A lot of people around here seem to base a lot of their perceptions and priorities on what things were like 15 years ago.
That's pretty much Slashdot in a nutshell. Shoot, say something like systemd, wayland, Java performance, IPv6 deployment, or cloud computing and you're likely to get a stack of punch cards thrown at you for being a heretic.
I get that people really love their headphone jack, I've never had an issue with Bluetooth but I've quickly learned my lesson about trying to encourage anyone on Slashdot to just use BT for everything audio, but the whole port thing aside, the thing about this device that I think really killed it. $1300 price tag. I get that Apple came out with the $1k phone just recently and what-not but look every phone maker on this planet. If current gen will now always cost $900+, I'll always go with previous gen. $500 is literally the most I will pay for a smartphone, full stop. The price tags on recent smartphones is way, way, way outside the domain of reasonable in my opinion. Clearly I am not the target audience of current gen phones.
You do not want to accept the job of 'backup driver' because you are basically taking the blame
Hold up. While it's tempting to think this case is the bar we're setting. Consider the released footage of the driver for a second. Imagine any industry where you look away from a machine in motion for that long, yeah, you're at fault for your reckless behavior. Like if I was watching a show on my phone while operating a table saw, yeah, I really wouldn't have a strong case for an injury lawsuit.
there is a cognitive disconnect between the autopilot and the 'backup driver' that is supposed to suddenly become situationally aware in a split second
Bull fucking shit. It's about as disconnected as using cruise control and asking people to keep tabs on how fast or slow traffic is going. Just keep your goddamn eyes on the fucking road, it's not brain surgery.
Anybody's guess who would be responsible the moment that some states allow a truly driverless car
No, there's no guessing, because when we get to that point, we'll have laws that outline who is at fault and the kinds of insurance a company needs to operate a fully driverless machine. I get we like to rag on politicians here at Slashdot, but you can't deny there's going to be dollar signs that pop up into someone's eyes about regulating fully automatic machines interacting with the general public. If anything greed will put short work to wild-wild-west style self-driving cars.
Basically the rest of your comment is "We don't know ABC..." Yeah, we don't but we can base it off of what we do know and go from there. Your comment is the Webster's definition of Luddite. No one has every answer, that's not a reason to stop doing anything. Yeah, there's going to be complication and people will get killed along the way, add that to the pile of 103 folks who died today in the US driving somewhere or the 15,000 people who were involved in some sort of highway collision. I mean shit dude, if we didn't do something simply because we didn't have all the answers upfront, fuck, we'd all be dead of preventable diseases. What is the point of your drivel here? That something new is complicated? Wow, big reveal there.
It's their new buzzword to replace libtard. So when you see them saying NPC you can just replace it 1:1 with libtard to catch what they're trying to say. Clearly, it's the new "cool word" to use to own some group in the ever wonderful world of A vs B politics. [insert audible eye roll]
Due diligence and best practices were sacrificed at the alter of political correctness. People were so desperate to have a female CEO and founder of a large company that they disregarded established safeguards.
What the absolute fuck my friend?! Elizabeth Holmes' is a con-artist. They come in both male and female variety. Con-artist get away with a lot of shit because most sane people think other people, especially people in power, are equally sane. This episode isn't a marker of how PC has wronged us all, I mean good grief there's way, way, way better examples of that, but nah my friend this is just shitty people with power. Let's at the very least classify it correctly. Hell, if you want to toss a buzzy word in on it, you can say this is exactly how entitled shit heads run companies. She wasn't CEO because everyone wanted a woman, she was CEO because she had a lawyer team to unleash on anyone who'd challenge her entitled ass.
They'll have a framework for that API to automatically remove uses of the replaced API, the framework however will require the use of a new programming language of which they've got a handy SDK for converting Go, C++, and Java into the new programming language which then "compiles" into a 126MB JavaScript blob.
Android people like you that defend this inexcusable flaw are the worst kind of scum.
Laying it on a bit thick don't you think? Being a platform apologist is bad, but I wouldn't rank it as "worst kind of scum", even if just limiting to the tech industry or even more so to just mobile OS platforms. Save some room for the real criminals who are making money off your data.
Websites tracking you and gathering data is nothing new. When I first heard of DNT I recalled the wonderful nothing burger that was P3P. I'm pretty sure that in a few more years we'll have yet another attempt at trying to tell websites to behave for it to go absolutely nowhere. The problem here is that the Internet is ran "by suggestion and recommendation." Now running the web like that has made it wildly successful and to point, the W3's mission is to simply continue purposing, suggesting, and recommending standards for all to obey, but those sites are more than free to give any recommendation the middle finger. Asking a site to not track you is an enforcement issue and we're just not going to solve this problem by committee. The notion that W3 or any other standards body is going to "fix" this problem is foolish.
Asking sites to not track you will largely have to fall on local regulators to enact law. Given the global nature of the web, that's no small feat. However, companies are being given a golden chance to self regulate here and are clearly showing the inability to do so. It is beyond frustrating to see these large companies continually force people to indicate to their law makers to begin regulating the Internet simply because these companies cannot resist the allure of short term profit. It is at least my hope that in the future people recognize the level of inevitable regulation that was created during our time here, and remember the companies that drove them to it as the rapacious fools they really are. Folks like Mark Zuckerberg are nothing more than modern robber barons who by chance early entered an emerging market and rather than expand the competitiveness, act in any manner consistent with "fair market", or ensure economic diversity, they sought only to cripple competition, obscure interoperability, evade social responsibility to their country of origin and the citizens around them, and maximize profits by acting in completely amoral manners that if the tables turned would outrage them from the word "go".
No what I'm getting at isn't the human "why" here. That's pretty obvious. The "why" is the empirical side of that. The maths that would be behind explaining the "why". Yes, we can easily chalk it up to misdirection, the more important thing is how to teach a computer that misdirection is happening and that requires understanding the "why" the computer got there in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that you understand what an average is. So let's work off that. Weather is whatever it is when you walk outside. People record that day's weather, temperature, and other points of data. Continue to do this for a set of locations of which, when talking about global temperatures, is a lot of data points per day. At the end of the year, what you will do is then take the average of those data points for region/entire planet, for month/season/year. The last one of each, average for entire planet for the year, is the one specifically being talked about here. That average number is the fourth highest value in a data set of this particular measure since 1880.
Now take that data and begin breaking down into 30-year buckets. That should give you roughly 4.6 "buckets". This is the value of a particular measure that you would begin to build a climate model on for that particular bucket. Basically, your model indicates "Oh yeah this area usually gets a lot of rain" or "Oh yeah, snow usually comes around November and ends in March" and so forth. Now of course, there's a much more strict language used in terms of statistics than I'm using here but you should get the idea.
However, with those 30 year buckets you can also look at how those climate models are changing. "Snow was common in November in this area in the first bucket, is no longer common in this last bucket." Additionally you can see events that go along with the change in these models, "Snow, which usually requires a cold climate to occur, was not common in November in this last bucket for this region and we saw two days where the temperature in particular years was higher than the average for that specific bucket for the month of November in this last bucket for this region."
To more specifically address the recent cold snaps. We know that the cold air is coming from the arctic region. We know this by looking at things like the jet stream and more specifically anemometer data shows the speed and direction of wind, so it's not entirely difficult to see where cold air is coming from, especially the most recent arctic blasts we've received. Cold air coming from that region of the planet into our region of the planet is not common based on previous anemometer data. Yes, it gets cold during the winter here, but it gets cold here for a different reason other than polar winds sweeping down into our region. Typically, polar winds stay close to the poles and that is because of a feature known as a polar vortex. There are ideas as to why this is happening and ultimately science will have an accurate model for why the polar wind is dipping so close to the equator.
But do know that the most recent "cold snap" we just had is indeed due to a recent development in the polar climate (it's average data over 30 year terms) and not due to more common methods. Now there's not enough data (see definition for the word "recent") to accurately say that this new feature is part of global warming, but it indeed raises eyebrows and it's definitely a starting point to consider. However, we won't know until we have several more decades of data. But it is sufficient to say that "cold snaps" of yesteryear (previous 30-year bucket) are not like the "cold snap" we just recently had, they began in entirely different ways.
The chant of "weather isn't climate" that you commonly hear is to remind folks that today's weather is just a single data point within a sea of data points that make up a climate model. We can have very bitterly cold days within that data set, but if the average is higher because the number of hotter days out number the number of bitterly cold days, then that's just how the data works, that's what averages mean. Something to consider, my neck of the woods here hovered around six degrees during the couple of days we had our most recent "cold snap". Yesterday and today it was a high in the seventies. You can easily see that those very high temperatures will easily over power the two/three days of cold we had.
Yeah that's the game plan. Fingers crossed on that one. But yeah, if you go Oracle's OpenJDK build, you basically have to update on new version. LTS or not as the LTS only applies to their commercial offering. However, considering its Oracle we are talking about here, I'll continue to be firmly in the "I'll believe that's the plan when I see it."
I've seen a couple of comments already where folks are talking about DeepMind being able to micro and click faster than a human. While that's neat, that's not entirely the goal here with DeepMind. The makers already put an artificial limit on the actions DeepMind can execute to 600/minute. In comparison the humans are executing at around 250-300 actions per minute. Now that indeed made DeepMind's micro game strong, what was the real tipping point was that DeepMind could see anywhere where a unit was located. Humans however can only see a "screen at a time". When DeepMind's makers went back and implemented "screen at a time" limitation, DeepMind was easily fooled again. And that's the thing here. Not the "can I beat a human?" but "can a human fool me?". As soon as the amount of information coming IN to DeepMind was reduced, the data coming OUT couldn't compensate and the humans were able to slowly figure out how to trick the AI into an unwinnable situation.
There's a continual fallacy on Slashdot where pure research like DeepMind is confused for "who's jerb can it take and reasons why it can't take that jerb." The media here is presenting in the terms of "Hey look! Something AI can do better than us worthless puny humans!" but DeepMind is mostly research first. The entire point here isn't, "Hey can I pawn this guy?" It's why did limiting the input allow the human to so easily fool the machine? Because researchers aren't sure why the AI was so easily fooled where when it had a wider field of view, it could not be so easily fooled. That question has a lot more wider ranging implications than how great the micro game is for DeepMind.
Not sure why there's comments of licensing issues... it's a free download from Oracle's website
Well the issue is complex if you stick to Oracle provided binaries, the TL;DR simple answer is to move on to OpenJDK and be done with it.
Java SE 8 which was the last version you could "freely" use in a commercial product, if you go to Oracle's website at the moment, you'll get this message.
Oracle will not post further updates of Java SE 8 to its public download sites for commercial use after January 2019. Customers who need continued access to critical bug fixes and security fixes as well as general maintenance for Java SE 8 or previous versions can get long term support through Oracle Java SE Subscription or Oracle Java SE Desktop Subscription. For more information, and details on how to receive longer term support for Oracle JDK 8, please see the Oracle Java SE Support Roadmap.
Going forward you now have two options. Oracle OpenJDK which is an open source JDK that you may use as you see fit, the end. Oracle JDK, which starting at version 11 is Oracle OpenJDK plus some Oracle enhancements. You may freely download Oracle JDK and use it for development and testing, however, Oracle JDK cannot be used for production or commercial use without being anally raped by Oracle, so yeah you cannot download Oracle JDK and just use it without being in some degree of violation of Larry Ellison's 37th yacht fund somewhere in the fine print of that download. Additionally, Oracle has gotten a little blood thirsty lately so use Oracle JDK without a license at your own damn risk.
So you might ask, so if we have OpenJDK, who would want Oracle JDK? The important thing to remember that OpenJDK provided by Oracle is Oracle's build of OpenJDK, which may or may not have all the most recent patches. Basically, Oracle's OpenJDK is on par patch wise the day a new version hits with Oracle JDK. So when Java 11 hit, that day Oracle JDK and Oracle OpenJDK were functionally the same. However any patches that Oracle JDK has received since that day, Oracle OpenJDK hasn't or might have, it's basically "meh we patch it when we patch it." However, Oracle isn't the only game in the OpenJDK build world.
Here's a post about all the different folks building OpenJDK. I suggest OpenJDK from AdpotOpenJDK or if you are using Linux, BSD, Unix, etc Just use the OpenJDK that your vendor provides, they usually keep it reasonably up to date. What the change does do, is make everyone change their old habit of just going to Oracle's site, download their JDK, and go from there. Instead, just go grab a non-Oracle build, beside we shouldn't be frequenting Oracle anyway.
Outside of that, Java is still Java and unsurprisingly Oracle is still shooting themselves in the foot. The most recent move with Java 9, 10, and 11 only further cements folks' decisions to leave Oracle as their provider of a Java implementation.
I get what you're saying here and I don't disagree, but I feel you are over simplifying the issue and to some extent the details matter. Now I will caution you that this is a pretty long reply because I'm trying to highlight something here and I hope you catch on. It is important to note that a lot of these ISP monopolies are granted at the local level, not the Federal level. So simply saying:
If you want to fix this, just rescind the government-granted monopolies
is implying that you feel we can solved this at the local level. Which again, I don't disagree that we ought to solve it at the local level, but let's take a quick peek at that.
Let's take my city that I live in as an example. Quick intro to how my city runs. For our "executive" we have the mayor and vice mayor, who are elected to four year terms with three term limit. For our "legislative" we have the city council, which has seven seats. Five are elected and two are for the mayor and vice mayor. Council members are elected to four year terms, and we have one or two seats come up about every two years. The mayor and vice mayor's votes on the council are only considered for city budget, the creation of special districts, and the creation of city boards but they may purpose ordinances for the council to consider. City boards, once created by 5/7 vote, are given three seats by default unless otherwise noted by law, the terms and limits for service vary per board, but by default are two year terms with no limit by default. Those seats are appointed by the mayor and approved by the elected council (so mayor and vice mayor have no say, nor are they allowed into chambers during confirmation). The boards are appropriated a budget by council and approve projects and apply regulation independently. For regulation, the board by default has executive oversight but always includes the mayor and vice mayor, in boards that have more than three seats, the oversight is by the chair, co-chair, mayor, vice mayor, and a member of the board that is appointed by the board to the executive oversight committee. Again boards approve projects independently so basically if a board has the money, they can approve a project to set up speed cameras without first contacting the city council. The mayor must sign off on any projects before they begin, if the mayor does not, the board may then have the council approve the project but only with unanimous consent. The board that handles ISPs, and this may give you some indication as to how old this board is and what kind of circumstances prompted its creation, is the "Cable Television Board". It is a seven member board given a three year term with a ten term limit and is one of the special boards where six seats are appointed and one seat is given to a council member. So I literally can only vote for one out of the seven seats, where the other six are appointed by recommendation, and I'm pretty sure you can guess who gets recommend to that board. But even then, I can vote on "a" council member, but that doesn't mean that, "that" council member I voted in is the one who gets the lone member seat in the board, that's determined by the full council (which includes the mayor and vice mayor). Additionally, the executive oversight for this board is the mayor, vice mayor, chair, co-chair, an appointed member of the board, and three additional seats are given to this board's executive oversight committee, one which is given to the council member and two more that are appointed independently meaning they must not already be in some other service to the city's government. Both of those two seats in the executive oversight committee are traditionally given to the local Comcast's office's head of municipal relations and some other Comcast person from the local office. However, six years ago, that some other person from Comcast was not appointed back and instead it is been held for the last two terms to... I'm not even going to pretend, I have no idea what the person's title is in their
YouTube didn't reach out and fix the issue until it gained a lot of attention and bad press
Yeah clearly you didn't finish reading my comment.
What happens to the next person who gets an extortion attempt like this and doesn't get a lot of press attention?
I don't know, I don't care. Point being the platform is trash, it should go down like a stinking inferno it is. And the platform that replaces it, prediction, it's pretty good, till it becomes too profitable and then turns to trash. I'm going to bet a $1 that will be the case forever. So long as mass media companies drag whoever is the new hotness into court, this whole cycle will continue forever. Centralized services start great, end trash, and profit grubbing media conglomerates make it such. So as for the users, fuck em for all I care. Use a shit platform expect to be shitted on.
Hey it's fun bashing on YouTube and trust me, I'm all game for a good pointing out how much YouTube's system of strikes and take downs suck. However, let us all stop for just a second to realize that YouTube did indeed reach out and fix the issue. Still their system sucks, though. It is heavily favored to take downs rather than legitimate moderation. They made amends in this instance I guess, but still it took way more energy than it ought to.
This should be the norm for service providers that utilize a service not in house. Google, Apple, and Amazon among others routinely query Wikipedia for all kinds of things and then provide the results of the query as part of their service. Google, Apple, and Amazon need to step up to providing meaningful support to third parties that they use for their service, just not the most visible one, in this case Wikipedia. IMHO tossing a million here and a million there to Wikipedia is definitely a step, but Google providing no-cost usage of their services is much better than what I've seen and heard other big players providing them. It would definitely be a whole lot better if Google et al was providing that which was listed in level of support from Google to all of the third party services.
If the CO2 can be converted into Hydrogen and electricity, both of which are useful byproducts of the process, it might be economically feasible
Whoa, whoa, whoa there buddy. Let me stop you right there. There's nothing economically feasible about metallic sodium at the moment. I guess the next step is for someone to figure that step out.
Hell I don't think that's really hitting it home enough. If a shutdown allowed business to run free, businesses would literally start lobbying to shutdown our government every chance they could get. They would literally spending millions on ads to incite enough anger on any one topic to force shutdowns all of the time. It literally rewards businesses for successfully launching campaigns to end or government on a continual basis. The entire point is to make it hurt when a the government shuts down so that people force the government to not do that, to reward people keeping it open. There needs to be a profit motive to keeping the government open, the second there isn't that, then there's zero point in keeping a government in the first place.
Yea, but the cost of opening the government is $5.7 Billion.... Out of a $44~ Trillion budget.
I think that's the problem here. Every cycle we go through this. [Insert some topic] is being tied to "can we keep the government open?". The underlying issue is that the President de jure (being it Trump/Obama/Bush/Whomever) is taking a topic that requires a lot of debate and discussion and attaching it to the topic of "can we keep the government open." Really we have two issues here.
One, can you get the one big thing you promised in your campaign done? Two, can you maintain the government as it is currently funded? Recent Presidents and Congresses seem have taken the tactic of taking the first topic and making it hinge on the second. The thing is that each political party has made whatever their topic of the current cycle so amped up, that they see combining the two different topics into a single unified topic as justifiable. Ultimately, whatever uber hyped piece of whatever one gets passed, because of the super hype only ensures its demise the second the tables turn.
I say we write the $57 dollar check so the kids can have their milk money and you can put gas in the car.
The only problem is that just as soon as we write the check, that's just opening up the actual "work on putting the fence up" to be put on forever repeating delay. And then as soon as the winds change the fence idea just fades away as quickly as the keep the medicine cabinet stocked idea faded. At some point I think we'll begin to understand that holding a hostage the gas and milk money is an incredibly ineffective idea. Until that time, we're just going to have this same thing happen over and over and the details of how much, who supports, and long term effects of doing that will all just be damned.
Ultimately both Congress leadership and the President ought to be tossed out for any shutdown. A shutdown should cost them all their jobs the second the government is opened back up. Keeping the government open, no strings attached, should be the MO of our government and it isn't because we keep taking voter issues and connecting them to fiscal suicide. This current shutdown only emboldens the next person in office to do a shutdown of whatever length this one is minus one day. I may soften my tone the second the US government realizes how stupid it is to do shutdowns much like how they had to learn that lesson in 1879 with Rutherford B Hayes. Till then, fuck them all for shutting it down, all leadership deserves to loose their jobs for this.
It's like arguing over $57 dollars for a fencing in the back yard to keep the kids safe
Also, we have a nasty habit in this country of doing things half assed. I've seen promises of "We're not going to pass new taxes", "We're going to fight this war to make America safe", "We're going to fully fund infrastructure", or "We're going to pass this to make medicine in America affordable". I am willing to bet the farm that this "We're going to build a wall to keep us safe" is going to be right up there with the other four I've mentioned. So if the idea is we only need a fence to keep the kids safe, we might want to go ahead and kiss the kids good-bye. Let's be clear that $57 is just a drop in a bucket of potential shutdowns to come. So let's not pretend that we're just talking about $57. That $57 isn't "Let's end the fight." That $57 is "Let's pick up the pace on shutdowns." The second we write the $57 check, we might want to go ahead and get ready for the shutdown over the $87 check for whatever reason. Just as soon as that's written, we'll need to get ready for the shutdown over the $112 check for whatever reason the next guy in office comes up with, rise and repeat. We the public should really rethink normalizing this kind of behavior no matter what party is behind the desk in the White House.
Why would anyone want to upload a screenshot to Mozilla's servers?
This is a torn issue. There's A/B testing that shows there's users wanting to take a screenshot and share it. Mozilla is trying (well actually was trying) their hand at being that person who does the sharing as opposed to say imgur or something. This next part being only my opinion, I have reservations about Mozilla being the share folks, they ought to just stick to the browser but I totally understand some of the rationale behind why they'd want to be in the mix. I don't agree with those opinions but again that is just me speaking here.
Usually when you take a screenshot it's because you need to use it locally, as in sending the file to someone, or archiving it
Well, sending it to someone for some users is providing a shorten link to a web address. I get it, that's not everyone, but reading the boards I think I recall them indicating having use case numbers that indicated that some folks are link sharers. I don't know the specific numbers as that's not obviously in any of their notes they post to the blog/maillist/boards.
It seems odd that they'd implement this ability at all; a bit shady even.
Again my opinion only, I kind of agree with you there. However, they were (maybe they will in some other incarnation later?) testing out services. What the ultimate goal for services should be pretty obvious, but from mailinglist, I've not heard anything about monetizing services. Again, I don't like it, but I get Mozilla needs cash too. I'll try not to get too political here with things like, "Well if they didn't spend ____ then..." It's mixed bag with me and my opinion here that's worth two cents. So I again, I agree 98% of the way let's say.
Surely if you need to upload a screenshot to Mozilla to report a browser bug, it makes more sense to just send the image file you just saved locally.
I don't think the screenshot feature is there to facilitate bug reporting. When it was announced, the feature was mostly there to address some use cases from users.
I do want to point out that a patch was accepted the same day of the issue being raised on Github. However, there was some A/B testing and some discussion about if ditching the upload function altogether should be the course of action. I think that the end of the Test Pilot program settled the debate, which is the servers that were receiving the images. Again, I just want to make sure you absolutely understand, I agree with you, but I can also see why Mozilla might want to test out services and see what the general feel is for that. I don't think it's been glowing reviews everywhere for any of the Test Pilot programs or at least that's my feel I get having read the mailinglist for the last several months now, but also I caution anyone to take anything I say with a grain of salt. I definitely will welcome Mozilla focusing more on Rust/Firefox than these Test Pilot things.
So then you think the Congress can put whatever they want into, and leave out things that they've already approved, for a CR
One, name a CR where that has been done, because most CR written this side of the aughties and the decade before hand have been "status quo" resolutions with minor tweaks to reach majority. Two, you're correct in that nothing legally prevents them from doing what you've said, but that is not the CR in question that was tabled by the Senate recently. Three, even if they did do that, that's the House's prerogative. They hold the purse of the nation per Article one. While I'm not advocating rubber stamps from the President, what I am advocating is that if a CR presents to the President that has passed both chambers, then there was plenty of time before hand for the President to act on the matter. Vetoing a CR is either lazy, dumb, or being an asshat take your pick. There's tons of time for a President to hammer out a budget before we even get to the point of a veto CR. The current President had two years, two flipping years to build a budget before we even got to CR time. So again, I'm not advocating rubber stamps, but c'mon, the Administration isn't even attempting compromise on agreeing that our government should continue to run status quo. And in more general terms, yeah I still stand by the screw you if you can't agree to continue status quo. If CRs started turning into agenda hand grenades, I might change my position on that, but as it stands, Congress isn't in the mood to start doing that as they know as soon as the tables turn the others would start doing it too and bring literally everything to a grinding halt every time someone didn't get their way. So I guess that's to take your question and flip it around, "Do you think the hand brake on the government needs to be pulled every time a budget line item isn't in agreeance with everyone involved?" I totally get what you're saying, in that if Congress is weaponizing CRs then yeah you'd like a check to that. But that's where I'm left rubbing my head here wondering what CR are you thinking about where that was the case? And I understand that's a subjective thing because some previous CRs have had to drop items from spending to get it through, and for some you might have felt that line item is near and dear to them, yeah, that can feel like a weaponized CR, but that's not how I see it. So I am trying to give you some benefit of the doubt here buddy, but I'm going to need some clarification on your end on what you are thinking.
the common practice of Congress stuffing lots of unrelated things into a normal bill, hiding behind something the President has asked for
Okay, my bad, I'm not trying to pull it out of context, but even still. That's how it works. You get yours and I get mine. That's compromise The President, Republicans, Democrats, Freedom Caucus, Problem Solvers Caucus, Representative from Texas, Representative from California, none of them walk away from a bill with what they wanted without also giving something to the other. As a former Governor of my state once said, "You know you've done your job well when everyone walks away with something, but nobody leaves completely happy." So yeah, fuck that idea that bills should be presented pristine. I guess you and I will just need to agree to disagree on that.
No, that is not what I mean. Because you've now started putting words in my mouth
I might have, but those are the obvious next words as only a Constitutional Amendment can bring back line-item veto as indicated in Clinton v. City of New York which was the case that killed Clinton's line item veto. So you might not have said it and of course that would be me stuffing words in your mouth, but that is indeed what SCOTUS said would be needed to bring back line item vetos. So you said enacted, I took that as perhaps a minor error on your part and was simply correcting you, and I take it that you felt tha
Note that I did not say "pass the wall" from the standpoint of saying if that is good or bad
Sorry if it came off that way, neither am I pointing to some moral dilemma that steams from the wall. I'm just saying however that if Congress does cave in to the $5.7B figure, that emboldens the administration and does set a new bar for brinkmanship in government shutdowns. It will indicate that 26-days (or how ever long this shutdown does go on for) is a fine time frame for a shutdown. Congress has every motive to ensure that long shutdowns equate to diminished returns on demands. If they do not covey that, it will signal that long shutdowns only equate to loss GDP and potential loss of government employees, but political agenda and hard line stance goes with zero punitive repercussions. I don't think Congress and more especially the House wants to convey to the President now or in the future, that long term shutdowns equate to eventually getting what you want. However, there is the chance that those in the House currently or to short sighted to see that, in that case, there is a good chance that the President might very well get what he wants. I've seen dumber things play out like the nuclear option on judges, but not much.
I said that from the standpoint of tactics only - Trump is not going to back down, and is actually helped the longer the shutdown goes on
Eeehh... That's a pretty subjective point. It does indeed help those who would like to see Federal workers replaced with contract help that the Trump base would like to see. However, I wouldn't pin that on helping the process of the wall. Trump's administration was bleeding workers before the shutdown, so literally Trump just simply being in office helps that, the shutdown is just extrapolating that process onto a larger domain. However, government workers leaving isn't a zero sum thing. That's something folks tend to remember and government employees getting a sour mood may opt to disrupt Trump strong supporters in the Republican party to drive a new schism in the Republican party to oust the hard liners. But that's speculating. Point being, while drive government employees out is indeed something that helps short term in the Trump base, leaving government employees tend to have more ramifications for political change within a party. I think the long position is that Trump's government will have lasting effects within the Republican party itself. The Democrats are just going to be more embolden in their stance so, pretty much a day that ends with "Y".
So the only way to move forward is to fund the wall to some degree (Trump would be willing to bargain downward somewhat)
I totally do not see that happening. I just don't see it. Trump is incredibly firm at the $5.7B figure and the $5.7B figure is a non-starter for the House. The only way I see this moving forward is either a veto override (which I put slim to none) or a State of Emergency (which I think has the higher chance here). I'm pretty sure that Democrats will be more than happy to see Trump declare a state of emergency because that will give them the options to wipe hands clean of the matter, indicate that it appears the President will build the wall himself, fund the military, and then when Trump signs a general appropriations military funding bill, promptly sue him and his plan to build a wall with the military and lock it in the court system until the heat death of the universe. It also has the upshot of being something to sling around in 2020 with "Dictator Trump" building walls and giving Congress and the checks and balance system a middle finger. I'm pretty sure that advisors are indicating to the President to only pull the trigger on the state of emergency lightly, because oh boy will that trigger more litigation than you can shake a stick at. But again, that said, veto override or state of emergency are the only two ways I see out of this before the election.
Perhaps you are too young to remember that the government budget isn't supposed to be a string of "continuing resolutions"
Well into my fifties actually. As someone already pointed out, been a hot minute since we've had a comprehensive budget lock, stock, and barrel. But you're confusing the point I'm making about a CR. If you cannot at the very least sign a CR, then screw you. Yes, make a budget, make it balanced too, but should all else fail, at least agree that status quo is good enough until a compromise can be had. Not even agreeing to that is a pretty shitty attitude to have.
Congress can overturn a veto if they have enough votes
And that is what some are banking on, but at the moment the Senate Majority leader is preventing anything that will be vetoed from being brought to the floor. That's called favoring party over country, because it is very clear that a Republican held Senate overriding their own President would been seen as an indication that the Republican platform is not united behind their standard barer. If you're attempting to do "the right thing" (and of course that's objective, hence quotes), you tend to ignore how something will look party-wise and just go ahead and do it. Typically, the party can play an override without too many ramifications, but the current President has played the RINO card a lot. Additionally, those who shunned him and lost their bid, the President has made too much of a big deal about that. So the President has, by his own hand, amped the loyalty aspect way too much. So no matter how you slice it, with how it is within the Republican party at the moment, any override by the Senate would be seen as a fracture in the Republican platform and that would make a handy plank in the Democrats platform. Whatever the "right thing" is defined as aside, the Senate overriding the President at this point would create a schism between hard-core Trump supporters and traditional Republicans.
If Congress has the will, they could end this
I feel there is enough moderate Republicans that if they wanted to they would but I'm sure the Whip is keeping folks toeing the line. If there is no break in the Democrat stance, it will only be when enough hurt befalls the moderate Republicans to out power the Whips influence, will there be any breakthrough.
It is quite common, in fact a standard practice these days, for Congress to put multiple things in a single bill
Yeah, that's what a comprehensive budget is for.
some of which they want but the President doesn't
Yeah, because we don't live in a Monarchy. No single person gets what they want, it's kind of a collective, you get yours and I get mine kind of deal.
expecting the President to sign the whole thing so he gets the things he wants
Yeah that's called compromise. The President get's the start of his wall. The Democrats would have gotten what they needed for DACA.
You must be very young indeed not to have seen this before Trump
You are assuming a whole lot.
The standard response is then to claim the President vetoed the bill because of something he himself wanted, when the truth is he vetoed it because of all the extra crap that Congress stuffed into it
Well typically, what happens is the President indicates to his party within Congress what line items they would like to see changed. A whole lot of debating goes on and eventually line items before it even gets out of committee are changed etc. If a President vetos a budget because of some random line item, then the President has been asleep at the wheel here. There are several points during the process for the President to speak up and have his/her party object, table motion, refer to committee, filibuster, etc, etc, etc... any particular line item. That's why Congress ki
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people around here seem to base a lot of their perceptions and priorities on what things were like 15 years ago.
That's pretty much Slashdot in a nutshell. Shoot, say something like systemd, wayland, Java performance, IPv6 deployment, or cloud computing and you're likely to get a stack of punch cards thrown at you for being a heretic.
I get that people really love their headphone jack, I've never had an issue with Bluetooth but I've quickly learned my lesson about trying to encourage anyone on Slashdot to just use BT for everything audio, but the whole port thing aside, the thing about this device that I think really killed it. $1300 price tag. I get that Apple came out with the $1k phone just recently and what-not but look every phone maker on this planet. If current gen will now always cost $900+, I'll always go with previous gen. $500 is literally the most I will pay for a smartphone, full stop. The price tags on recent smartphones is way, way, way outside the domain of reasonable in my opinion. Clearly I am not the target audience of current gen phones.
You do not want to accept the job of 'backup driver' because you are basically taking the blame
Hold up. While it's tempting to think this case is the bar we're setting. Consider the released footage of the driver for a second. Imagine any industry where you look away from a machine in motion for that long, yeah, you're at fault for your reckless behavior. Like if I was watching a show on my phone while operating a table saw, yeah, I really wouldn't have a strong case for an injury lawsuit.
there is a cognitive disconnect between the autopilot and the 'backup driver' that is supposed to suddenly become situationally aware in a split second
Bull fucking shit. It's about as disconnected as using cruise control and asking people to keep tabs on how fast or slow traffic is going. Just keep your goddamn eyes on the fucking road, it's not brain surgery.
Anybody's guess who would be responsible the moment that some states allow a truly driverless car
No, there's no guessing, because when we get to that point, we'll have laws that outline who is at fault and the kinds of insurance a company needs to operate a fully driverless machine. I get we like to rag on politicians here at Slashdot, but you can't deny there's going to be dollar signs that pop up into someone's eyes about regulating fully automatic machines interacting with the general public. If anything greed will put short work to wild-wild-west style self-driving cars.
Basically the rest of your comment is "We don't know ABC..." Yeah, we don't but we can base it off of what we do know and go from there. Your comment is the Webster's definition of Luddite. No one has every answer, that's not a reason to stop doing anything. Yeah, there's going to be complication and people will get killed along the way, add that to the pile of 103 folks who died today in the US driving somewhere or the 15,000 people who were involved in some sort of highway collision. I mean shit dude, if we didn't do something simply because we didn't have all the answers upfront, fuck, we'd all be dead of preventable diseases. What is the point of your drivel here? That something new is complicated? Wow, big reveal there.
Why do Non-Player Characters care about Trump?
It's their new buzzword to replace libtard. So when you see them saying NPC you can just replace it 1:1 with libtard to catch what they're trying to say. Clearly, it's the new "cool word" to use to own some group in the ever wonderful world of A vs B politics. [insert audible eye roll]
Due diligence and best practices were sacrificed at the alter of political correctness. People were so desperate to have a female CEO and founder of a large company that they disregarded established safeguards.
What the absolute fuck my friend?! Elizabeth Holmes' is a con-artist. They come in both male and female variety. Con-artist get away with a lot of shit because most sane people think other people, especially people in power, are equally sane. This episode isn't a marker of how PC has wronged us all, I mean good grief there's way, way, way better examples of that, but nah my friend this is just shitty people with power. Let's at the very least classify it correctly. Hell, if you want to toss a buzzy word in on it, you can say this is exactly how entitled shit heads run companies. She wasn't CEO because everyone wanted a woman, she was CEO because she had a lawyer team to unleash on anyone who'd challenge her entitled ass.
They'll have a framework for that API to automatically remove uses of the replaced API, the framework however will require the use of a new programming language of which they've got a handy SDK for converting Go, C++, and Java into the new programming language which then "compiles" into a 126MB JavaScript blob.
Android people like you that defend this inexcusable flaw are the worst kind of scum.
Laying it on a bit thick don't you think? Being a platform apologist is bad, but I wouldn't rank it as "worst kind of scum", even if just limiting to the tech industry or even more so to just mobile OS platforms. Save some room for the real criminals who are making money off your data.
Websites tracking you and gathering data is nothing new. When I first heard of DNT I recalled the wonderful nothing burger that was P3P. I'm pretty sure that in a few more years we'll have yet another attempt at trying to tell websites to behave for it to go absolutely nowhere. The problem here is that the Internet is ran "by suggestion and recommendation." Now running the web like that has made it wildly successful and to point, the W3's mission is to simply continue purposing, suggesting, and recommending standards for all to obey, but those sites are more than free to give any recommendation the middle finger. Asking a site to not track you is an enforcement issue and we're just not going to solve this problem by committee. The notion that W3 or any other standards body is going to "fix" this problem is foolish.
Asking sites to not track you will largely have to fall on local regulators to enact law. Given the global nature of the web, that's no small feat. However, companies are being given a golden chance to self regulate here and are clearly showing the inability to do so. It is beyond frustrating to see these large companies continually force people to indicate to their law makers to begin regulating the Internet simply because these companies cannot resist the allure of short term profit. It is at least my hope that in the future people recognize the level of inevitable regulation that was created during our time here, and remember the companies that drove them to it as the rapacious fools they really are. Folks like Mark Zuckerberg are nothing more than modern robber barons who by chance early entered an emerging market and rather than expand the competitiveness, act in any manner consistent with "fair market", or ensure economic diversity, they sought only to cripple competition, obscure interoperability, evade social responsibility to their country of origin and the citizens around them, and maximize profits by acting in completely amoral manners that if the tables turned would outrage them from the word "go".
You are sincerely asking this question?
No what I'm getting at isn't the human "why" here. That's pretty obvious. The "why" is the empirical side of that. The maths that would be behind explaining the "why". Yes, we can easily chalk it up to misdirection, the more important thing is how to teach a computer that misdirection is happening and that requires understanding the "why" the computer got there in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that you understand what an average is. So let's work off that. Weather is whatever it is when you walk outside. People record that day's weather, temperature, and other points of data. Continue to do this for a set of locations of which, when talking about global temperatures, is a lot of data points per day. At the end of the year, what you will do is then take the average of those data points for region/entire planet, for month/season/year. The last one of each, average for entire planet for the year, is the one specifically being talked about here. That average number is the fourth highest value in a data set of this particular measure since 1880.
Now take that data and begin breaking down into 30-year buckets. That should give you roughly 4.6 "buckets". This is the value of a particular measure that you would begin to build a climate model on for that particular bucket. Basically, your model indicates "Oh yeah this area usually gets a lot of rain" or "Oh yeah, snow usually comes around November and ends in March" and so forth. Now of course, there's a much more strict language used in terms of statistics than I'm using here but you should get the idea.
However, with those 30 year buckets you can also look at how those climate models are changing. "Snow was common in November in this area in the first bucket, is no longer common in this last bucket." Additionally you can see events that go along with the change in these models, "Snow, which usually requires a cold climate to occur, was not common in November in this last bucket for this region and we saw two days where the temperature in particular years was higher than the average for that specific bucket for the month of November in this last bucket for this region."
To more specifically address the recent cold snaps. We know that the cold air is coming from the arctic region. We know this by looking at things like the jet stream and more specifically anemometer data shows the speed and direction of wind, so it's not entirely difficult to see where cold air is coming from, especially the most recent arctic blasts we've received. Cold air coming from that region of the planet into our region of the planet is not common based on previous anemometer data. Yes, it gets cold during the winter here, but it gets cold here for a different reason other than polar winds sweeping down into our region. Typically, polar winds stay close to the poles and that is because of a feature known as a polar vortex. There are ideas as to why this is happening and ultimately science will have an accurate model for why the polar wind is dipping so close to the equator.
But do know that the most recent "cold snap" we just had is indeed due to a recent development in the polar climate (it's average data over 30 year terms) and not due to more common methods. Now there's not enough data (see definition for the word "recent") to accurately say that this new feature is part of global warming, but it indeed raises eyebrows and it's definitely a starting point to consider. However, we won't know until we have several more decades of data. But it is sufficient to say that "cold snaps" of yesteryear (previous 30-year bucket) are not like the "cold snap" we just recently had, they began in entirely different ways.
The chant of "weather isn't climate" that you commonly hear is to remind folks that today's weather is just a single data point within a sea of data points that make up a climate model. We can have very bitterly cold days within that data set, but if the average is higher because the number of hotter days out number the number of bitterly cold days, then that's just how the data works, that's what averages mean. Something to consider, my neck of the woods here hovered around six degrees during the couple of days we had our most recent "cold snap". Yesterday and today it was a high in the seventies. You can easily see that those very high temperatures will easily over power the two/three days of cold we had.
Yeah that's the game plan. Fingers crossed on that one. But yeah, if you go Oracle's OpenJDK build, you basically have to update on new version. LTS or not as the LTS only applies to their commercial offering. However, considering its Oracle we are talking about here, I'll continue to be firmly in the "I'll believe that's the plan when I see it."
I've seen a couple of comments already where folks are talking about DeepMind being able to micro and click faster than a human. While that's neat, that's not entirely the goal here with DeepMind. The makers already put an artificial limit on the actions DeepMind can execute to 600/minute. In comparison the humans are executing at around 250-300 actions per minute. Now that indeed made DeepMind's micro game strong, what was the real tipping point was that DeepMind could see anywhere where a unit was located. Humans however can only see a "screen at a time". When DeepMind's makers went back and implemented "screen at a time" limitation, DeepMind was easily fooled again. And that's the thing here. Not the "can I beat a human?" but "can a human fool me?". As soon as the amount of information coming IN to DeepMind was reduced, the data coming OUT couldn't compensate and the humans were able to slowly figure out how to trick the AI into an unwinnable situation.
There's a continual fallacy on Slashdot where pure research like DeepMind is confused for "who's jerb can it take and reasons why it can't take that jerb." The media here is presenting in the terms of "Hey look! Something AI can do better than us worthless puny humans!" but DeepMind is mostly research first. The entire point here isn't, "Hey can I pawn this guy?" It's why did limiting the input allow the human to so easily fool the machine? Because researchers aren't sure why the AI was so easily fooled where when it had a wider field of view, it could not be so easily fooled. That question has a lot more wider ranging implications than how great the micro game is for DeepMind.
Not sure why there's comments of licensing issues... it's a free download from Oracle's website
Well the issue is complex if you stick to Oracle provided binaries, the TL;DR simple answer is to move on to OpenJDK and be done with it.
Java SE 8 which was the last version you could "freely" use in a commercial product, if you go to Oracle's website at the moment, you'll get this message.
Oracle will not post further updates of Java SE 8 to its public download sites for commercial use after January 2019. Customers who need continued access to critical bug fixes and security fixes as well as general maintenance for Java SE 8 or previous versions can get long term support through Oracle Java SE Subscription or Oracle Java SE Desktop Subscription. For more information, and details on how to receive longer term support for Oracle JDK 8, please see the Oracle Java SE Support Roadmap.
Going forward you now have two options. Oracle OpenJDK which is an open source JDK that you may use as you see fit, the end. Oracle JDK, which starting at version 11 is Oracle OpenJDK plus some Oracle enhancements. You may freely download Oracle JDK and use it for development and testing, however, Oracle JDK cannot be used for production or commercial use without being anally raped by Oracle, so yeah you cannot download Oracle JDK and just use it without being in some degree of violation of Larry Ellison's 37th yacht fund somewhere in the fine print of that download. Additionally, Oracle has gotten a little blood thirsty lately so use Oracle JDK without a license at your own damn risk.
So you might ask, so if we have OpenJDK, who would want Oracle JDK? The important thing to remember that OpenJDK provided by Oracle is Oracle's build of OpenJDK, which may or may not have all the most recent patches. Basically, Oracle's OpenJDK is on par patch wise the day a new version hits with Oracle JDK. So when Java 11 hit, that day Oracle JDK and Oracle OpenJDK were functionally the same. However any patches that Oracle JDK has received since that day, Oracle OpenJDK hasn't or might have, it's basically "meh we patch it when we patch it." However, Oracle isn't the only game in the OpenJDK build world.
Here's a post about all the different folks building OpenJDK. I suggest OpenJDK from AdpotOpenJDK or if you are using Linux, BSD, Unix, etc Just use the OpenJDK that your vendor provides, they usually keep it reasonably up to date. What the change does do, is make everyone change their old habit of just going to Oracle's site, download their JDK, and go from there. Instead, just go grab a non-Oracle build, beside we shouldn't be frequenting Oracle anyway.
Outside of that, Java is still Java and unsurprisingly Oracle is still shooting themselves in the foot. The most recent move with Java 9, 10, and 11 only further cements folks' decisions to leave Oracle as their provider of a Java implementation.
I get what you're saying here and I don't disagree, but I feel you are over simplifying the issue and to some extent the details matter. Now I will caution you that this is a pretty long reply because I'm trying to highlight something here and I hope you catch on. It is important to note that a lot of these ISP monopolies are granted at the local level, not the Federal level. So simply saying:
If you want to fix this, just rescind the government-granted monopolies
is implying that you feel we can solved this at the local level. Which again, I don't disagree that we ought to solve it at the local level, but let's take a quick peek at that.
Let's take my city that I live in as an example. Quick intro to how my city runs. For our "executive" we have the mayor and vice mayor, who are elected to four year terms with three term limit. For our "legislative" we have the city council, which has seven seats. Five are elected and two are for the mayor and vice mayor. Council members are elected to four year terms, and we have one or two seats come up about every two years. The mayor and vice mayor's votes on the council are only considered for city budget, the creation of special districts, and the creation of city boards but they may purpose ordinances for the council to consider. City boards, once created by 5/7 vote, are given three seats by default unless otherwise noted by law, the terms and limits for service vary per board, but by default are two year terms with no limit by default. Those seats are appointed by the mayor and approved by the elected council (so mayor and vice mayor have no say, nor are they allowed into chambers during confirmation). The boards are appropriated a budget by council and approve projects and apply regulation independently. For regulation, the board by default has executive oversight but always includes the mayor and vice mayor, in boards that have more than three seats, the oversight is by the chair, co-chair, mayor, vice mayor, and a member of the board that is appointed by the board to the executive oversight committee. Again boards approve projects independently so basically if a board has the money, they can approve a project to set up speed cameras without first contacting the city council. The mayor must sign off on any projects before they begin, if the mayor does not, the board may then have the council approve the project but only with unanimous consent. The board that handles ISPs, and this may give you some indication as to how old this board is and what kind of circumstances prompted its creation, is the "Cable Television Board". It is a seven member board given a three year term with a ten term limit and is one of the special boards where six seats are appointed and one seat is given to a council member. So I literally can only vote for one out of the seven seats, where the other six are appointed by recommendation, and I'm pretty sure you can guess who gets recommend to that board. But even then, I can vote on "a" council member, but that doesn't mean that, "that" council member I voted in is the one who gets the lone member seat in the board, that's determined by the full council (which includes the mayor and vice mayor). Additionally, the executive oversight for this board is the mayor, vice mayor, chair, co-chair, an appointed member of the board, and three additional seats are given to this board's executive oversight committee, one which is given to the council member and two more that are appointed independently meaning they must not already be in some other service to the city's government. Both of those two seats in the executive oversight committee are traditionally given to the local Comcast's office's head of municipal relations and some other Comcast person from the local office. However, six years ago, that some other person from Comcast was not appointed back and instead it is been held for the last two terms to... I'm not even going to pretend, I have no idea what the person's title is in their
YouTube didn't reach out and fix the issue until it gained a lot of attention and bad press
Yeah clearly you didn't finish reading my comment.
What happens to the next person who gets an extortion attempt like this and doesn't get a lot of press attention?
I don't know, I don't care. Point being the platform is trash, it should go down like a stinking inferno it is. And the platform that replaces it, prediction, it's pretty good, till it becomes too profitable and then turns to trash. I'm going to bet a $1 that will be the case forever. So long as mass media companies drag whoever is the new hotness into court, this whole cycle will continue forever. Centralized services start great, end trash, and profit grubbing media conglomerates make it such. So as for the users, fuck em for all I care. Use a shit platform expect to be shitted on.
Hey it's fun bashing on YouTube and trust me, I'm all game for a good pointing out how much YouTube's system of strikes and take downs suck. However, let us all stop for just a second to realize that YouTube did indeed reach out and fix the issue. Still their system sucks, though. It is heavily favored to take downs rather than legitimate moderation. They made amends in this instance I guess, but still it took way more energy than it ought to.
This should be the norm for service providers that utilize a service not in house. Google, Apple, and Amazon among others routinely query Wikipedia for all kinds of things and then provide the results of the query as part of their service. Google, Apple, and Amazon need to step up to providing meaningful support to third parties that they use for their service, just not the most visible one, in this case Wikipedia. IMHO tossing a million here and a million there to Wikipedia is definitely a step, but Google providing no-cost usage of their services is much better than what I've seen and heard other big players providing them. It would definitely be a whole lot better if Google et al was providing that which was listed in level of support from Google to all of the third party services.
If the CO2 can be converted into Hydrogen and electricity, both of which are useful byproducts of the process, it might be economically feasible
Whoa, whoa, whoa there buddy. Let me stop you right there. There's nothing economically feasible about metallic sodium at the moment. I guess the next step is for someone to figure that step out.
Hell I don't think that's really hitting it home enough. If a shutdown allowed business to run free, businesses would literally start lobbying to shutdown our government every chance they could get. They would literally spending millions on ads to incite enough anger on any one topic to force shutdowns all of the time. It literally rewards businesses for successfully launching campaigns to end or government on a continual basis. The entire point is to make it hurt when a the government shuts down so that people force the government to not do that, to reward people keeping it open. There needs to be a profit motive to keeping the government open, the second there isn't that, then there's zero point in keeping a government in the first place.
Yea, but the cost of opening the government is $5.7 Billion.... Out of a $44~ Trillion budget.
I think that's the problem here. Every cycle we go through this. [Insert some topic] is being tied to "can we keep the government open?". The underlying issue is that the President de jure (being it Trump/Obama/Bush/Whomever) is taking a topic that requires a lot of debate and discussion and attaching it to the topic of "can we keep the government open." Really we have two issues here.
One, can you get the one big thing you promised in your campaign done? Two, can you maintain the government as it is currently funded? Recent Presidents and Congresses seem have taken the tactic of taking the first topic and making it hinge on the second. The thing is that each political party has made whatever their topic of the current cycle so amped up, that they see combining the two different topics into a single unified topic as justifiable. Ultimately, whatever uber hyped piece of whatever one gets passed, because of the super hype only ensures its demise the second the tables turn.
I say we write the $57 dollar check so the kids can have their milk money and you can put gas in the car.
The only problem is that just as soon as we write the check, that's just opening up the actual "work on putting the fence up" to be put on forever repeating delay. And then as soon as the winds change the fence idea just fades away as quickly as the keep the medicine cabinet stocked idea faded. At some point I think we'll begin to understand that holding a hostage the gas and milk money is an incredibly ineffective idea. Until that time, we're just going to have this same thing happen over and over and the details of how much, who supports, and long term effects of doing that will all just be damned.
Ultimately both Congress leadership and the President ought to be tossed out for any shutdown. A shutdown should cost them all their jobs the second the government is opened back up. Keeping the government open, no strings attached, should be the MO of our government and it isn't because we keep taking voter issues and connecting them to fiscal suicide. This current shutdown only emboldens the next person in office to do a shutdown of whatever length this one is minus one day. I may soften my tone the second the US government realizes how stupid it is to do shutdowns much like how they had to learn that lesson in 1879 with Rutherford B Hayes. Till then, fuck them all for shutting it down, all leadership deserves to loose their jobs for this.
It's like arguing over $57 dollars for a fencing in the back yard to keep the kids safe
Also, we have a nasty habit in this country of doing things half assed. I've seen promises of "We're not going to pass new taxes", "We're going to fight this war to make America safe", "We're going to fully fund infrastructure", or "We're going to pass this to make medicine in America affordable". I am willing to bet the farm that this "We're going to build a wall to keep us safe" is going to be right up there with the other four I've mentioned. So if the idea is we only need a fence to keep the kids safe, we might want to go ahead and kiss the kids good-bye. Let's be clear that $57 is just a drop in a bucket of potential shutdowns to come. So let's not pretend that we're just talking about $57. That $57 isn't "Let's end the fight." That $57 is "Let's pick up the pace on shutdowns." The second we write the $57 check, we might want to go ahead and get ready for the shutdown over the $87 check for whatever reason. Just as soon as that's written, we'll need to get ready for the shutdown over the $112 check for whatever reason the next guy in office comes up with, rise and repeat. We the public should really rethink normalizing this kind of behavior no matter what party is behind the desk in the White House.
Why would anyone want to upload a screenshot to Mozilla's servers?
This is a torn issue. There's A/B testing that shows there's users wanting to take a screenshot and share it. Mozilla is trying (well actually was trying) their hand at being that person who does the sharing as opposed to say imgur or something. This next part being only my opinion, I have reservations about Mozilla being the share folks, they ought to just stick to the browser but I totally understand some of the rationale behind why they'd want to be in the mix. I don't agree with those opinions but again that is just me speaking here.
Usually when you take a screenshot it's because you need to use it locally, as in sending the file to someone, or archiving it
Well, sending it to someone for some users is providing a shorten link to a web address. I get it, that's not everyone, but reading the boards I think I recall them indicating having use case numbers that indicated that some folks are link sharers. I don't know the specific numbers as that's not obviously in any of their notes they post to the blog/maillist/boards.
It seems odd that they'd implement this ability at all; a bit shady even.
Again my opinion only, I kind of agree with you there. However, they were (maybe they will in some other incarnation later?) testing out services. What the ultimate goal for services should be pretty obvious, but from mailinglist, I've not heard anything about monetizing services. Again, I don't like it, but I get Mozilla needs cash too. I'll try not to get too political here with things like, "Well if they didn't spend ____ then..." It's mixed bag with me and my opinion here that's worth two cents. So I again, I agree 98% of the way let's say.
Surely if you need to upload a screenshot to Mozilla to report a browser bug, it makes more sense to just send the image file you just saved locally.
I don't think the screenshot feature is there to facilitate bug reporting. When it was announced, the feature was mostly there to address some use cases from users.
I do want to point out that a patch was accepted the same day of the issue being raised on Github. However, there was some A/B testing and some discussion about if ditching the upload function altogether should be the course of action. I think that the end of the Test Pilot program settled the debate, which is the servers that were receiving the images. Again, I just want to make sure you absolutely understand, I agree with you, but I can also see why Mozilla might want to test out services and see what the general feel is for that. I don't think it's been glowing reviews everywhere for any of the Test Pilot programs or at least that's my feel I get having read the mailinglist for the last several months now, but also I caution anyone to take anything I say with a grain of salt. I definitely will welcome Mozilla focusing more on Rust/Firefox than these Test Pilot things.
So then you think the Congress can put whatever they want into, and leave out things that they've already approved, for a CR
One, name a CR where that has been done, because most CR written this side of the aughties and the decade before hand have been "status quo" resolutions with minor tweaks to reach majority. Two, you're correct in that nothing legally prevents them from doing what you've said, but that is not the CR in question that was tabled by the Senate recently. Three, even if they did do that, that's the House's prerogative. They hold the purse of the nation per Article one. While I'm not advocating rubber stamps from the President, what I am advocating is that if a CR presents to the President that has passed both chambers, then there was plenty of time before hand for the President to act on the matter. Vetoing a CR is either lazy, dumb, or being an asshat take your pick. There's tons of time for a President to hammer out a budget before we even get to the point of a veto CR. The current President had two years, two flipping years to build a budget before we even got to CR time. So again, I'm not advocating rubber stamps, but c'mon, the Administration isn't even attempting compromise on agreeing that our government should continue to run status quo. And in more general terms, yeah I still stand by the screw you if you can't agree to continue status quo. If CRs started turning into agenda hand grenades, I might change my position on that, but as it stands, Congress isn't in the mood to start doing that as they know as soon as the tables turn the others would start doing it too and bring literally everything to a grinding halt every time someone didn't get their way. So I guess that's to take your question and flip it around, "Do you think the hand brake on the government needs to be pulled every time a budget line item isn't in agreeance with everyone involved?" I totally get what you're saying, in that if Congress is weaponizing CRs then yeah you'd like a check to that. But that's where I'm left rubbing my head here wondering what CR are you thinking about where that was the case? And I understand that's a subjective thing because some previous CRs have had to drop items from spending to get it through, and for some you might have felt that line item is near and dear to them, yeah, that can feel like a weaponized CR, but that's not how I see it. So I am trying to give you some benefit of the doubt here buddy, but I'm going to need some clarification on your end on what you are thinking.
the common practice of Congress stuffing lots of unrelated things into a normal bill, hiding behind something the President has asked for
Okay, my bad, I'm not trying to pull it out of context, but even still. That's how it works. You get yours and I get mine. That's compromise The President, Republicans, Democrats, Freedom Caucus, Problem Solvers Caucus, Representative from Texas, Representative from California, none of them walk away from a bill with what they wanted without also giving something to the other. As a former Governor of my state once said, "You know you've done your job well when everyone walks away with something, but nobody leaves completely happy." So yeah, fuck that idea that bills should be presented pristine. I guess you and I will just need to agree to disagree on that.
No, that is not what I mean. Because you've now started putting words in my mouth
I might have, but those are the obvious next words as only a Constitutional Amendment can bring back line-item veto as indicated in Clinton v. City of New York which was the case that killed Clinton's line item veto. So you might not have said it and of course that would be me stuffing words in your mouth, but that is indeed what SCOTUS said would be needed to bring back line item vetos. So you said enacted, I took that as perhaps a minor error on your part and was simply correcting you, and I take it that you felt tha
Note that I did not say "pass the wall" from the standpoint of saying if that is good or bad
Sorry if it came off that way, neither am I pointing to some moral dilemma that steams from the wall. I'm just saying however that if Congress does cave in to the $5.7B figure, that emboldens the administration and does set a new bar for brinkmanship in government shutdowns. It will indicate that 26-days (or how ever long this shutdown does go on for) is a fine time frame for a shutdown. Congress has every motive to ensure that long shutdowns equate to diminished returns on demands. If they do not covey that, it will signal that long shutdowns only equate to loss GDP and potential loss of government employees, but political agenda and hard line stance goes with zero punitive repercussions. I don't think Congress and more especially the House wants to convey to the President now or in the future, that long term shutdowns equate to eventually getting what you want. However, there is the chance that those in the House currently or to short sighted to see that, in that case, there is a good chance that the President might very well get what he wants. I've seen dumber things play out like the nuclear option on judges, but not much.
I said that from the standpoint of tactics only - Trump is not going to back down, and is actually helped the longer the shutdown goes on
Eeehh... That's a pretty subjective point. It does indeed help those who would like to see Federal workers replaced with contract help that the Trump base would like to see. However, I wouldn't pin that on helping the process of the wall. Trump's administration was bleeding workers before the shutdown, so literally Trump just simply being in office helps that, the shutdown is just extrapolating that process onto a larger domain. However, government workers leaving isn't a zero sum thing. That's something folks tend to remember and government employees getting a sour mood may opt to disrupt Trump strong supporters in the Republican party to drive a new schism in the Republican party to oust the hard liners. But that's speculating. Point being, while drive government employees out is indeed something that helps short term in the Trump base, leaving government employees tend to have more ramifications for political change within a party. I think the long position is that Trump's government will have lasting effects within the Republican party itself. The Democrats are just going to be more embolden in their stance so, pretty much a day that ends with "Y".
So the only way to move forward is to fund the wall to some degree (Trump would be willing to bargain downward somewhat)
I totally do not see that happening. I just don't see it. Trump is incredibly firm at the $5.7B figure and the $5.7B figure is a non-starter for the House. The only way I see this moving forward is either a veto override (which I put slim to none) or a State of Emergency (which I think has the higher chance here). I'm pretty sure that Democrats will be more than happy to see Trump declare a state of emergency because that will give them the options to wipe hands clean of the matter, indicate that it appears the President will build the wall himself, fund the military, and then when Trump signs a general appropriations military funding bill, promptly sue him and his plan to build a wall with the military and lock it in the court system until the heat death of the universe. It also has the upshot of being something to sling around in 2020 with "Dictator Trump" building walls and giving Congress and the checks and balance system a middle finger. I'm pretty sure that advisors are indicating to the President to only pull the trigger on the state of emergency lightly, because oh boy will that trigger more litigation than you can shake a stick at. But again, that said, veto override or state of emergency are the only two ways I see out of this before the election.
Perhaps you are too young to remember that the government budget isn't supposed to be a string of "continuing resolutions"
Well into my fifties actually. As someone already pointed out, been a hot minute since we've had a comprehensive budget lock, stock, and barrel. But you're confusing the point I'm making about a CR. If you cannot at the very least sign a CR, then screw you. Yes, make a budget, make it balanced too, but should all else fail, at least agree that status quo is good enough until a compromise can be had. Not even agreeing to that is a pretty shitty attitude to have.
Congress can overturn a veto if they have enough votes
And that is what some are banking on, but at the moment the Senate Majority leader is preventing anything that will be vetoed from being brought to the floor. That's called favoring party over country, because it is very clear that a Republican held Senate overriding their own President would been seen as an indication that the Republican platform is not united behind their standard barer. If you're attempting to do "the right thing" (and of course that's objective, hence quotes), you tend to ignore how something will look party-wise and just go ahead and do it. Typically, the party can play an override without too many ramifications, but the current President has played the RINO card a lot. Additionally, those who shunned him and lost their bid, the President has made too much of a big deal about that. So the President has, by his own hand, amped the loyalty aspect way too much. So no matter how you slice it, with how it is within the Republican party at the moment, any override by the Senate would be seen as a fracture in the Republican platform and that would make a handy plank in the Democrats platform. Whatever the "right thing" is defined as aside, the Senate overriding the President at this point would create a schism between hard-core Trump supporters and traditional Republicans.
If Congress has the will, they could end this
I feel there is enough moderate Republicans that if they wanted to they would but I'm sure the Whip is keeping folks toeing the line. If there is no break in the Democrat stance, it will only be when enough hurt befalls the moderate Republicans to out power the Whips influence, will there be any breakthrough.
It is quite common, in fact a standard practice these days, for Congress to put multiple things in a single bill
Yeah, that's what a comprehensive budget is for.
some of which they want but the President doesn't
Yeah, because we don't live in a Monarchy. No single person gets what they want, it's kind of a collective, you get yours and I get mine kind of deal.
expecting the President to sign the whole thing so he gets the things he wants
Yeah that's called compromise. The President get's the start of his wall. The Democrats would have gotten what they needed for DACA.
You must be very young indeed not to have seen this before Trump
You are assuming a whole lot.
The standard response is then to claim the President vetoed the bill because of something he himself wanted, when the truth is he vetoed it because of all the extra crap that Congress stuffed into it
Well typically, what happens is the President indicates to his party within Congress what line items they would like to see changed. A whole lot of debating goes on and eventually line items before it even gets out of committee are changed etc. If a President vetos a budget because of some random line item, then the President has been asleep at the wheel here. There are several points during the process for the President to speak up and have his/her party object, table motion, refer to committee, filibuster, etc, etc, etc... any particular line item. That's why Congress ki
Grid scale batteries will use sodium ion batteries
Sodium Sulfur I believe is a vastly better option than Na-ion. But yeah, Li-ion grid batteries are just a stopgap solution.