Government exists, because no human society over a few dozen members can ever hope to manage their society without it. It isn't some entity separate from society, it is inherent in any large society. Even largely hunter-gatherer societies still have rules, but generally have the enforcement of those rules can be done by the group itself.
Do you seriously imagine that any large scale agrarian or industrial society could ever manage itself without government? Or are you truly one of those insane wingnut Libertarian Anarchist types who thinks you could so much as build a bridge without some sort of management?
I can't reach the My Comments page from my Android devices. It goes to m.slashdot.org, and enters an endless loop.
Once again, the idiots that write this site are implementing untested changes.
But worst of all, I have no ads checked, and yet two stupid ads keep appearing on the main page. It's almost as if Dice just wants to kill Slashdot now.
You mean, the kind of infrastructure that, when some moron with a backhoe slices through the fiber, renders your infrastructure unreachable, and everyone simultaneously calling the badly undermanned IT department, including managers who will still continue to blame the poor fuck who no longer has any control over any of these wonderful "distributed" services, instead of people like you.
Enterprise customers have five or six years of making iOS and Android devices working with their infrastructure. I'd say the day has come and gone when AD integration is a significant reason to toss out current smart devices in favor of Redmond's latest perfect mobile solution.
I have a Nexus 7 that's nearly three years old whose battery life for even watching MP4 video on VLC is still about three hours, and a Nexus 5 that's good for over a day at moderate usage.
No bloody shit. Christ, mobile OSs are optimized for low battery use, and while Windows 10 doubtless has all the optimizations, Win32 and most Win64 applications don't. You'd eat through battery charge like crazy. And really, is there any serious reason to run this kind of software on a phone.
Anecdotes still don't count for much. Microsoft could barely be described as a bit player in hardware outside the Xbox division (which I suspect still hasn't paid back the vast investment Redmond has put into it).
That will have the effect of reducing its use. It was the fact that state and local law enforcement got a cut of seized property that made it so popular with the police. That incentive is now removed, and the FBI and Federal prosecutors can keep using it against organized crime.
I think anyone with some familiarity with pseudo skepicism of science would be familiar with Creationist attacks on evolutionary biology. It's not an uncommon topic on Slashdot, and has ended up in the courts on a number of occasions. The Dover trial revealed a good many of the more sophisticated tactics. The chief difference between Creationist pseudo skepticism and corporate interests is that the latter want to preserve business models and profit, while the former wants to preserve a worldview against evidence that destroys it. But the tactics are the same, right down to having a small number of accredited experts who try to bolster the pseudo skepticism with what amount to appeals to authority (in the case of Creationism and AGW pseudo skepticism, some of the very same people).
And just how many scientific theories are outright wrong? Yes, there are abandoned claims like phlogiston and phrenology, but I question if you could ever call any of them "scientific". I can think of a few; non-tectonic plate geological models that proved wrong, alternatives to Big Bang cosmology which were demonstrated to be wrong (although elements of the steady state model remain in the form of the Cosmological Constant). In general, elements of theories are shown to be wrong or inadequate, and you are right that theories are refined. But scientific theories themselves are rarely outright shown to be wrong. The worst fate seems to be what happened to Newtonian mechanics, which were subsumed in Relativity and ended up becoming a still useful set of calculations for non-relativistic velocities, more than adequate to land probes on Mars or put humans on the Moon.
Attacks on peer review, claims that consensus are somehow a sign of conspiracy, use of mass media to attack theories, construction of elaborate pseudo-scientifc "critiques" which fool those without sufficient command of the field. Creationists were doing this even before tobacco companies started invoking such techniques to defend themselves against a mounting body of evidence that what they were selling was killing a lot of people.
Because the tobacco companies in their turn, and the fossil fuels companies in their turn, didn't collude to attack any science that suggested their products were harmful.
As to Creationists, well, they are the prototypical pseudoscientists, and much of the anti-science strategy used by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to attack science is largely lifted from the hard work Creationists put into attacking biology.
And if you think scientific consensus is an oxymoron, then you don't understand how science works at all. This idea that science is nothing more than a pack of edifice-building conspirators being toppled by a few brave sacred cow tippers is absurd and demonstrates a complete ignorance of how science works, and how scientists interact. Providing all concerned understand that a well supported and accepted theory still remains a theory, and it's "truth" is provisional, there is absolutely nothing wrong with consensus.
It doesn't help that, for certain theories that are controversial to certain interest groups, vast amounts of deliberate misinformation, not to mention direct attacks on researchers and indeed on science itself, are unleashed.
Want to know why science is held in such low esteem these days; look to Big Tobacco, Big Oil and Creationists.
Latin America has been a disaster since the Spaniards first set foot on it. The US may not have helped, but let us be frank much of the region would be a mess US or no.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel a lot safer knowing there is one less gang of vicious karaoke gang violating basic decency by using unlicensed music.
You should, because with the Republicans seeming ready to choose between Adolf Trump and Mascara Cruz, it's almost certain to be a Democrat who wins the White House.
The guy is obviously a sociopath. It shouldn't surprise anyone that he's a crook, on top of being a shameless, heartless profiteer. He practically basks in his pathological condition. Sadly. jail will do nothing for him, like all sociopaths, he lacks even a basic capacity for human decency. He'll get out and immediately try to find new ways to ingratiate himself and fuck other people over.
And thus he must realize that such a law would almost certainly fail a First Amendment challenge. Such a law would be similar to the Sedition Act, and numerous legal scholars have held the view that that kaw would have been struck down to eventually.
This is nothing more than book banning somehow declared as being different because "on a computer!* and it's utterly ludicrous. It is not as if American citizens couldn't get their hands on Marxisr-Leninist, Maoist or Nazi literature, or dozens of other writings some held as a threat to the American way of life long before the internet.
If the US can tolerate Neo-Nazis matching down Main Street, or Christian Identity types dreaming of transforming America into a theocracy, I'm sure it can survive som extraordinarily small number of would-be Jihadis reading an IS web page.
And that's not even dealing with the technical difficulties of monitoring and enforcement. Yes, you might catch the low-hanging fruit; technically unsophisticated Jihadis, but it wouldn't prevent the more knowledgeable, and savvy. It would just be more overreach that would not accomplish its stated goal.
Slashdot Mirror
Government exists, because no human society over a few dozen members can ever hope to manage their society without it. It isn't some entity separate from society, it is inherent in any large society. Even largely hunter-gatherer societies still have rules, but generally have the enforcement of those rules can be done by the group itself.
Do you seriously imagine that any large scale agrarian or industrial society could ever manage itself without government? Or are you truly one of those insane wingnut Libertarian Anarchist types who thinks you could so much as build a bridge without some sort of management?
I can't reach the My Comments page from my Android devices. It goes to m.slashdot.org, and enters an endless loop.
Once again, the idiots that write this site are implementing untested changes.
But worst of all, I have no ads checked, and yet two stupid ads keep appearing on the main page. It's almost as if Dice just wants to kill Slashdot now.
You mean, the kind of infrastructure that, when some moron with a backhoe slices through the fiber, renders your infrastructure unreachable, and everyone simultaneously calling the badly undermanned IT department, including managers who will still continue to blame the poor fuck who no longer has any control over any of these wonderful "distributed" services, instead of people like you.
Enterprise customers have five or six years of making iOS and Android devices working with their infrastructure. I'd say the day has come and gone when AD integration is a significant reason to toss out current smart devices in favor of Redmond's latest perfect mobile solution.
Have some stats on Android battery life?
I have a Nexus 7 that's nearly three years old whose battery life for even watching MP4 video on VLC is still about three hours, and a Nexus 5 that's good for over a day at moderate usage.
You seriously believe that the nth iteration of Windows Mobile is going to kill the PC?
No bloody shit. Christ, mobile OSs are optimized for low battery use, and while Windows 10 doubtless has all the optimizations, Win32 and most Win64 applications don't. You'd eat through battery charge like crazy. And really, is there any serious reason to run this kind of software on a phone.
Except it doesn't always produce positive results for society. That is why their need to be basic rules.
Theranos: The Hands Of Fate
Anecdotes still don't count for much. Microsoft could barely be described as a bit player in hardware outside the Xbox division (which I suspect still hasn't paid back the vast investment Redmond has put into it).
That will have the effect of reducing its use. It was the fact that state and local law enforcement got a cut of seized property that made it so popular with the police. That incentive is now removed, and the FBI and Federal prosecutors can keep using it against organized crime.
I think anyone with some familiarity with pseudo skepicism of science would be familiar with Creationist attacks on evolutionary biology. It's not an uncommon topic on Slashdot, and has ended up in the courts on a number of occasions. The Dover trial revealed a good many of the more sophisticated tactics. The chief difference between Creationist pseudo skepticism and corporate interests is that the latter want to preserve business models and profit, while the former wants to preserve a worldview against evidence that destroys it. But the tactics are the same, right down to having a small number of accredited experts who try to bolster the pseudo skepticism with what amount to appeals to authority (in the case of Creationism and AGW pseudo skepticism, some of the very same people).
And just how many scientific theories are outright wrong? Yes, there are abandoned claims like phlogiston and phrenology, but I question if you could ever call any of them "scientific". I can think of a few; non-tectonic plate geological models that proved wrong, alternatives to Big Bang cosmology which were demonstrated to be wrong (although elements of the steady state model remain in the form of the Cosmological Constant). In general, elements of theories are shown to be wrong or inadequate, and you are right that theories are refined. But scientific theories themselves are rarely outright shown to be wrong. The worst fate seems to be what happened to Newtonian mechanics, which were subsumed in Relativity and ended up becoming a still useful set of calculations for non-relativistic velocities, more than adequate to land probes on Mars or put humans on the Moon.
Attacks on peer review, claims that consensus are somehow a sign of conspiracy, use of mass media to attack theories, construction of elaborate pseudo-scientifc "critiques" which fool those without sufficient command of the field. Creationists were doing this even before tobacco companies started invoking such techniques to defend themselves against a mounting body of evidence that what they were selling was killing a lot of people.
Because the tobacco companies in their turn, and the fossil fuels companies in their turn, didn't collude to attack any science that suggested their products were harmful.
As to Creationists, well, they are the prototypical pseudoscientists, and much of the anti-science strategy used by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to attack science is largely lifted from the hard work Creationists put into attacking biology.
And if you think scientific consensus is an oxymoron, then you don't understand how science works at all. This idea that science is nothing more than a pack of edifice-building conspirators being toppled by a few brave sacred cow tippers is absurd and demonstrates a complete ignorance of how science works, and how scientists interact. Providing all concerned understand that a well supported and accepted theory still remains a theory, and it's "truth" is provisional, there is absolutely nothing wrong with consensus.
The US has done plenty of domestic development. A helluva lot of work in the computer sciences; not just theory but R&D, happens in the US.
It doesn't help that, for certain theories that are controversial to certain interest groups, vast amounts of deliberate misinformation, not to mention direct attacks on researchers and indeed on science itself, are unleashed.
Want to know why science is held in such low esteem these days; look to Big Tobacco, Big Oil and Creationists.
Latin America has been a disaster since the Spaniards first set foot on it. The US may not have helped, but let us be frank much of the region would be a mess US or no.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel a lot safer knowing there is one less gang of vicious karaoke gang violating basic decency by using unlicensed music.
Perhaps that community will fire the morons they hired for cops, and find cops that aren't simpering halfwits.
You should, because with the Republicans seeming ready to choose between Adolf Trump and Mascara Cruz, it's almost certain to be a Democrat who wins the White House.
The guy is obviously a sociopath. It shouldn't surprise anyone that he's a crook, on top of being a shameless, heartless profiteer. He practically basks in his pathological condition. Sadly. jail will do nothing for him, like all sociopaths, he lacks even a basic capacity for human decency. He'll get out and immediately try to find new ways to ingratiate himself and fuck other people over.
Only if Seth Rogen has another really shitty movie opening in the next few weeks.
And thus he must realize that such a law would almost certainly fail a First Amendment challenge. Such a law would be similar to the Sedition Act, and numerous legal scholars have held the view that that kaw would have been struck down to eventually.
This is nothing more than book banning somehow declared as being different because "on a computer!* and it's utterly ludicrous. It is not as if American citizens couldn't get their hands on Marxisr-Leninist, Maoist or Nazi literature, or dozens of other writings some held as a threat to the American way of life long before the internet.
If the US can tolerate Neo-Nazis matching down Main Street, or Christian Identity types dreaming of transforming America into a theocracy, I'm sure it can survive som extraordinarily small number of would-be Jihadis reading an IS web page.
And that's not even dealing with the technical difficulties of monitoring and enforcement. Yes, you might catch the low-hanging fruit; technically unsophisticated Jihadis, but it wouldn't prevent the more knowledgeable, and savvy. It would just be more overreach that would not accomplish its stated goal.