Uh, yeah, you can stop right there. If you believe a politicians track record is relevant to the question of whether or not you should trust them, I have a duly elected public representative right over here who would love to give a patriotic citizen such as yourself a great deal on a surplus bridge...
A techie who believes what he says enough to basically call out the most secretive, nastiest intelligence agencies of one of the most powerful countries in the world
or
a pack of politicians.
Oh, man, it's difficult. Maybe I should just flip a coin?
Reducing what happened with Christian Marillat to only a single thread is deceptive.
Probably. It doesn't change my point.
By forcing a name change, all they've accomplished is to piss off the people who value his service over any breakage that he manages to cause and making him even less likely to give a shit about what the Debian project wants or needs (assuming he could care even less than he already did).
People use his services to solve a problem with the core Debian distro, and apparently he runs his service well enough that people continue to rely on his stuff. The only way to "get rid of him" is to offer a better solution to the underlying problem, not to play games with names.
People are going to compose documents, spreadsheets, etc. on a tablet??
Maybe I need more coffee, can someone explain why anyone would want this?
Compose, no. Edit and update, yes.
Done right, it's actually a crazy powerful workflow.
Here's a trivial example... I do agility training with my dogs. I keep a spreadsheet of skills for each that I need to work on and add a check mark whenever I touch on that skill. I built it on my desktop using Google Drive, and keep a synced, offline version on my phone. Which means I can reference it and add that check mark when I'm actually training, or add a new skill to the list when I'm at class.
Now, is a spreadsheet the right tool for this sort of thing? Maybe a dedicated Android app would be better, but Google Drive is available on every device I care to use.
Obviously I'm assuming that this workflow is viable with whatever toolset Microsoft is offering. I have doubts that they could screw up something so simple, but lately I'm been amazed by their ability to do things exactly the least useful way.
The name actually caused real problems for Debian maintainers and users.
Hmmm... well, having scanned through that thread (read it folks, it's not that long), all I can say is that if that's the DPL-approved way of fixing problems, I don't want those idiots anywhere near my plumbing.
Public ultimatums are not an appropriate or effective technique to use on someone you don't have any functional control over.
1. Buy a phone with a removable battery. Cheap or expensive doesn't really matter. 2. Remove battery from phone. 3. Discard battery as appropriate for the type (it's probably classified as some sort of hazardous waste).
Your cellular phone is now 100% secure from government spying.
That's a good point. Canadian rail systems are somewhat... different. We don't have anywhere near as much passenger traffic, and we don't have dedicated passenger tracks outside of the subway systems (which I'm not going to count as "rail lines" in this discussion).
Freight complicates things, but not having freight doesn't really simplify the problem that much. There's a lot of other issues. Weather is a major one. Breakdowns are another big difference; I've never heard of a passenger train being cancelled due to engine failure.
Basically, there's a relatively high amount of schedule variability in planes which would simply not be tolerated by the rail industry.
The definitions don't get weird unless you are confused into thinking that tablets, smartphones, pdas, game consoles, etc, are something different than a PC with a different choice of software/peripherals.
But... but... they have to be. The industry analysts say so!
Even in a best-case scenario, where everyone headed to a specific destination lives along the same train line, I don't see this working out economically.
Even if it could work economically, the scheduling would be a bitch.
Trains don't really have a lot of flexibility in their schedules, particularly if they share the track with freight and whatnot. There's already a huge problem with people sitting around on tarmacs waiting for takeoff and that's just one mode of transportation. Mix in another mode with different constraints and I don't think it'll be pretty.
In other words, airport terminals and train stations are probably still needed to act as a passenger buffer.
All we need to do is redefine what a PC is (desktops, notebooks, and tablets)!
Exactly. I was under the impression that tablets were being counted under "mobile devices", mostly because of the Android/iOS platforms, with the tablet PC's being called "slates" for some reason. Admittedly, if you have someone starting to sell Android PC's the distinctions get a bit weird. And 10" Android tablets with attachable keyboard docks versus 10" Win8 tablets with attachable keyboard docks.
Er...
Actually, I think I'm starting to understand why Microsoft seems to be so utterly confused these days.
The firewall is an inbound HTTP filter, nothing more. It isn't designed to stop outbound traffic.
I know. And it's not even a very good HTTP filter. That's not relevant.
In the context of international relations, how (or even if) it works is irrelevant. In this context, we start from the assumption that it accomplishes the goals that the Chinese government publicly says it does, which is to control the Chinese portion of the Internet for the purposes of computer security, preventing dissemination of "illegal" information, etc.
This makes the significance of the Chinese government blaming attacks on uncontrolled criminal elements operating from the Chinese network space a bit more interesting. Rather than the flat-out denial that one would normally expect from the sort of regime that gets pissy about appearances, it's an official admission that the Great Firewall pretty much can't stop those in China that really want to get around it.
Ah, yeah, that was sarcasm. Everyone knows the GFW is crap in practice. But that fact that the government persists in using it implies that they might be a bit sensitive about being mocked by foreign governments about it...
Statistically if you get non-state sponsored hackers in every nation it makes sense that you're going to see more from China than anywhere else.
Yeah, but China has a firewall. Surely you're not suggesting that non-state sponsored Chinese hackers have figured out how to get around the national firewall?
Heh... actually, that wouldn't be a bad official response. Puts the Chinese in the position of either accepting responsibility for hacking, or admitting that their state firewall is actually pretty porous.
I'm guessing a Micheal Bay-ified version, complete with explosions, spaceships, maybe even an all out human on replicant war, with the fate of humanity hanging in the balance.
That could actually be kind of cool.
Now, if only they can come up with a name for it that isn't Blade Runner... If they want to tie it to a well-known franchise, the "Terminator" name can't get much more debased.
A minor can't have a PayPal account. As well, there's a "Terms for participation" which implies a contract to submit the bug. If a minor can't enter a contract, they can't agree to the terms.
That said, Nathan Winograd's HuffPo article amounts to little more than malicious hearsay and it is incredibly biased, leaving out critical information in favor of whipping lazy readers into a furor.
The core of his argument is based around documents filed by PETA's shelter to the state indicating the intake, adoption, and euthanasia rates of their "animal shelter".
Note the part of his discussion which centers on the fact that by calling their operational a "shelter", there's an understanding that they'll actually try to adopt out adoptable pets. The numbers they've given don't appear to support an active adoption policy.
Now, if as you say PETA is running this "shelter" purely to take in sick, injured or incurable pets so they don't get abandoned, then no problem. As long as they stop calling it a shelter and make sure that anyone turning animals over to them understands that they're almost certainly going to kill it. Or, as some cases indicate, just let it finish dying on its own in a stack of cages.
As for the argument that there are worse shelters and no-kill or rescue operations... yes. Yes there are. Unimaginably worse. The vast majority of them get into the state their in through a huge lack of resources (financial, staff, marketing, etc), which is the exact opposite of PETA's situation. That makes PETA's shelter an interesting case study... how can a shelter with all the money, volunteers and a powerful PR machine behind it kill 9x% of the pets that walk through the door?
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, yeah, you can stop right there. If you believe a politicians track record is relevant to the question of whether or not you should trust them, I have a duly elected public representative right over here who would love to give a patriotic citizen such as yourself a great deal on a surplus bridge...
I just don't know who to believe.
A techie who believes what he says enough to basically call out the most secretive, nastiest intelligence agencies of one of the most powerful countries in the world
or
a pack of politicians.
Oh, man, it's difficult. Maybe I should just flip a coin?
Probably. It doesn't change my point.
By forcing a name change, all they've accomplished is to piss off the people who value his service over any breakage that he manages to cause and making him even less likely to give a shit about what the Debian project wants or needs (assuming he could care even less than he already did).
People use his services to solve a problem with the core Debian distro, and apparently he runs his service well enough that people continue to rely on his stuff. The only way to "get rid of him" is to offer a better solution to the underlying problem, not to play games with names.
Compose, no. Edit and update, yes.
Done right, it's actually a crazy powerful workflow.
Here's a trivial example... I do agility training with my dogs. I keep a spreadsheet of skills for each that I need to work on and add a check mark whenever I touch on that skill. I built it on my desktop using Google Drive, and keep a synced, offline version on my phone. Which means I can reference it and add that check mark when I'm actually training, or add a new skill to the list when I'm at class.
Now, is a spreadsheet the right tool for this sort of thing? Maybe a dedicated Android app would be better, but Google Drive is available on every device I care to use.
Obviously I'm assuming that this workflow is viable with whatever toolset Microsoft is offering. I have doubts that they could screw up something so simple, but lately I'm been amazed by their ability to do things exactly the least useful way.
Hmmm... well, having scanned through that thread (read it folks, it's not that long), all I can say is that if that's the DPL-approved way of fixing problems, I don't want those idiots anywhere near my plumbing.
Public ultimatums are not an appropriate or effective technique to use on someone you don't have any functional control over.
1. Buy a phone with a removable battery. Cheap or expensive doesn't really matter.
2. Remove battery from phone.
3. Discard battery as appropriate for the type (it's probably classified as some sort of hazardous waste).
Your cellular phone is now 100% secure from government spying.
That's a good point. Canadian rail systems are somewhat... different. We don't have anywhere near as much passenger traffic, and we don't have dedicated passenger tracks outside of the subway systems (which I'm not going to count as "rail lines" in this discussion).
Freight complicates things, but not having freight doesn't really simplify the problem that much. There's a lot of other issues. Weather is a major one. Breakdowns are another big difference; I've never heard of a passenger train being cancelled due to engine failure.
Basically, there's a relatively high amount of schedule variability in planes which would simply not be tolerated by the rail industry.
But... but... they have to be. The industry analysts say so!
Even if it could work economically, the scheduling would be a bitch.
Trains don't really have a lot of flexibility in their schedules, particularly if they share the track with freight and whatnot. There's already a huge problem with people sitting around on tarmacs waiting for takeoff and that's just one mode of transportation. Mix in another mode with different constraints and I don't think it'll be pretty.
In other words, airport terminals and train stations are probably still needed to act as a passenger buffer.
Exactly. I was under the impression that tablets were being counted under "mobile devices", mostly because of the Android/iOS platforms, with the tablet PC's being called "slates" for some reason. Admittedly, if you have someone starting to sell Android PC's the distinctions get a bit weird. And 10" Android tablets with attachable keyboard docks versus 10" Win8 tablets with attachable keyboard docks.
Er...
Actually, I think I'm starting to understand why Microsoft seems to be so utterly confused these days.
The majority of Americans appear to be okay with rent-a-cops groping sick children flying to Disneyland. As long as it's to fight terrorists.
It's like "to fight terrorists" is some kind of magical key phrase which turns off higher brain functions.
Nope. It'll be an Indian call center.
I imagine the call drop-off statistics will be quite high at the "please try rebooting" step of the script.
I know. And it's not even a very good HTTP filter. That's not relevant.
In the context of international relations, how (or even if) it works is irrelevant. In this context, we start from the assumption that it accomplishes the goals that the Chinese government publicly says it does, which is to control the Chinese portion of the Internet for the purposes of computer security, preventing dissemination of "illegal" information, etc.
This makes the significance of the Chinese government blaming attacks on uncontrolled criminal elements operating from the Chinese network space a bit more interesting. Rather than the flat-out denial that one would normally expect from the sort of regime that gets pissy about appearances, it's an official admission that the Great Firewall pretty much can't stop those in China that really want to get around it.
Ah, yeah, that was sarcasm. Everyone knows the GFW is crap in practice. But that fact that the government persists in using it implies that they might be a bit sensitive about being mocked by foreign governments about it...
Yeah, but China has a firewall. Surely you're not suggesting that non-state sponsored Chinese hackers have figured out how to get around the national firewall?
Heh... actually, that wouldn't be a bad official response. Puts the Chinese in the position of either accepting responsibility for hacking, or admitting that their state firewall is actually pretty porous.
That could work, but you risk having them black out the parts you're interested in.
No, it might have been in a Highlander sequel.
To be honest, I've heard of dumber micro-payment schemes...
That could actually be kind of cool.
Now, if only they can come up with a name for it that isn't Blade Runner... If they want to tie it to a well-known franchise, the "Terminator" name can't get much more debased.
Worse, he applied RoundUp to unlicensed plants, and they survived. Instant patent violation.
According to the terms of the program, yes.
"Payment is paid out through a verified PayPal account, once the bug is fixed."
A minor can't have a PayPal account. As well, there's a "Terms for participation" which implies a contract to submit the bug. If a minor can't enter a contract, they can't agree to the terms.
The core of his argument is based around documents filed by PETA's shelter to the state indicating the intake, adoption, and euthanasia rates of their "animal shelter".
Note the part of his discussion which centers on the fact that by calling their operational a "shelter", there's an understanding that they'll actually try to adopt out adoptable pets. The numbers they've given don't appear to support an active adoption policy.
Now, if as you say PETA is running this "shelter" purely to take in sick, injured or incurable pets so they don't get abandoned, then no problem. As long as they stop calling it a shelter and make sure that anyone turning animals over to them understands that they're almost certainly going to kill it. Or, as some cases indicate, just let it finish dying on its own in a stack of cages.
As for the argument that there are worse shelters and no-kill or rescue operations... yes. Yes there are. Unimaginably worse. The vast majority of them get into the state their in through a huge lack of resources (financial, staff, marketing, etc), which is the exact opposite of PETA's situation. That makes PETA's shelter an interesting case study... how can a shelter with all the money, volunteers and a powerful PR machine behind it kill 9x% of the pets that walk through the door?
Technically, it's just a URL with some mangled HTML which might have made it into a link if a so-called editor actually did his fucking job.
So, it's a Slashdot trifecta, just not the one you identified. No prize for you.
You could have saved yourself some effort if you left out everything prior to the comma.