What sort of idiot wastes their time with this, given that *none* of it is in any way incriminating nor does it show *any* evidence of actual collusion?
I am not assuming that at all. All I am assuming that if MS doesn't come up with it for whatever reason, they are liable for sanctions. "Gee, we asked them and they said no" isn't going to get them out of it.
It would be a real stretch but depending on the rest of the case (and of course I didn't RTFA...) MS could be liable for obstruction of justice for squirreling the data/evidence away from US jurisdiction. They may never make the original case for lack of the evidence but nothing keeps them from going after MS for having blocked their access. Taking a bit of evidence that everyone agrees exists, and hiding it or removing it from access, is definitely something you can get in trouble for. It would be a tough case to win but it would seem impossible to dismiss summarily.
It doesn't matter. MS (the people in the USA) can certainly be compelled to provide the information or, more likely, be sanctioned. If they made a deal with a foreign company (MS Ireland, presumably) that precludes them from doing so, then, there might be a price to pay for that. MS doesn't have to be permitted to do business in the USA if they start ignoring court orders, for instance.
SAP, same story, if SAP themselves own data in Germany, the USA can try all they want to get it, but they only get it if a German or possibly EU court demands it.
Of course, you can probably assume that there are other means to obtain the information for national security purposes but that's not going to matter or be available for purposes of the court.
Not really. The surface area of all the human beings on earth is microscopic compared to the surface area of the earth (land and water). That also makes for statistically insignificant chance of anyone getting hurt by this. It doesn't matter that the re-entry cannot be predicted.
Scorsese is generally wrong. People go to movies to see something entertaining, not (for the most part) study how well it was constructed. Nearly no one cares about the 'art of film" or whatever other pompous nonsense they talk to each other about. Critics who base their reviews and evaluation on what grade someone might get at film school are completely missing the boat. That's why no one pays any attention to them.
Scorsese has made plenty of movies people wanted to see, but you have to wonder if that was accidental, given his thought process. Or maybe he has lost sight of the end goal, 2 hours of entertainment (as opposed to an exercise of technical prowess).
If he wants to make movies for other film school grad or NY critics, then fine, but don't whine about the fact that most people don't care about it. From a artistic standpoint, "Star Wars" is a piece of crap, with terrible acting, cliche' plot that would have fit about as well in a B Western, and an entirely predictable ending. Oh, and it was not too far from a scene-by-scene remake of "The Hidden Fortress", so also not original. But people liked it because it has cool (astonishing for the time) effects and a lot of spaceships blowing each other up. People go to watch "Weekend at Bernie's" because its stupid but funny. No one cares it he shot a scene day-for-night or uses the same framing techniques as Kurosawa in Yojimbo.
If someone want to go to study the artistic value of a movie, fine, no on is stopping them. And no one (except the people who want to make money by providing entertainment for entertainments sake) is preventing anyone from making those movies. But it is foolish to expect that such self-indulgence made for other film buffs is going to get a high rating or make money from the general public. Rotten Tomatoes is telling you what people actually want to see, crappy or not from perspective of the overblown craft of moviemaking.
So, now the premise is that these ads somehow influenced people against Hillary or for Trump?
I knew Hillary was the very definition of corruption, entitled, a pathological liar, and the worst kind of sickening elitist LONG before Facebook even existed. I didn't need to see any ads on the topic, her own statements, and admitted public actions were plenty enough to make me despise her and vote for *anyone*, even Trump, to prevent her from becoming president.
That theory is axiomatic - the more people checking the less likely that errors made up front will be caught. We have know that for decades, but "adding another review" has such appeal to management that you never get rid of them. "Let's get more eyes on the problem" just ensures that the mistakes are codified forever, because it becomes so onerous to change something (and take weeks/months/years to get through the review process) that you try to work around it somehow, even if you find the problem.
There's another level of the same thinking that is all the vogue here, now -- "AI". That is an even larger step along the same direction, also one I have seen in various guises for decades now. That's why perfectly capable people drive their Teslas into the side of a truck.
Does any of this surprise anyone? What in the world did anyone expect better than this from a guy trying to sell $8 glasses of juice on a subscription?
The article said "electronic" television, which definitely was invented by Farnsworth. Baird was mechanically-scanned and effectively a dead-end. It's a bigger difference than between spark-gap radio and continuous-wave radio.
Why do you think that nobody cares about clean water and food? The problem is a local problem, solved by removing the people involved in preventing these things (which are otherwise easy to provide) from happening.
If we wanted, we could invade Africa, one country at a time, kill all the warlords, take away all the guns and provide all the necessary items. That was the idea in Somalia, and it is the correct and probably only workable idea for accomplishing that. But some asshole on Slashdot would be on whining about "imperialism" or us trying to be the world's policemen, which would eventually stop it.
Most people I know *do* care, deeply, about these situations, but also know that the things required to resolve them - the real solution, not some idiot idealistic hippie crap about a world without hate - would just bring us a world of grief from the various "more sophisticated" people of the world, who would rather have candlelight vigils and benefit concerts to make themselves feel better, but accomplish nothing.
Oh, bullshit. If you don't like it, go buy or build something else that DOESN'T connect to the internet. There's about 100 years worth of audio amplifier designs to choose from.
That's capitalism, no one is forcing you to buy it, and these guys will be appropriately "selected out" soon enough.
Look up "demographic transition" in the social science sense, then get back to me.
The situation you describe is no different from many others, and other species - population expands to the limit of the resources as a rule. The human race is the first to lift a significant fraction of the population of the species above survival level, first, a tiny fraction as the result of the agricultural revolution, and now a significant fraction as the result of the industrial revolution.
Living on the edge of starvation is the norm, and we are the exception.
Oh, do you mean that we are NOT all that special in the history of humanity, and we are merely acting in ways very similar to those societies that came before us, showing only a tiny bit of evolution despite our extremely technological advancement?
I call hate crime on that! I am a special snowflake, mommy said so, so I can't be driven by the same weaknesses or strengths as other people. Our times are unique and we have never had to fight such evil (like hearing opinions we don't like or fighting over natural resources) before, these are all completely new developments.
Slashdot Mirror
What to you think the phrase "step towards them" means?
OK, thanks, I think that answers my question.
What sort of idiot wastes their time with this, given that *none* of it is in any way incriminating nor does it show *any* evidence of actual collusion?
I am not assuming that at all. All I am assuming that if MS doesn't come up with it for whatever reason, they are liable for sanctions. "Gee, we asked them and they said no" isn't going to get them out of it.
It would be a real stretch but depending on the rest of the case (and of course I didn't RTFA...) MS could be liable for obstruction of justice for squirreling the data/evidence away from US jurisdiction. They may never make the original case for lack of the evidence but nothing keeps them from going after MS for having blocked their access. Taking a bit of evidence that everyone agrees exists, and hiding it or removing it from access, is definitely something you can get in trouble for. It would be a tough case to win but it would seem impossible to dismiss summarily.
It doesn't matter. MS (the people in the USA) can certainly be compelled to provide the information or, more likely, be sanctioned. If they made a deal with a foreign company (MS Ireland, presumably) that precludes them from doing so, then, there might be a price to pay for that. MS doesn't have to be permitted to do business in the USA if they start ignoring court orders, for instance.
SAP, same story, if SAP themselves own data in Germany, the USA can try all they want to get it, but they only get it if a German or possibly EU court demands it.
Of course, you can probably assume that there are other means to obtain the information for national security purposes but that's not going to matter or be available for purposes of the court.
Inevitably, zero freedom.
Not really. The surface area of all the human beings on earth is microscopic compared to the surface area of the earth (land and water). That also makes for statistically insignificant chance of anyone getting hurt by this. It doesn't matter that the re-entry cannot be predicted.
Scorsese is generally wrong. People go to movies to see something entertaining, not (for the most part) study how well it was constructed. Nearly no one cares about the 'art of film" or whatever other pompous nonsense they talk to each other about. Critics who base their reviews and evaluation on what grade someone might get at film school are completely missing the boat. That's why no one pays any attention to them.
Scorsese has made plenty of movies people wanted to see, but you have to wonder if that was accidental, given his thought process. Or maybe he has lost sight of the end goal, 2 hours of entertainment (as opposed to an exercise of technical prowess).
If he wants to make movies for other film school grad or NY critics, then fine, but don't whine about the fact that most people don't care about it. From a artistic standpoint, "Star Wars" is a piece of crap, with terrible acting, cliche' plot that would have fit about as well in a B Western, and an entirely predictable ending. Oh, and it was not too far from a scene-by-scene remake of "The Hidden Fortress", so also not original. But people liked it because it has cool (astonishing for the time) effects and a lot of spaceships blowing each other up. People go to watch "Weekend at Bernie's" because its stupid but funny. No one cares it he shot a scene day-for-night or uses the same framing techniques as Kurosawa in Yojimbo.
If someone want to go to study the artistic value of a movie, fine, no on is stopping them. And no one (except the people who want to make money by providing entertainment for entertainments sake) is preventing anyone from making those movies. But it is foolish to expect that such self-indulgence made for other film buffs is going to get a high rating or make money from the general public. Rotten Tomatoes is telling you what people actually want to see, crappy or not from perspective of the overblown craft of moviemaking.
How in the heck did Russia "destabilize" the US or the UK? They did nothing of consequence in either case.
Blaming the loss of Hillary on the Russians is about as sensible as blaming the loss of the Titanic on polar bears.
I am sure that they would welcome that, if they though they could get away with it.
That's generally because the socialist environment prevents success in the first place.
So, now the premise is that these ads somehow influenced people against Hillary or for Trump?
I knew Hillary was the very definition of corruption, entitled, a pathological liar, and the worst kind of sickening elitist LONG before Facebook even existed. I didn't need to see any ads on the topic, her own statements, and admitted public actions were plenty enough to make me despise her and vote for *anyone*, even Trump, to prevent her from becoming president.
That theory is axiomatic - the more people checking the less likely that errors made up front will be caught. We have know that for decades, but "adding another review" has such appeal to management that you never get rid of them. "Let's get more eyes on the problem" just ensures that the mistakes are codified forever, because it becomes so onerous to change something (and take weeks/months/years to get through the review process) that you try to work around it somehow, even if you find the problem.
There's another level of the same thinking that is all the vogue here, now -- "AI". That is an even larger step along the same direction, also one I have seen in various guises for decades now. That's why perfectly capable people drive their Teslas into the side of a truck.
He's more the same than ever.
Or was that Edgar Cayce?
I love how the same old garbage can be dressed up as math or science.
Plus, the only reliable source for virgins is Slashdot users, so, it would be devastating to the community
Does any of this surprise anyone? What in the world did anyone expect better than this from a guy trying to sell $8 glasses of juice on a subscription?
The article said "electronic" television, which definitely was invented by Farnsworth. Baird was mechanically-scanned and effectively a dead-end. It's a bigger difference than between spark-gap radio and continuous-wave radio.
I take it you got picked last a lot?
Why do you think that nobody cares about clean water and food? The problem is a local problem, solved by removing the people involved in preventing these things (which are otherwise easy to provide) from happening.
If we wanted, we could invade Africa, one country at a time, kill all the warlords, take away all the guns and provide all the necessary items. That was the idea in Somalia, and it is the correct and probably only workable idea for accomplishing that. But some asshole on Slashdot would be on whining about "imperialism" or us trying to be the world's policemen, which would eventually stop it.
Most people I know *do* care, deeply, about these situations, but also know that the things required to resolve them - the real solution, not some idiot idealistic hippie crap about a world without hate - would just bring us a world of grief from the various "more sophisticated" people of the world, who would rather have candlelight vigils and benefit concerts to make themselves feel better, but accomplish nothing.
I think I saw a Bigs Bunny cartoon with a similar premise.
Not to worry, we can afford to take 10 minutes out of our busy days to dust off the Germans again.
Oh, bullshit. If you don't like it, go buy or build something else that DOESN'T connect to the internet. There's about 100 years worth of audio amplifier designs to choose from.
That's capitalism, no one is forcing you to buy it, and these guys will be appropriately "selected out" soon enough.
Look up "demographic transition" in the social science sense, then get back to me.
The situation you describe is no different from many others, and other species - population expands to the limit of the resources as a rule. The human race is the first to lift a significant fraction of the population of the species above survival level, first, a tiny fraction as the result of the agricultural revolution, and now a significant fraction as the result of the industrial revolution.
Living on the edge of starvation is the norm, and we are the exception.
Oh, do you mean that we are NOT all that special in the history of humanity, and we are merely acting in ways very similar to those societies that came before us, showing only a tiny bit of evolution despite our extremely technological advancement?
I call hate crime on that! I am a special snowflake, mommy said so, so I can't be driven by the same weaknesses or strengths as other people. Our times are unique and we have never had to fight such evil (like hearing opinions we don't like or fighting over natural resources) before, these are all completely new developments.