That's even more creepy than people might think. Imagine all of the terrible and illegal things a person could do on that device, that traces back to you. I'm sure it would eventually get cleared up, but I don't think anyone wants law enforcement knocking down their door and tearing through their belongings until they figure out that mistakes were made.
If you haven't already gotten this sorted out with Apple, I'd really try to get in contact with them. Sure, it's unlikely that something comes of it, but it's one of those things that could really bite you in the ass.
Are robot lawnmowers actually the popular in Europe? Also, how many hedgehogs get run over by human operators, because to me it seems like robot lawnmowers should be relatively rare even if they are popular. Do hedgehogs not flee from a mower (or what is causing them to get hit) because it stands to reason that if they don't try to get out of the way that humans would probably run over them just as often.
There has to be some basic piece of information that I'm missing here, because this story doesn't seem to make sense to me. I'm not familiar with hedgehogs at all, so maybe they're just stupid when it comes to lawnmowers in the same way that rabbits are when it comes to vehicles at night. Otherwise, this just seems overblown to me.
I think it's relatively new, or at least I hadn't heard about it until this year or so. It's a portmanteau of "involuntary" and "celibacy" and is a group of men that have created their own little part of the internet where they complain about how life is unfair because they can't get laid and how it's the fault of the women who don't find them attractive. It's almost like the male equivalent of radical feminists that want to blame everything on men.
I'm assuming that the implication in labeling someone an incel is that they're a sad, pathetic, little man that can't get laid because no one wants them.
Why would they do that though? They don't need to understand the geek market or have any love for it in order to take advantage of it and crap out mediocre product to a fan base that's hungry enough to shovel corporate product down their gullets. The only way the sell it off is after they've driven it so far into the ground that everyone has lost all interest.
Small but noisy seems to dominate social media though, and Twitter lynch mobs have ended several people's careers.
Eventually people will collectively realize that social media explosions are stupid and that they should be ignored. It's something new and society just doesn't know how to deal with it yet. And once we get this figured out, something else will be new and people will react badly when it comes to their interactions with perceptions of whatever the new thing might be.
If you're going to fund public education at all, I don't think you can reasonably restrict what someone wants to teach at such a micro level. Is it okay if someone can teach that the US was almost never good, expect for one instance? Go far enough and eventually you end up with you can only teach that the U.S. is the best ever and you get something that looks like North Korea. Further, anyone taking such a class with half a brain should be able to realize that the U.S. must be pretty good if you can stand up and declare that it's all shit without the government coming down on you. I suspect that a course like that is pretty useless and that the people who take it aren't going to amount to anything. In the long run everyone starts to recognize the pattern and people stop enrolling, just like the universities I mentioned previously.
If someone wants to proclaim that the U.S. is great and teach others about all of the good stuff it does or has done, then someone should be just a free to do the opposite. There are all kinds of sites that let students rate or discuss professors or courses these days. Eventually people will avoid the useless courses. And if there's someone who really just wants to hear what they already believe, they pay taxes as well and it's their own life. It's not any of my business if they want to live it in a way that I disagree with.
I think part of this gravitation towards more screen time is an unwarranted fear by parents that something awful will happen to little Johnny if he's allowed to go outside. Gangs, pedophiles, drug dealers, Jehovah's witnesses, or other unsavory individuals will sure get poor little Johnny and cause him irreparable harm.
The wold has only become a safer place since we grew up. Somehow all of us (and the generations before us) managed to survive playing outside for most of the day. Maybe a few of us ran into what might be considered a dicey situation for a child of that age, but part of growing up is learning to navigate those situations. Expecting anyone to turn 18 and magically become an adult is foolhardy. All we've done is created developmentally delayed individuals who are only starting to grow into adults when they go to college and get the hell away from their overprotective parents.
If you trap kids inside all day, it shouldn't be any surprise that they turn to screens to give them something to do. Allow kids the opportunity to play outside and I suspect that many of them will naturally use screens a lot less frequently.
I think progressives really do believe that. I've seen too many "free speech is hate speech" posters at free speech protests to think it'a all a sham. And how are protests against free speech even a thing at colleges?
I think it's just a very small, but noisy minority (and I wouldn't label anyone who's against free speech a progressive regardless of what they might like to call themselves) that appears to be much larger or more important because the internet makes it easy to propel such occurrences to a front-and-center position where everyone can engage.
I recall hearing that enrollment at Missouri (where that one professor shut down a student reporter at some protest and was captured on video calling for "some muscle") and Evergreen (where students tried to have a no white people day) are way down. It seems that people are generally aware of this and seem to be steering clear. Just because the silent majority isn't screaming back, doesn't mean that they aren't acting on their beliefs.
Also, you can't really have free speech unless someone is free to argue that you shouldn't. There's a certain sense of the paradox of tolerance in that, but at the same time if people aren't forced to confront their beliefs about why free speech is important, they probably won't hold them dearly. I almost think that it's necessary for there to be a continual opposition to freedom of speech for it to have any chance to survive. If no one bothered to question it for sufficiently long, I suspect that people would take it entirely for granted and it would be much easier for that liberty to erode.
Why not take a better middle ground and create a separate code that isn't mired in controversy or authored by a group that clearly has a political agenda? It doesn't seem unreasonable for a man who decided to make his own operating system to make his own code of conduct for that project.
Linus points out that there are plenty of people on the other side of the political correctness line who are every bit as nasty as some of those who are against it. If your desire is to avoid being associated with the worst sort of people from side A, it seems that you should also want to avoid the same from the other side as well. I think that line of reasoning itself is terrible as you can find plenty of awful people who believe in anything. You can broadly use the same argument for free speech itself (and you often here it used) and why it should be limited. Hopefully most people can see the issue when framed this way. However, that's my own argument, not Linus's and I don't know if he'd agree with me it to begin with.
I think that Linus actually had a pretty good take on all of this years ago:
So as far as I'm concerned, the discussion is about "how to work together DESPITE people being different". Not about trying to make everybody please each other. Because I can pretty much guarantee that I'll continue cursing. To me, the discussion would be about how to work together despite these kinds of cultural differences, not about "how do we make everybody nice and sing songs sound the campfire" . . . Because if you want me to "act professional", I can tell you that I'm not interested. I'm sitting in my home office wearign a bathrobe. The same way I'm not going to start wearing ties, I'm *also* not going to buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because THAT is what "acting professionally" results in: people resort to all kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their normal urges in unnatural ways.
I think "Don't be a massive dick to anyone else" is probably sufficient as far as code of conduct goes. Yes it's vague, but any precise set of rules to govern behavior is going to be incomplete and subject to all manners of pettiness.
Normally I'd ask if they aren't just sure it's a matter of age, with young people lacking the experience of being scammed that the older generation has become wary to after falling prey to it enough times. It's pretty hard to find any 17 year old baby boomers to test after all.
I wouldn't be surprised if about 8,000 years from now, there's a massive Y10K crisis because some ancient Cobol programmers only used 4 digits for their date fields.
I think this is less that science is hard, and more that claims two orders of magnitude improvements in anything are probably bullshit unless there's a working demonstration. I'm also not sure that millennials are any worse at falling for that kind of bullshit than previous generations were either and sites like Kickstarter just mean that the public can get in on funding the kinds of scams that venture capitalists have been shown for decades.
I think there's some question as to what degree those acquisitions were successful because Facebook left them alone and largely autonomous. Continuous triple, let alone double digit growth is not possible over the long run and eventually you want to be able to transition into a stable company that can keep their product strong. You're right that not everyone who helped start the company is the best person for that, and one could even argue that their talents are being wasted if they're not out trying to make the next big thing.
However, I suspect that if Facebook tried this same strategy with new acquisitions, they'd quickly find themselves with several investments that don't pan out. I don't know what the ideal time is to allow a big acquisition transition from complete autonomy into being a division of a larger company, but ~5 years seems like a good time frame. Everyone has time to adjust and if there is friction in some areas, there's room to find a workable solution.
That sounds like a false dichotomy to me. There are also plenty of kids who likely stayed indoors to play video games instead of going out and joining gangs.
I suspect that if these fans werenâ(TM)t upset about this it would just be something else instead.
That approach is pointless to begin with so I'm not even sure why they would think they'll be able to replace taxis and occupy a Monopoly position that would allow them to increase rates. Are they blind to the fact that their very own model could be used to unseat them if they were to try to act like a city taxi service? Never mind that they're not the only game in town and users will just go to Lyft or anyone else who has cheaper prices.
I don't think it really matters. If you look at the track record for most of these big mergers or acquisitions, they hardly ever work out as well as anyone hopes. The AOL Time Warner deal is probably the biggest example, and the HP Compaq merger comes to mind as well. Even more recently we had Google buy Motorola, only to sell them off a few years later, presumably taking an overall loss on their investment. You'd think that all of those previous giants would have made it impossible for new companies to arise, yet here we are with Apple and Microsoft (though they're hardly the young upstarts they once were) being at the top of the pile, but other new companies like Amazon, Google (both only some 20 years old), and more recently Facebook (15 years old) also rising. Sometime in the next decade, we'll see another company that doesn't even exist yet make a similar rise to power and companies formed within the last 10 years like Xiaomi which is the 4th largest smartphone manufacturer in the world despite only being 8 years old.
If a board can convince shareholders that it's better to spend the company's money on an acquisition instead of returning it to the shareholders, that's their own business. Also, very few companies pay for these mergers with cash, and instead use the purchasing company's stock to finance the deal. Most companies don't have anywhere near the amount of cash that would be necessary to buy even a moderately successful startup company. And if you want to know why companies like Apple or Microsoft do have big piles of cash overseas, it's due to the idiotic U.S. laws that make it financially unfeasible for them to bring it back to the U.S. where they'd no doubt be happy to reinvest a sizable portion of it.
I don't think that's true at all. If you look back in history, mob justice was rife and there were people who were outright killed (often in unpleasant ways) over false presumption of guilt. If you're instaed referring to the court of public opinion, that's always existed and if it seems worse now, it's only because social media and global news put every bit of it at your fingertips. Twitter and Facebook are just water coolers for the entire world to share.
I wouldn't be surprised if Tierra.net knows they screwed up and are trying to take care of this internally so as not to open themselves up to any kind of legal action. Once a proper scapegoat has been found and some poor bastard is made to lean on their sword everything will be cleared up.
Why not just keep using the 6S? It still gets the latest updates and will continue to for some time. If you're not using it for anything particularly taxing, it would be kind of foolish to buy a new device to replace something that works fine. It's only 3 years old at this, and should probably last another 3 without issue.
Considering that you would need to buy Sony hardware to play Playstation games at all, I think we're a bit past that point. If you didn't trust them, why the hell would you buy a PS# in the first place, especially when you know that it's not open hardware.
If it were a private school, sure, but this is the public school system. The parents are going to have a lot more pull and can easily take over a school board if they're overly upset and the existing board won't cave to their demands, which is unlikely in the first place.
I don't think it really matters. Companies that try to pull shit like that ultimately end up destroying their own credibility and brand more than they can actively do anything. If anything, these companies are probably bad for the Democrats as they're much further left than the party as a whole and will push agendas that aren't politically palatable outside of far-left circles. I almost wonder if we're going to get a Tea Party-esque situation where there's a splinter faction within the Democrat party and a need for the mainstream party to distance themselves from the more extreme-end.
Slashdot Mirror
That's even more creepy than people might think. Imagine all of the terrible and illegal things a person could do on that device, that traces back to you. I'm sure it would eventually get cleared up, but I don't think anyone wants law enforcement knocking down their door and tearing through their belongings until they figure out that mistakes were made.
If you haven't already gotten this sorted out with Apple, I'd really try to get in contact with them. Sure, it's unlikely that something comes of it, but it's one of those things that could really bite you in the ass.
Are robot lawnmowers actually the popular in Europe? Also, how many hedgehogs get run over by human operators, because to me it seems like robot lawnmowers should be relatively rare even if they are popular. Do hedgehogs not flee from a mower (or what is causing them to get hit) because it stands to reason that if they don't try to get out of the way that humans would probably run over them just as often.
There has to be some basic piece of information that I'm missing here, because this story doesn't seem to make sense to me. I'm not familiar with hedgehogs at all, so maybe they're just stupid when it comes to lawnmowers in the same way that rabbits are when it comes to vehicles at night. Otherwise, this just seems overblown to me.
I think it's relatively new, or at least I hadn't heard about it until this year or so. It's a portmanteau of "involuntary" and "celibacy" and is a group of men that have created their own little part of the internet where they complain about how life is unfair because they can't get laid and how it's the fault of the women who don't find them attractive. It's almost like the male equivalent of radical feminists that want to blame everything on men.
I'm assuming that the implication in labeling someone an incel is that they're a sad, pathetic, little man that can't get laid because no one wants them.
I didn't say it was the only cause, merely that I think it's a part of the overall problem. I think it's one that's particularly easy to fix as well.
Why would they do that though? They don't need to understand the geek market or have any love for it in order to take advantage of it and crap out mediocre product to a fan base that's hungry enough to shovel corporate product down their gullets. The only way the sell it off is after they've driven it so far into the ground that everyone has lost all interest.
Small but noisy seems to dominate social media though, and Twitter lynch mobs have ended several people's careers.
Eventually people will collectively realize that social media explosions are stupid and that they should be ignored. It's something new and society just doesn't know how to deal with it yet. And once we get this figured out, something else will be new and people will react badly when it comes to their interactions with perceptions of whatever the new thing might be.
If you're going to fund public education at all, I don't think you can reasonably restrict what someone wants to teach at such a micro level. Is it okay if someone can teach that the US was almost never good, expect for one instance? Go far enough and eventually you end up with you can only teach that the U.S. is the best ever and you get something that looks like North Korea. Further, anyone taking such a class with half a brain should be able to realize that the U.S. must be pretty good if you can stand up and declare that it's all shit without the government coming down on you. I suspect that a course like that is pretty useless and that the people who take it aren't going to amount to anything. In the long run everyone starts to recognize the pattern and people stop enrolling, just like the universities I mentioned previously.
If someone wants to proclaim that the U.S. is great and teach others about all of the good stuff it does or has done, then someone should be just a free to do the opposite. There are all kinds of sites that let students rate or discuss professors or courses these days. Eventually people will avoid the useless courses. And if there's someone who really just wants to hear what they already believe, they pay taxes as well and it's their own life. It's not any of my business if they want to live it in a way that I disagree with.
I think part of this gravitation towards more screen time is an unwarranted fear by parents that something awful will happen to little Johnny if he's allowed to go outside. Gangs, pedophiles, drug dealers, Jehovah's witnesses, or other unsavory individuals will sure get poor little Johnny and cause him irreparable harm.
The wold has only become a safer place since we grew up. Somehow all of us (and the generations before us) managed to survive playing outside for most of the day. Maybe a few of us ran into what might be considered a dicey situation for a child of that age, but part of growing up is learning to navigate those situations. Expecting anyone to turn 18 and magically become an adult is foolhardy. All we've done is created developmentally delayed individuals who are only starting to grow into adults when they go to college and get the hell away from their overprotective parents.
If you trap kids inside all day, it shouldn't be any surprise that they turn to screens to give them something to do. Allow kids the opportunity to play outside and I suspect that many of them will naturally use screens a lot less frequently.
I think progressives really do believe that. I've seen too many "free speech is hate speech" posters at free speech protests to think it'a all a sham. And how are protests against free speech even a thing at colleges?
I think it's just a very small, but noisy minority (and I wouldn't label anyone who's against free speech a progressive regardless of what they might like to call themselves) that appears to be much larger or more important because the internet makes it easy to propel such occurrences to a front-and-center position where everyone can engage.
I recall hearing that enrollment at Missouri (where that one professor shut down a student reporter at some protest and was captured on video calling for "some muscle") and Evergreen (where students tried to have a no white people day) are way down. It seems that people are generally aware of this and seem to be steering clear. Just because the silent majority isn't screaming back, doesn't mean that they aren't acting on their beliefs.
Also, you can't really have free speech unless someone is free to argue that you shouldn't. There's a certain sense of the paradox of tolerance in that, but at the same time if people aren't forced to confront their beliefs about why free speech is important, they probably won't hold them dearly. I almost think that it's necessary for there to be a continual opposition to freedom of speech for it to have any chance to survive. If no one bothered to question it for sufficiently long, I suspect that people would take it entirely for granted and it would be much easier for that liberty to erode.
Linus points out that there are plenty of people on the other side of the political correctness line who are every bit as nasty as some of those who are against it. If your desire is to avoid being associated with the worst sort of people from side A, it seems that you should also want to avoid the same from the other side as well. I think that line of reasoning itself is terrible as you can find plenty of awful people who believe in anything. You can broadly use the same argument for free speech itself (and you often here it used) and why it should be limited. Hopefully most people can see the issue when framed this way. However, that's my own argument, not Linus's and I don't know if he'd agree with me it to begin with.
I think that Linus actually had a pretty good take on all of this years ago:
So as far as I'm concerned, the discussion is about "how to work together DESPITE people being different". Not about trying to make everybody please each other. Because I can pretty much guarantee that I'll continue cursing. To me, the discussion would be about how to work together despite these kinds of cultural differences, not about "how do we make everybody nice and sing songs sound the campfire" . . . Because if you want me to "act professional", I can tell you that I'm not interested. I'm sitting in my home office wearign a bathrobe. The same way I'm not going to start wearing ties, I'm *also* not going to buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because THAT is what "acting professionally" results in: people resort to all kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their normal urges in unnatural ways.
I think "Don't be a massive dick to anyone else" is probably sufficient as far as code of conduct goes. Yes it's vague, but any precise set of rules to govern behavior is going to be incomplete and subject to all manners of pettiness.
Yo mamma so fat, she makes the earth wobble more than it should.
We all know that's the real cause.
Normally I'd ask if they aren't just sure it's a matter of age, with young people lacking the experience of being scammed that the older generation has become wary to after falling prey to it enough times. It's pretty hard to find any 17 year old baby boomers to test after all.
/. article about the younger generation thinking socialism was a good idea so the millennials could genuinely be naive, gullible fools. But is is fair to blame them for any of this, or should we really blame the generation that raised them to be this way?
Of course, there was the recent
I wouldn't be surprised if about 8,000 years from now, there's a massive Y10K crisis because some ancient Cobol programmers only used 4 digits for their date fields.
I think this is less that science is hard, and more that claims two orders of magnitude improvements in anything are probably bullshit unless there's a working demonstration. I'm also not sure that millennials are any worse at falling for that kind of bullshit than previous generations were either and sites like Kickstarter just mean that the public can get in on funding the kinds of scams that venture capitalists have been shown for decades.
Being able to reprocess spent nuclear fuel means that there's less of a storage issue for nuclear waste.
I think there's some question as to what degree those acquisitions were successful because Facebook left them alone and largely autonomous. Continuous triple, let alone double digit growth is not possible over the long run and eventually you want to be able to transition into a stable company that can keep their product strong. You're right that not everyone who helped start the company is the best person for that, and one could even argue that their talents are being wasted if they're not out trying to make the next big thing.
However, I suspect that if Facebook tried this same strategy with new acquisitions, they'd quickly find themselves with several investments that don't pan out. I don't know what the ideal time is to allow a big acquisition transition from complete autonomy into being a division of a larger company, but ~5 years seems like a good time frame. Everyone has time to adjust and if there is friction in some areas, there's room to find a workable solution.
That sounds like a false dichotomy to me. There are also plenty of kids who likely stayed indoors to play video games instead of going out and joining gangs.
I suspect that if these fans werenâ(TM)t upset about this it would just be something else instead.
That approach is pointless to begin with so I'm not even sure why they would think they'll be able to replace taxis and occupy a Monopoly position that would allow them to increase rates. Are they blind to the fact that their very own model could be used to unseat them if they were to try to act like a city taxi service? Never mind that they're not the only game in town and users will just go to Lyft or anyone else who has cheaper prices.
I don't think it really matters. If you look at the track record for most of these big mergers or acquisitions, they hardly ever work out as well as anyone hopes. The AOL Time Warner deal is probably the biggest example, and the HP Compaq merger comes to mind as well. Even more recently we had Google buy Motorola, only to sell them off a few years later, presumably taking an overall loss on their investment. You'd think that all of those previous giants would have made it impossible for new companies to arise, yet here we are with Apple and Microsoft (though they're hardly the young upstarts they once were) being at the top of the pile, but other new companies like Amazon, Google (both only some 20 years old), and more recently Facebook (15 years old) also rising. Sometime in the next decade, we'll see another company that doesn't even exist yet make a similar rise to power and companies formed within the last 10 years like Xiaomi which is the 4th largest smartphone manufacturer in the world despite only being 8 years old.
If a board can convince shareholders that it's better to spend the company's money on an acquisition instead of returning it to the shareholders, that's their own business. Also, very few companies pay for these mergers with cash, and instead use the purchasing company's stock to finance the deal. Most companies don't have anywhere near the amount of cash that would be necessary to buy even a moderately successful startup company. And if you want to know why companies like Apple or Microsoft do have big piles of cash overseas, it's due to the idiotic U.S. laws that make it financially unfeasible for them to bring it back to the U.S. where they'd no doubt be happy to reinvest a sizable portion of it.
I don't think that's true at all. If you look back in history, mob justice was rife and there were people who were outright killed (often in unpleasant ways) over false presumption of guilt. If you're instaed referring to the court of public opinion, that's always existed and if it seems worse now, it's only because social media and global news put every bit of it at your fingertips. Twitter and Facebook are just water coolers for the entire world to share.
I wouldn't be surprised if Tierra.net knows they screwed up and are trying to take care of this internally so as not to open themselves up to any kind of legal action. Once a proper scapegoat has been found and some poor bastard is made to lean on their sword everything will be cleared up.
Why not just keep using the 6S? It still gets the latest updates and will continue to for some time. If you're not using it for anything particularly taxing, it would be kind of foolish to buy a new device to replace something that works fine. It's only 3 years old at this, and should probably last another 3 without issue.
how can you trust them with your systems?
Considering that you would need to buy Sony hardware to play Playstation games at all, I think we're a bit past that point. If you didn't trust them, why the hell would you buy a PS# in the first place, especially when you know that it's not open hardware.
Not only that, but it can power a whole Beowulf cluster.
Explaining a joke is a bit like dissecting a frog. You might learn a lot from doing it, but it kills the frog in the process.
If it were a private school, sure, but this is the public school system. The parents are going to have a lot more pull and can easily take over a school board if they're overly upset and the existing board won't cave to their demands, which is unlikely in the first place.
I don't think it really matters. Companies that try to pull shit like that ultimately end up destroying their own credibility and brand more than they can actively do anything. If anything, these companies are probably bad for the Democrats as they're much further left than the party as a whole and will push agendas that aren't politically palatable outside of far-left circles. I almost wonder if we're going to get a Tea Party-esque situation where there's a splinter faction within the Democrat party and a need for the mainstream party to distance themselves from the more extreme-end.