With Capaldi, my interest in Doctor Who somehow plummeted. I can't even say why. I was a big, big fan of Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant. While Matt Smith was ok, I felt he was already a step down from Tennant, and I never warmed to Capaldi.
That's why I would've been outraged had they made The Doctor change gender at the 12th incarnation, but now it's just one more reason not to watch the show anymore.
Why? Because it's forced. It's an obvious deviation from the character development for no reason at all except submission to feminist outcry.
But hey, maybe the next Wonder Woman can be a man? It's not about gender, right? Of course it is about gender. We are human beings. Gender is one if not the first thing we notice about another human being, instinctively. There is nothing that is not about gender. Let's stop pretending that the sky is yellow and pigs fly. Doctor Who is a male character, and that is a part of who he is, just like him having two hearts. Gender is not some random biological detail that you can change like a hat. Any biologist can tell you that its effects on the body go beyond primary and secondary sex organs. Its effect on the mind are less clear, research is ongoing, but nobody with any knowledge on the matter would claim that there are none.
To change the gender of the character is to make him another character. And that's total bullshit in a series named after its character. They could've made a spin-off with a female doctor, a different character, and that would've been completely fine. I probably would've watched it. Or a spin-off based on River Song or Idris or even on Missy.
But hey, let's wait for the Wonder Woman movie starring Orlando Bloom and we'll see what all the people now shouting me down with "gender doesn't matter" will say then.:-)
Look, we call it "laws of nature", but they are nothing like the laws that are written into law books. It's just an unfortunate choice of words that causes confusion in some minds that take things too literal.
But have fun compensating for that silly law of gravity with a new  in your countries law books...
You'd think so, but that is a very classic piece of selective perception. Since we almost always (unless we are involved) see only the affairs that come to light, we assume that most if not all affairs do, eventually.
But what is your guess about the number of affairs that nobody except those involved ever finds out about? You seriously think that is a low number? Got any evidence for that except wishful thinking?
The original submission points out that "This revival of Multics allows hobbyists, researchers and students the chance to experience first hand the system that inspired UNIX."
More importantly: To take some of the things that Multics did better and port them to Unix-like systems. Much of the secure system design, for example, was dumped from early Unix systems and was then later glued back on in pieces.
What we still haven't figured out is how to run a society that doesn't put your job as the central element of your life.
That goes beyond economy. Yes, economically we haven't figured out how to run Utopia. For all of history humans have dreamed about a life where you don't have to work, and all essentials, like food and water, sorry, honey and milk, get provided to you. Now we are closer than ever to that dream, and we have no idea what to do with it.
But also from a social and identity perspective. We still identify people with their jobs. Like that is the one thing you need to know about them. Heck, people identify themselves with their job, and sudden unemployment is psychologically dangerous because of that.
So far, the solution has been to find new jobs. Ok, machines put people out of jobs, lets make them machine maintenance people instead. Ok, computers automate desk jobs, lets make them programmers instead. I'm sure someone will make the people automated away with AI into AI teachers or something. Not enough people are thinking laterally.
Maybe we don't need jobs for a working society, maybe we don't need jobs to understand who we are? Maybe this whole "omg it will put people out of jobs" is a big strawman? And so what if it does?
The whole panic distracts us from the main question: Who should profit from the automation? So far, the profits are unevenly distributed. We already know that most people don't think the level of inequality is ok. Most of us are fine with some inequality, but not with the "1000 times your income" level of inequality we face today. If the CEO is a smart guy, it's fine that he makes in a month what I make in a year. But today, in some big corporations, the CEO makes in a month what the low-earners will make in their entire working life.
It's time that we have a serious discussion about who gets the profits generated by the robot that replaces you. Right now, that profit goes to everyone, except you. But why? Because we are still thinking about the economy the way that we did 100,1000 or 10,000 years ago. That labor somehow matters. But in world where labor is done by robots, it doesn't.
Some speculate that Kaspersky, [...] kept his Soviet-era intelligence connections.
No shit. Of course he did, you have to be a total idiot not to have connections to the intelligence sphere of the country you are operating in if you own a company in the security industry.
The question should not be if he has connections. That's a given. You think McAfee has no such connections? The question is if they affect the product he is selling in a technically meaningful way. That he keeps such connections for the purpose of sales is clear.
But hey, digging deeper than a sensationalist quote has fallen out of fashion, hasn't it?
How much of the Cold War do you think was created by people believing and/or wanting to have a Cold War?
McCarthy certainly caused many of the things he was afraid of to happen. For example, communists within the USA went underground due to his prosecutions. Before him, communism was simply another political option, like the Green party is today.
only a few Russian eyes, and those eyes are at least potentially hostile.
That is exactly why they want to see the source code. Because they are considered hostile, which makes it highly likely that those security products are being fitted with backdoors.
It shows they're not complete idiots.
If you want to know if something is a bullshit and you are the victim of propaganda, simply reverse the roles. If big Russian IT companies, known for working closely with the Russian government, would sell security products to the USA, how would you judge that the US government asks to see the source code for security reasons?
Yes, you would want to see the source code of security products, especially if they are made in a country that constantly paints you as its #1 cyber enemy and that is known for having its secret services work closely with its IT companies. If the Kremlin had hired me for consulting, getting the source code and carefully inspecting it would've definitely been on the list of things I'd recommend.
What's next? "Russian authorities enforce self-bondage laws on all citizens, requiring the use of seatbelts" ?
Nobody said anything about illegal. But if you say "Germans first" in Germany, you're immediately labeled a Nazi and people will start avoiding you just to not be associated with that.
Nobody said anything about illegal. Try making a point without inventing it wholesale.
Trump might be on to something. There are crazy amounts of funds being burned in even the average IT department because nobody wants to clean ship, like throwing the outdated shit out, sign off on the costs to replace it with something better.
That is because managers these days think in quaterly earnings, and such a project takes several quarters, if not several years. It's like driving your own car because you don't want to spend money on a new car - after some point, you are actually losing money because the increasing costs of repairs, bad fuel efficiency etc. add up to more than what a change of cars would cost you. But if you don't have the money to buy a new car, you are stuck in that cycle, even if you realize it.
Modernising IT costs money. Over a carefully chosen period of time, you can very certainly show that the program costs more money than it saves - but will that still hold over a longer period of time?
All of that is the reason why you don't subcontract if you don't have to. Ignore the consultants you recommend outsourcing, they are only there to make a killing on the outsourcing, then propose insourcing to your successor and make another killing on basically reverting everything.
If you outsource and immediately make a contract with the outsourced company for the exact same services that it used to provide in-house, you didn't understand anything.
There are scenarios where outsourcing makes sense. Most of the actual outsourcings done are not in that set.
And if you are the federal government, your job is not to provide business to a small number of IT companies. Your job is to serve the people of your country in the best possible way, and having your own IT that doesn't answer to any other business goals is one important part of that mission.
After driving several cars with adaptive cruise control, lane following, etc. etc. - that requirement to keep your hands on the wheel is the most obnoxious stupid thing in the world. The warnings and the sometimes violent "shake the driver awake" braking are stupid idiocity and the most memorable flaws I remember from those cars.
When I'm driving on the german Autobahn, at constant speed, with little or no traffic, I don't have to have my hands on the wheel. I can see everything for several kilometers ahead, thank you. The chance that anything happens where it would make a difference if I have my hands on the wheel or more comfortably resting near it are less than that of a sudden lightning strike from a clear sky.
This nanny "keep your hands on the wheel or I'll shout at you after 10 seconds" bullshit has ruined drive assist systems for me. In my next car, whether or not the car lets me drive comfortably as long as the situation is clear will be a buying decision.
That some idiot kills himself by being an idiot - who'dhavethoughtthatcouldhappen?
I've driven a bunch of cars with adaptive cruise control, automatic lane keeping and such things. Top-of-the line cars, current models, like the new BMW 5.
None of them would be able to drive anywhere near the 30+ minutes of the Tesla by themselves. What Tesla has there is much more than enhanced cruise control.
There are two drivers here. One is that yes, they don't like people picking apart their stuff, or repairing it themselves if one small part somewhere is broken. They'd rather want you buy a new one or send it to them for a more expensive repair / replacement.
But the other is that as things get smaller and thinner and lighter, some of these options are simply there for that purpose. Glueing things is easier, cheaper and lighter/slimmer than screwing it. Soldering chips on is cheaper, thinner, etc. than adding sockets. And so on.
There was a nice article many years ago when everyone cried about the non-detachable battery of the first iPhone, that this decision was largely driven by design and instead of a "screw you" attitude it was a "we don't care if you want to change it or not" attitude. Someone lifted the "it has to be detachable" restriction off the design team.
So malice or not, that is still the question. At the extent this particular device is locked down, I'd say there is a good part of "we don't want it opens nicely" involved, yes. But that's a matter of the degree of lock-up, not the mere fact by itself.
But that won't work for billion-dollar film budgets. Movies in particular remain a sticking point.
Copyright infringement is a problem, sure. However, even with all the torrent sites, movie budgets have been constantly increasing, and profits are great (if you ignore the Hollywood account that makes the most successful movies lose money on paper).
Hollywood is doing great. The focus on the AAA movies is completely misguided. We should turn our eyes to the smaller movies, the indie movies and such and check what the result there is. Hollywood blockbusters, like the five or six times before that they cried and at least one time swore under oath that something needs to be done or they're out of business, Hollywood blockbusters are doing just fine.
If nationalism spreads it fosters weak alliances between nations. Russia benefits by a weak nato and by a weak Europe.
That's a long shot along an uncertain path. Money and effort would be spent much better elsewhere.
Europe will be weakened by nationalist governments, hence why Russia is trying to help them to power.
Europe is weakening itself more than any interference ever could. If I were Russia, I'd stay way back to make sure I'm not preventing them from shooting themselves in the other foot.
While all you are saying is true, China does not show any ambitions of building an empire. It especially lacks any capability to project its military power. Last I checked, they had two aircraft carriers. (for comparison, the USA operates 10, half of the world-wide fleet).
China does understand the power of economics. Their economic activities around the world, especially their long game in Africa and South America, should worry anyone who looks beyond two election periods much, much more. This country is used to thinking in terms of centuries. They plant seeds now (of economic cooperation) that will blossom in 50 or 100 years.
The same is true for hacking. I don't think they care much about elections. In chinese terms, a US president is a temporary event. There'll be another one soon. But military secrets, technological advances, scientific progress - those are things worth stealing.
As it turned out if Trump can manage it he will end the Russian sanctions which have been crippling to the Russian economy.
Temporary. The Rubel is pretty much back to the same exchange rate it was before the sanctions, and chinese goods have largely replaced european and american goods. The first year or two were difficult, then the russian economy adapted.
The sanctions have been crippling to the european economy, for which Russia had been a large trade partner, and unlike Russia which was mostly a consumer and could switch to another supplier, due to the ongoing financial crisis, there were few other consumers to find. Industry lobby groups in many european countries have lobbied for years to get the sanctions lifted.
There was a good article in a local satire magazine recently about how belief in almighty russian hackers is now a recognized religion.
Russians are tricky, that's for sure. My girlfriend is Russian and I occasionally admire her ingenuity. And Putin is not a man to pull any blows (find some videos on YouTube how he tells his ministers that they care idiots unable to do their jobs).
But how did we come to this new McCarthyism where everything is blamed on russian hackers, as if a) there were no chinese, indian, european or american hackers and b) hackers are the only possible answer, not intentional leaks, misdirection, scaremongering and media hype.
Frankly speaking: Why would the russian government even care about elections in the US or Europe? It's not like there's much difference in whoever gets election. Real politics hasn't been made by the figureheads of our states for decades now. If I were Putin, I would pay 2 people to spread some misinformation about russian hackers, and 2000 people to hack the hell out of the lobby groups, big consulting companies, financial institutions and especially the secret services. In other words: The backroom government and the deep state.
Who cares about the people flying in Air Force One when you can influence the real politics being made behind closed doors?
Slashdot Mirror
With Capaldi, my interest in Doctor Who somehow plummeted. I can't even say why. I was a big, big fan of Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant. While Matt Smith was ok, I felt he was already a step down from Tennant, and I never warmed to Capaldi.
That's why I would've been outraged had they made The Doctor change gender at the 12th incarnation, but now it's just one more reason not to watch the show anymore.
Why? Because it's forced. It's an obvious deviation from the character development for no reason at all except submission to feminist outcry.
But hey, maybe the next Wonder Woman can be a man? It's not about gender, right? Of course it is about gender. We are human beings. Gender is one if not the first thing we notice about another human being, instinctively. There is nothing that is not about gender. Let's stop pretending that the sky is yellow and pigs fly. Doctor Who is a male character, and that is a part of who he is, just like him having two hearts. Gender is not some random biological detail that you can change like a hat. Any biologist can tell you that its effects on the body go beyond primary and secondary sex organs. Its effect on the mind are less clear, research is ongoing, but nobody with any knowledge on the matter would claim that there are none.
To change the gender of the character is to make him another character. And that's total bullshit in a series named after its character. They could've made a spin-off with a female doctor, a different character, and that would've been completely fine. I probably would've watched it. Or a spin-off based on River Song or Idris or even on Missy.
But hey, let's wait for the Wonder Woman movie starring Orlando Bloom and we'll see what all the people now shouting me down with "gender doesn't matter" will say then. :-)
Look, we call it "laws of nature", but they are nothing like the laws that are written into law books. It's just an unfortunate choice of words that causes confusion in some minds that take things too literal.
But have fun compensating for that silly law of gravity with a new  in your countries law books...
You'd think so, but that is a very classic piece of selective perception. Since we almost always (unless we are involved) see only the affairs that come to light, we assume that most if not all affairs do, eventually.
But what is your guess about the number of affairs that nobody except those involved ever finds out about? You seriously think that is a low number? Got any evidence for that except wishful thinking?
It might also be that they lost a lot of good will and reputation after they first promised support for Mac and Linux, and then changed their mind.
I'd buy one at the new price, if it supported macOS. But I won't buy one, even on new promises that it will, until it actually does.
The original submission points out that "This revival of Multics allows hobbyists, researchers and students the chance to experience first hand the system that inspired UNIX."
More importantly: To take some of the things that Multics did better and port them to Unix-like systems. Much of the secure system design, for example, was dumped from early Unix systems and was then later glued back on in pieces.
What we still haven't figured out is how to run a society that doesn't put your job as the central element of your life.
That goes beyond economy. Yes, economically we haven't figured out how to run Utopia. For all of history humans have dreamed about a life where you don't have to work, and all essentials, like food and water, sorry, honey and milk, get provided to you. Now we are closer than ever to that dream, and we have no idea what to do with it.
But also from a social and identity perspective. We still identify people with their jobs. Like that is the one thing you need to know about them. Heck, people identify themselves with their job, and sudden unemployment is psychologically dangerous because of that.
So far, the solution has been to find new jobs. Ok, machines put people out of jobs, lets make them machine maintenance people instead. Ok, computers automate desk jobs, lets make them programmers instead. I'm sure someone will make the people automated away with AI into AI teachers or something. Not enough people are thinking laterally.
Maybe we don't need jobs for a working society, maybe we don't need jobs to understand who we are? Maybe this whole "omg it will put people out of jobs" is a big strawman? And so what if it does?
The whole panic distracts us from the main question: Who should profit from the automation? So far, the profits are unevenly distributed. We already know that most people don't think the level of inequality is ok. Most of us are fine with some inequality, but not with the "1000 times your income" level of inequality we face today. If the CEO is a smart guy, it's fine that he makes in a month what I make in a year. But today, in some big corporations, the CEO makes in a month what the low-earners will make in their entire working life.
It's time that we have a serious discussion about who gets the profits generated by the robot that replaces you. Right now, that profit goes to everyone, except you. But why? Because we are still thinking about the economy the way that we did 100,1000 or 10,000 years ago. That labor somehow matters. But in world where labor is done by robots, it doesn't.
Some speculate that Kaspersky, [...] kept his Soviet-era intelligence connections.
No shit. Of course he did, you have to be a total idiot not to have connections to the intelligence sphere of the country you are operating in if you own a company in the security industry.
The question should not be if he has connections. That's a given. You think McAfee has no such connections? The question is if they affect the product he is selling in a technically meaningful way. That he keeps such connections for the purpose of sales is clear.
But hey, digging deeper than a sensationalist quote has fallen out of fashion, hasn't it?
How much of the Cold War do you think was created by people believing and/or wanting to have a Cold War?
McCarthy certainly caused many of the things he was afraid of to happen. For example, communists within the USA went underground due to his prosecutions. Before him, communism was simply another political option, like the Green party is today.
If they're sharing it with only Russia,
What makes you think the US or other western governments didn't ask for the source code and had it inspected?
only a few Russian eyes, and those eyes are at least potentially hostile.
That is exactly why they want to see the source code. Because they are considered hostile, which makes it highly likely that those security products are being fitted with backdoors.
It shows they're not complete idiots.
If you want to know if something is a bullshit and you are the victim of propaganda, simply reverse the roles. If big Russian IT companies, known for working closely with the Russian government, would sell security products to the USA, how would you judge that the US government asks to see the source code for security reasons?
What a misleading headline, wow.
Yes, you would want to see the source code of security products, especially if they are made in a country that constantly paints you as its #1 cyber enemy and that is known for having its secret services work closely with its IT companies. If the Kremlin had hired me for consulting, getting the source code and carefully inspecting it would've definitely been on the list of things I'd recommend.
What's next? "Russian authorities enforce self-bondage laws on all citizens, requiring the use of seatbelts" ?
Nobody said anything about illegal. But if you say "Germans first" in Germany, you're immediately labeled a Nazi and people will start avoiding you just to not be associated with that.
Nobody said anything about illegal. Try making a point without inventing it wholesale.
If yu think you're not allowed that in the USA - trying saying that in Germany.
Actually, don't.
No, seriousy. Don't.
Cynical.
Trump might be on to something. There are crazy amounts of funds being burned in even the average IT department because nobody wants to clean ship, like throwing the outdated shit out, sign off on the costs to replace it with something better.
That is because managers these days think in quaterly earnings, and such a project takes several quarters, if not several years. It's like driving your own car because you don't want to spend money on a new car - after some point, you are actually losing money because the increasing costs of repairs, bad fuel efficiency etc. add up to more than what a change of cars would cost you. But if you don't have the money to buy a new car, you are stuck in that cycle, even if you realize it.
Modernising IT costs money. Over a carefully chosen period of time, you can very certainly show that the program costs more money than it saves - but will that still hold over a longer period of time?
All of that is the reason why you don't subcontract if you don't have to. Ignore the consultants you recommend outsourcing, they are only there to make a killing on the outsourcing, then propose insourcing to your successor and make another killing on basically reverting everything.
If you outsource and immediately make a contract with the outsourced company for the exact same services that it used to provide in-house, you didn't understand anything.
There are scenarios where outsourcing makes sense. Most of the actual outsourcings done are not in that set.
And if you are the federal government, your job is not to provide business to a small number of IT companies. Your job is to serve the people of your country in the best possible way, and having your own IT that doesn't answer to any other business goals is one important part of that mission.
After driving several cars with adaptive cruise control, lane following, etc. etc. - that requirement to keep your hands on the wheel is the most obnoxious stupid thing in the world. The warnings and the sometimes violent "shake the driver awake" braking are stupid idiocity and the most memorable flaws I remember from those cars.
When I'm driving on the german Autobahn, at constant speed, with little or no traffic, I don't have to have my hands on the wheel. I can see everything for several kilometers ahead, thank you. The chance that anything happens where it would make a difference if I have my hands on the wheel or more comfortably resting near it are less than that of a sudden lightning strike from a clear sky.
This nanny "keep your hands on the wheel or I'll shout at you after 10 seconds" bullshit has ruined drive assist systems for me. In my next car, whether or not the car lets me drive comfortably as long as the situation is clear will be a buying decision.
That some idiot kills himself by being an idiot - who'dhavethoughtthatcouldhappen?
I've driven a bunch of cars with adaptive cruise control, automatic lane keeping and such things. Top-of-the line cars, current models, like the new BMW 5.
None of them would be able to drive anywhere near the 30+ minutes of the Tesla by themselves. What Tesla has there is much more than enhanced cruise control.
There are two drivers here. One is that yes, they don't like people picking apart their stuff, or repairing it themselves if one small part somewhere is broken. They'd rather want you buy a new one or send it to them for a more expensive repair / replacement.
But the other is that as things get smaller and thinner and lighter, some of these options are simply there for that purpose. Glueing things is easier, cheaper and lighter/slimmer than screwing it. Soldering chips on is cheaper, thinner, etc. than adding sockets. And so on.
There was a nice article many years ago when everyone cried about the non-detachable battery of the first iPhone, that this decision was largely driven by design and instead of a "screw you" attitude it was a "we don't care if you want to change it or not" attitude. Someone lifted the "it has to be detachable" restriction off the design team.
So malice or not, that is still the question. At the extent this particular device is locked down, I'd say there is a good part of "we don't want it opens nicely" involved, yes. But that's a matter of the degree of lock-up, not the mere fact by itself.
But that won't work for billion-dollar film budgets. Movies in particular remain a sticking point.
Copyright infringement is a problem, sure. However, even with all the torrent sites, movie budgets have been constantly increasing, and profits are great (if you ignore the Hollywood account that makes the most successful movies lose money on paper).
Hollywood is doing great. The focus on the AAA movies is completely misguided. We should turn our eyes to the smaller movies, the indie movies and such and check what the result there is. Hollywood blockbusters, like the five or six times before that they cried and at least one time swore under oath that something needs to be done or they're out of business, Hollywood blockbusters are doing just fine.
There's a difference between building an empire and forging (economic) alliances. Ancient Rome vs. the European Union.
If nationalism spreads it fosters weak alliances between nations. Russia benefits by a weak nato and by a weak Europe.
That's a long shot along an uncertain path. Money and effort would be spent much better elsewhere.
Europe will be weakened by nationalist governments, hence why Russia is trying to help them to power.
Europe is weakening itself more than any interference ever could. If I were Russia, I'd stay way back to make sure I'm not preventing them from shooting themselves in the other foot.
The thing is - China isn't going to invade America
Neither is Russia.
What, exactly, are you americans all so afraid about? Not being able to be the bully on the playground anymore, that's what?
Nobody is threatening you. Some countries are just tired of being threatened.
While all you are saying is true, China does not show any ambitions of building an empire. It especially lacks any capability to project its military power. Last I checked, they had two aircraft carriers. (for comparison, the USA operates 10, half of the world-wide fleet).
China does understand the power of economics. Their economic activities around the world, especially their long game in Africa and South America, should worry anyone who looks beyond two election periods much, much more. This country is used to thinking in terms of centuries. They plant seeds now (of economic cooperation) that will blossom in 50 or 100 years.
The same is true for hacking. I don't think they care much about elections. In chinese terms, a US president is a temporary event. There'll be another one soon. But military secrets, technological advances, scientific progress - those are things worth stealing.
As it turned out if Trump can manage it he will end the Russian sanctions which have been crippling to the Russian economy.
Temporary. The Rubel is pretty much back to the same exchange rate it was before the sanctions, and chinese goods have largely replaced european and american goods. The first year or two were difficult, then the russian economy adapted.
The sanctions have been crippling to the european economy, for which Russia had been a large trade partner, and unlike Russia which was mostly a consumer and could switch to another supplier, due to the ongoing financial crisis, there were few other consumers to find. Industry lobby groups in many european countries have lobbied for years to get the sanctions lifted.
There was a good article in a local satire magazine recently about how belief in almighty russian hackers is now a recognized religion.
Russians are tricky, that's for sure. My girlfriend is Russian and I occasionally admire her ingenuity. And Putin is not a man to pull any blows (find some videos on YouTube how he tells his ministers that they care idiots unable to do their jobs).
But how did we come to this new McCarthyism where everything is blamed on russian hackers, as if a) there were no chinese, indian, european or american hackers and b) hackers are the only possible answer, not intentional leaks, misdirection, scaremongering and media hype.
Frankly speaking: Why would the russian government even care about elections in the US or Europe? It's not like there's much difference in whoever gets election. Real politics hasn't been made by the figureheads of our states for decades now. If I were Putin, I would pay 2 people to spread some misinformation about russian hackers, and 2000 people to hack the hell out of the lobby groups, big consulting companies, financial institutions and especially the secret services. In other words: The backroom government and the deep state.
Who cares about the people flying in Air Force One when you can influence the real politics being made behind closed doors?