This is doing nothing. It's a way for people sitting at their keyboards (or phones) to feel like they're part of a cause. It has no material affect on anyone. It's probably pretty smart for the organizers to pretend it does, though, as it's an easy way to make people feel involved and keep their attention on this.
We have a system already whereby you can carry a little tiny card of plastic around with you to buy things. It works almost universally. It's already somewhat "killed cash".
And this idiot thinks that now being able to use something that's slightly more difficult to use at best is somehow going to "kill cash" more than it already is?
He's a moron and he's talking stupidly. Debit and credit cards "killed cash" already about as much as it will be killed anytime soon.
Yeah, was going to comment something similar. Fair use is not a defense here. And it's not a defense because no defense is needed as this is in no way, shape, or form a copyright infringement in the first place.
Yeah, that's going to work super in a global economy. I'm sure countries with the proverbial Eye of the Tiger won't take advantage of that to further erode US jobs!
It's hilarious some of you people think it's still 1973 and what worked in the last century will work now.
True to some degree, but less and less so with 2012+ and 2016. In fact they almost discourage even installing the desktop experience now. Managing via gui doesn't really scale to large environments.
Why would it be difficult to manage over high latency, when you can use powershell or even SSH for everything? And it plays quite nicely with other OS's these days in my experience.
I think the main issue is for people who don't do it full time or don't have a lot of experience. It's not any worse, it's just different. And once you've spent 20 years working with bash, shell, perl, etc...and lately puppet and similar tools then of course you're going to find the experience of managing a Windows environment foreign.
Used to be back in the day you could find any old schlub to manage a "Windows Environment" and it was hard to do and they did a shitty job, while finding a Linux admin was hard but they tended to be high quality. Now if you find a good, experienced Windows administrator they can manage a Windows environment very efficiently, but it needs to be someone skilled and experienced not just a click and drooler.
Sure, Johnny, sure. The last 50 years have been _just like_ any other given 50 year period in history.
I need no evidence for a logic based analysis and you are begging the question. Pointing to the past is not a fact based approach, pretending it is means nothing. It's amusing to me that you think nothing will ever happen differently "becuzz history!"
As you watch what happens over the next 50 years (hell, 10 years) remember how foolish you sounded pretending to be a history professor and thinking that a series of historical events happening in a completely different context can accurately guide you in a completely and utterly different set of circumstances.
I get it. The Johnny Student of History perspective. Why, because things happened in the past they are sure to happen the same way now!
If it's not clear, I'm dismissing 9/10's of your post as meaningless. Appeals to history mean nothing in the context of the massive, accelerating change we are seeing now.
Sorry, past performance is not, in fact, indicative of future potential. As efficiency ramps up you get 1 dude, supporting the robots and other automation, doing effectively what 100 did before. And I don't know if you've noticed, but we already have a UBI of sorts called welfare, among other things. It's just going to keep growing.
Mythical fairytale? I don't really follow. Where do you think, assuming the wheels don't come off the whole system e.g. WW3 or some other catastrophe, we are heading?
If we proceed at the pace we are now, that time will come. It's when, not if.
I'm far from a socialist hippie but the fact is that as more and more automation comes into play efficiency will skyrocket and profits will be even further concentrated. At that point the choices get fairly stark. UBI or something like it, or strife and war.
Now, it's a long ways off. But the question is what do you do in the interim? Let's say we hit Utopia in 100 years. That road is tough because you have the jobs going away but no mechanism (ultra cheap, almost free things) to compensate.
The "nanometers" game is a big scam. You can call your process whatever you want based on any of various parameters and based on how you want to market it.
Not sure how Samsung's stacks up, but TSMC is claiming they will soon have 10nm (TM) soon and their process is more like a traditional 14-16nm process.
It's all a bunch of fakery and lies. The proof is in the pudding of performance, yield, and profits due to density.
In the Baltics, and that's "according to some dude". Real, outright war? Fucking please. Not a chance, and you're an idiot if you even consider it reasonable. Thankfully unless the people in power are absolutely insane it will never come to that.
Amazingly we used to live even on 14.4k modems. ISDN lines seemed like a super-highway.
Internet access is not your stove, water, or anything else. If you can get online at all for things like jobs hunting, basic web browsing, and streaming a show then you are fine.
Don't get me wrong, I love my 150Mbps shit, but I pay a lot for it and I would live just fine with 5Mbps if I had to.
It's implausible to come to any conclusion other than it was a bribe. They got access and favorable treatment during e.g. water pollution investigations out of it. What they apparently did was file two contracts, one for the futures to go up, one to go down. Whichever made money they gave to Clinton, the other one they ate.
No. They don't. This is just nonsense lawyers throw up when you call out their bad behavior. You do not have any legal or ethical obligation to lie on your client's behalf, or do anything else you find unethical.
I don't know who first sold people on this "but lawyers have to do anything to defend their client" nonsense. They don't and they shouldn't. If you get a rapist/murderer/whatever out of prison by doing anything beyond the bare minimum ("My client pleads not guilty", fact-checking, etc...) and you know he did it, you are evil scum.
Wow, if I didn't know what an unimportant place Slashdot and didn't want to sound like a shrill Slashdotter claiming e.g. Microsoft was paying shills to come propagandize I'd almost think that Clintons propaganda force was really out here fighting...
She did laugh, it's on tape. She did assert exactly such. Since I'm not a robot, I know what laughing about not trusting a polygraph means - she knew he was guilty. She did actually get him a reduced sentence. All objective facts. In context, none of them is really that bad of a thing, however, so I agree this story doesn't really mean much.
But can you guys explain that $100k bribe she took from Tyson foods? I'm all ears... You know, the one where Tyson filed double contracts for her then ate the ones that lost money and fulfilled the ones that gained money?
Again, I don't care. That's not even the point. I tend to agree this is not a big deal. However, this is why it's a topic for an actual discussion and not a "fact check".
Now, if you want a real scandal let's talk about Hillary Clinton taking an almost $100k bribe from Tyson foods and receiving preferential treatment from her husband, at the time the governor of Arkansas. Can you explain that one one away? I guess she's just a master investor and happened to use Tyson foods, well known for their investing services, to make money on cattle futures lol.
Bullshit weasel words. Go look for yourself.. Page 34. She says, almost literally, that she made an investigation of the facts and thinks the victim is a crazy liar. If you insist on it I suppose it's fine to just deny what's literally in the legal records, but why? Are you as sanguine about Trump's idiotic "I'm told.." and "people say" tactics?
None of your charitable interpretation matters. It all proves the point that Snopes isn't "fact checking". The only objective fact they seem to have refuted is that she didn't actually volunteer. The rest of the poster is arguably, at least, true. Don't claim to "check facts" when you are in fact putting forth a position.
Nowhere does the linked article claim she laughed about reducing his sentence. It says she said she knew he was guilty, which she did by obvious implication, and that she laughed about it, which again she did.
This is laughable. He can say whatever the fuck he wants. Any celebrity who is targeted by the FTC should sue. There is no possible exemption from the first amendment due to "reader stupidity". He didn't threaten anyone, incite violence, or do anything a reasonable person would see as so dangerous to society that his first amendment rights should be infringed. What is the claim, fraud? Good luck. What agreement does he have with any person to give impartial reviews, advice, or commentary on twitter?
FTC has no jurisdiction and he should tell them to suck his fat, lumpy cock.
This is the type of fact checking they mean, I assume.
They rate as "Mostly False" something where the only disputable fact is whether she "volunteered" for it, and it appears she didn't. Literally everything else in the little poster is demonstrably true, in fact they actually say the same thing below.
Hillary Clinton volunteered to defend a rapist. False. OK, they're good there.
Hillary Clinton alleged that the victim was lying/crazy. True. Snopes tries to be cute and claim that she's just repeating what some psychiatrist said, because.. you know.. defense lawyers never find an expert witness to say what they want. Sorry, fact is that Clinton accused the victim of being crazy. Sure, she used the "I have been told" weasel words, but as we know from Trumps similar tactic that means nothing. It's in the affidavit and she signed it.
Hillary got the guy off a longer sentence, and laughed about it. True. Again, these are unarguable facts. You can certainly quibble over context, but the fact is that the guy got a reduced sentence, that she implied he was guilty, and that she laughed about said implication. All public record and undeniable.
So tell me how that is "mostly false"? I might give them credit if they said "mixed" or "depends on context and interpretation". I can also see how even in the context of these facts you could say that none of it is a big deal, and that's a valid interpretation. But just "Mostly False"? No. It's isn't.
Wait, why should someone...work? When did this idea that life should be "easy" come from, and why do you think anyone owes you anything as a generation or as an individual?
What you call "selling your soul" your grandparents would have seen as "doing the needful" and working to survive and make a life for themselves.
I think, unintentionally, you've put your finger on _exactly_ the problem.
Let me guess, you think a "wage slave" is actually a thing, right?
They act as if these are nuclear or biological weapons. There is no compelling interest in keeping plans for primitive 3D printed guns away from anyway, and there is no possible argument that there is.
I'm going to go buy a 50" TV then complain it won't run Linux. Because Reasons!
You people are being silly. Nobody is locked out of anything. Linux is open source, if you want a driver for the device go code one up, pay someone to code it up, or petition to the vendor.
Nowhere in that product's literature does it indicate it supports any Linux version.
Slashdot Mirror
True, I guess I should have said "This does no such thing, the police don't care, and it's not directly 'protecting' anyone."
This is doing nothing. It's a way for people sitting at their keyboards (or phones) to feel like they're part of a cause. It has no material affect on anyone. It's probably pretty smart for the organizers to pretend it does, though, as it's an easy way to make people feel involved and keep their attention on this.
We have a system already whereby you can carry a little tiny card of plastic around with you to buy things. It works almost universally. It's already somewhat "killed cash".
And this idiot thinks that now being able to use something that's slightly more difficult to use at best is somehow going to "kill cash" more than it already is?
He's a moron and he's talking stupidly. Debit and credit cards "killed cash" already about as much as it will be killed anytime soon.
Yeah, was going to comment something similar. Fair use is not a defense here. And it's not a defense because no defense is needed as this is in no way, shape, or form a copyright infringement in the first place.
Yeah, that's going to work super in a global economy. I'm sure countries with the proverbial Eye of the Tiger won't take advantage of that to further erode US jobs!
It's hilarious some of you people think it's still 1973 and what worked in the last century will work now.
True to some degree, but less and less so with 2012+ and 2016. In fact they almost discourage even installing the desktop experience now. Managing via gui doesn't really scale to large environments.
Why would it be difficult to manage over high latency, when you can use powershell or even SSH for everything? And it plays quite nicely with other OS's these days in my experience.
I think the main issue is for people who don't do it full time or don't have a lot of experience. It's not any worse, it's just different. And once you've spent 20 years working with bash, shell, perl, etc...and lately puppet and similar tools then of course you're going to find the experience of managing a Windows environment foreign.
Used to be back in the day you could find any old schlub to manage a "Windows Environment" and it was hard to do and they did a shitty job, while finding a Linux admin was hard but they tended to be high quality. Now if you find a good, experienced Windows administrator they can manage a Windows environment very efficiently, but it needs to be someone skilled and experienced not just a click and drooler.
I see you've confused "open" with "open source". Would you like help with that?
Sure, Johnny, sure. The last 50 years have been _just like_ any other given 50 year period in history.
I need no evidence for a logic based analysis and you are begging the question. Pointing to the past is not a fact based approach, pretending it is means nothing. It's amusing to me that you think nothing will ever happen differently "becuzz history!"
As you watch what happens over the next 50 years (hell, 10 years) remember how foolish you sounded pretending to be a history professor and thinking that a series of historical events happening in a completely different context can accurately guide you in a completely and utterly different set of circumstances.
I get it. The Johnny Student of History perspective. Why, because things happened in the past they are sure to happen the same way now!
If it's not clear, I'm dismissing 9/10's of your post as meaningless. Appeals to history mean nothing in the context of the massive, accelerating change we are seeing now.
Sorry, past performance is not, in fact, indicative of future potential. As efficiency ramps up you get 1 dude, supporting the robots and other automation, doing effectively what 100 did before. And I don't know if you've noticed, but we already have a UBI of sorts called welfare, among other things. It's just going to keep growing.
Mythical fairytale? I don't really follow. Where do you think, assuming the wheels don't come off the whole system e.g. WW3 or some other catastrophe, we are heading?
If we proceed at the pace we are now, that time will come. It's when, not if.
I'm far from a socialist hippie but the fact is that as more and more automation comes into play efficiency will skyrocket and profits will be even further concentrated. At that point the choices get fairly stark. UBI or something like it, or strife and war.
Now, it's a long ways off. But the question is what do you do in the interim? Let's say we hit Utopia in 100 years. That road is tough because you have the jobs going away but no mechanism (ultra cheap, almost free things) to compensate.
The "nanometers" game is a big scam. You can call your process whatever you want based on any of various parameters and based on how you want to market it.
Not sure how Samsung's stacks up, but TSMC is claiming they will soon have 10nm (TM) soon and their process is more like a traditional 14-16nm process.
It's all a bunch of fakery and lies. The proof is in the pudding of performance, yield, and profits due to density.
In the Baltics, and that's "according to some dude". Real, outright war? Fucking please. Not a chance, and you're an idiot if you even consider it reasonable. Thankfully unless the people in power are absolutely insane it will never come to that.
Amazingly we used to live even on 14.4k modems. ISDN lines seemed like a super-highway.
Internet access is not your stove, water, or anything else. If you can get online at all for things like jobs hunting, basic web browsing, and streaming a show then you are fine.
Don't get me wrong, I love my 150Mbps shit, but I pay a lot for it and I would live just fine with 5Mbps if I had to.
It's implausible to come to any conclusion other than it was a bribe. They got access and favorable treatment during e.g. water pollution investigations out of it. What they apparently did was file two contracts, one for the futures to go up, one to go down. Whichever made money they gave to Clinton, the other one they ate.
No. They don't. This is just nonsense lawyers throw up when you call out their bad behavior. You do not have any legal or ethical obligation to lie on your client's behalf, or do anything else you find unethical.
I don't know who first sold people on this "but lawyers have to do anything to defend their client" nonsense. They don't and they shouldn't. If you get a rapist/murderer/whatever out of prison by doing anything beyond the bare minimum ("My client pleads not guilty", fact-checking, etc...) and you know he did it, you are evil scum.
Wow, if I didn't know what an unimportant place Slashdot and didn't want to sound like a shrill Slashdotter claiming e.g. Microsoft was paying shills to come propagandize I'd almost think that Clintons propaganda force was really out here fighting...
She did laugh, it's on tape. She did assert exactly such. Since I'm not a robot, I know what laughing about not trusting a polygraph means - she knew he was guilty. She did actually get him a reduced sentence. All objective facts. In context, none of them is really that bad of a thing, however, so I agree this story doesn't really mean much.
But can you guys explain that $100k bribe she took from Tyson foods? I'm all ears... You know, the one where Tyson filed double contracts for her then ate the ones that lost money and fulfilled the ones that gained money?
Again, I don't care. That's not even the point. I tend to agree this is not a big deal. However, this is why it's a topic for an actual discussion and not a "fact check".
Now, if you want a real scandal let's talk about Hillary Clinton taking an almost $100k bribe from Tyson foods and receiving preferential treatment from her husband, at the time the governor of Arkansas. Can you explain that one one away? I guess she's just a master investor and happened to use Tyson foods, well known for their investing services, to make money on cattle futures lol.
Bullshit weasel words. Go look for yourself.. Page 34. She says, almost literally, that she made an investigation of the facts and thinks the victim is a crazy liar. If you insist on it I suppose it's fine to just deny what's literally in the legal records, but why? Are you as sanguine about Trump's idiotic "I'm told.." and "people say" tactics?
None of your charitable interpretation matters. It all proves the point that Snopes isn't "fact checking". The only objective fact they seem to have refuted is that she didn't actually volunteer. The rest of the poster is arguably, at least, true. Don't claim to "check facts" when you are in fact putting forth a position.
Nowhere does the linked article claim she laughed about reducing his sentence. It says she said she knew he was guilty, which she did by obvious implication, and that she laughed about it, which again she did.
This is laughable. He can say whatever the fuck he wants. Any celebrity who is targeted by the FTC should sue. There is no possible exemption from the first amendment due to "reader stupidity". He didn't threaten anyone, incite violence, or do anything a reasonable person would see as so dangerous to society that his first amendment rights should be infringed. What is the claim, fraud? Good luck. What agreement does he have with any person to give impartial reviews, advice, or commentary on twitter?
FTC has no jurisdiction and he should tell them to suck his fat, lumpy cock.
This is the type of fact checking they mean, I assume.
They rate as "Mostly False" something where the only disputable fact is whether she "volunteered" for it, and it appears she didn't. Literally everything else in the little poster is demonstrably true, in fact they actually say the same thing below.
Hillary Clinton volunteered to defend a rapist. False. OK, they're good there.
Hillary Clinton alleged that the victim was lying/crazy. True. Snopes tries to be cute and claim that she's just repeating what some psychiatrist said, because.. you know.. defense lawyers never find an expert witness to say what they want. Sorry, fact is that Clinton accused the victim of being crazy. Sure, she used the "I have been told" weasel words, but as we know from Trumps similar tactic that means nothing. It's in the affidavit and she signed it.
Hillary got the guy off a longer sentence, and laughed about it. True. Again, these are unarguable facts. You can certainly quibble over context, but the fact is that the guy got a reduced sentence, that she implied he was guilty, and that she laughed about said implication. All public record and undeniable.
So tell me how that is "mostly false"? I might give them credit if they said "mixed" or "depends on context and interpretation". I can also see how even in the context of these facts you could say that none of it is a big deal, and that's a valid interpretation. But just "Mostly False"? No. It's isn't.
Wait, why should someone...work? When did this idea that life should be "easy" come from, and why do you think anyone owes you anything as a generation or as an individual?
What you call "selling your soul" your grandparents would have seen as "doing the needful" and working to survive and make a life for themselves.
I think, unintentionally, you've put your finger on _exactly_ the problem.
Let me guess, you think a "wage slave" is actually a thing, right?
They act as if these are nuclear or biological weapons. There is no compelling interest in keeping plans for primitive 3D printed guns away from anyway, and there is no possible argument that there is.
I'm going to go buy a 50" TV then complain it won't run Linux. Because Reasons!
You people are being silly. Nobody is locked out of anything. Linux is open source, if you want a driver for the device go code one up, pay someone to code it up, or petition to the vendor.
Nowhere in that product's literature does it indicate it supports any Linux version.
What are you going to sue for, Linux not having the necessary drivers? Good luck with that, brohan.