. Only THIS time, they've closed the analog hole.
I took the OP to be saying that the government was doing it so they had an excuse to increase their powers. Here in the US, the FAA keeps trying to get people to register drones, require GPSs on them, or outright ban them, even though it is obvious that such things that will do nothing to prevent crime since criminals will simply not register them and/or turn off the GPS.
It may be a form of welfare, but how is it "conservative welfare?" Can you define "conservative" in that context?
Sorry, I was typing it on my phone, LOL!
With Firefox, hold down the back button (well, on the desktop versions) and it displays a history of pages. So you can go back two pages, or 3, or more with one click. That helps to get around the nasty ones.
Slashdot does this too when accessing the site from Chrome on Android. Clicking the number of comments on a story attempts to open multiple popups, then directs you to sites full of redirects. The real problem is web site operators allowing advertising companies to put scripts onto the page. It wasn't so bad when the ads were square images with a single around them.
This isn't talkong about an Angular app with routing that uses back properly. It is talking about automatic redirects like HTTP 301 or meta refresh tags. For those the sokution is easy, Firefox has done this for years. If you hit back, and the page then auto-redirects you immediately, ignore the redirect. The user then just has to hit back a few times, but at least they aren't stuck. Even better would be if hitting back went back to the most recent page that did not have an automatic redirect in it.
Regardless of what happens, Americans should remain vigilant against the worst-case scenario here: the US government repeals Network Neutrality, and passes laws requiring ISPs to block certain web sites under the guise of protecting us from ter'rists, child pornographers, and fake news. So Google restarts the project, the feds tell their constituents that this to project them, and then it all happens over again but without the push back.
Sorry if that sounds preposterous -- hopefully it will not happen -- but we should make sure we keep an eye out for this and educate our children about the first amendment.