Half of internet users are idiots that cannot understand how a browser works. To them, it is perfectly normal to type in the name of a website and click on the first link in Google. To them, that is the way the internet works. Smart bars were not born out of convenience, but from endless support tickets from idiots about not being able to get to a website. Most browsers even hide the full URL as the site of this terrified many a folk. These are the same people who clicked the punch the monkey banner ads and fucked up the web for the rest of us.
Can't wait to see how some people slam this new regulation as an attack on the free speech of Russians...
I'm not going to slam this as I believe that Google is free to do as it likes as a private company, but what I will say is that I find it humorous that the people most likely to be in favor of this move are probably also the same people who are most likely to disapprove of any laws requiring a valid government ID to actually vote in an election.
Most people would happily tick that box without even bothering to read the fine print. It doesn't matter what law you pass if you can't get people to understand the importance of keeping their data private and secure. Hopefully things will improve in future generations, but I suspect that history will look on us as digital barbarians of sorts.
VC is a lovely city for sure, but itâ(TM)s getting to be just as expensive as SV. A lot of property is being bought up by Chinese investors for tax purposes so the costs are out of control and the demand hasnâ(TM)t changed because many of those properties go unused.
But if I were going to live in Canada, it would definitely be somewhere in BC. Lots of beautiful country up there.
You're correct that these are fundamental technologies and that they're worth a lot, but this has to do with how those components became fundamental. Typically, no companies want to be in a position where they can only buy from a single supplier as they're at the mercy of that supplier and can easily get stuck if the overall ecosystem becomes a monoculture that won't let you use anything except for that technology.
So what companies due is offer to license or sell their technology on terms where they typically get less money than what they could otherwise, but agree to give everyone the same deal so that everyone does adopt their technology and they have a higher volume of sales. Sometimes several companies package technology together under these terms. Either way they're referred to as RAND (or sometimes FRAND) terms. Sometimes, governments might even require such terms be used to prevent them from going after a company for being a monopoly if they're the only company that can legally supply the technology due to patents.
One of Apple's key claims in one of these cases (there are a lot of different cases involving Apple and Qualcomm, including several where they're suing each other for various reasons) is that Qualcomm was trying to charge Apple more than they were charging Apple's competitors.
It's the British English spelling, which makes sense given the story is from the Guardian. I guess we could squabble about whether maths or math is more appropriate, but they're both contractions of mathematics.
I can overlook outdated 3D graphics, but the old control schemes are what kills many of these games for me. Some of those older 3D games have terrible controls, typically coupled with bad camera placement. The graphics often did a good job of pushing the limits of the developers ability and systems at the time, but most developers had no experience with designing three dimensional game worlds. The original PlayStation didn't even have a controller built with those kinds of games in mind.
You would think that by now, not storing (or if possible even transmitting) passwords in plain text would be common sense or something that they teach in school. Developers found violating that principle should be sent to a reeducation camp and have that point driven into them, possibly with a mallet.
The skeptical part of me thinks that we're only hearing about this now because, as much as Facebook wouldn't like it to be known that their employees have been pulling this kind of shit all throughout the company's history, they'd rather have us talking about this than the other ways your data has been and is being abused by the company. From how Facebook has behaved, perhaps the only crime that these employees committed in Facebook's eyes was a failure to pay Facebook's going rate for access.
I think we should start some kind of betting pool on when this services gets officially axed. $20 gets you a one week block of your choice, with winner taking the pot minus escrow expenses.
I believe that Orwell's essay on fascism is still as apt as ever. Essentially it's just a way to describe a political (or more generally, any ideological) opponent you don't like and historically been flung at just about everyone from communists to Catholics. It's a fancier way of saying "bad guy" in most cases.
The question is what made Avengers clear 1.5 billion+ and Batman v Superman only do half that?
People are pretty good at finding patterns. In this particular case the pattern is that most Marvel universe movies are pretty good and will be enjoyable and that if a DC universe film is good, it was probably an accident. There isn't really a formula here, just a case of a shitty reputation. You can probably look for the underlying causes of that if you want to avoid such things in the future, or try to correct them now, but on the surface it's not difficult to reason out why one film did vastly more business.
I think there are some easy technical solutions that can get around this problem. Just provide students with an online platform (you could even use a git repository or something similar) where they can upload their work in progress or even edit it in real time in a Google Docs type of environment. This is probably a better system than one large, final delivery anyways as it allows for feedback and discussion. It also is more likely to get students started on time if there are milestone requirements. Cheating becomes a lot easier to detect when someone with an IP from Estonia is trying to connect to the system. You could probably even create some agents that analyze the input as its being created to look for suspicious patterns such as someone pasting in large chunks of text or just typing the whole thing in without ever making corrections, modifications, etc. that would suggest you're not just manually typing something that came from a paper someone else gave you.
So much of that can be automated that it likely means that instructors can focus more on the content and working with students instead of having to worry about plagiarism, which can be difficult for humans to detect unless it's particularly blatant. A system like this might even provide some utility to students if it gets them to actually do some of their own work and develop their skills.
I'd be shocked if it wasn't more pervasive. I've hard several co-workers use the phrase "stalking him/her on Facebook" or something to that extent in a manner of jest that suggests there's a bit more truth to their statement than may be appropriate. I suspect that the great injustice here as that this employee had much better access to stalking functionalities than other users, which is clearly viewed as unfair.
I suggest burying something in your social media persona that normal users don't have access to which can tip you off to anyone who posses information they shouldn't. Works equally well for government types and pathetic stalkers alike.
That doesn't explain why a merger is necessary. Sprint can die the horrible death it deserves and the remaining companies can pick up their customers or other assets. That necessarily implies that they will compete for those resources and that each company is less likely to acquire resources it doesn't need or want.
The likely alternative is that T-Mobile acquires Sprint at an inflated price along with a lot of assets that it has no real interest in, which could well capsize T-Mobile as well if they really screw the pooch on the valuation. History is rife with examples of mergers that left the acquiring company a bloated mess and much less capable. Let dysfunctional things die instead of co-opting them and hoping the cancer doesn't spread.
To be fair, that's how most laws work. Look at the U.S. with respect to copyright. The government can't even investigate or prosecute.01% of cases because its so pervasive. By nailing a few unlucky bastards to the wall and making a big show of force they hope that the rest will fall in line.
I'm under the impression that if streaming services and digital access had been further stifled as the content cartel would have liked, we would have changed copyright laws as a result of popular ballot initiative because a majority would be pirating by this point due to onerous restrictions on accessing content.
China has the benefit of most of the population remembering a time when even allegations of misbehavior could get you sent to a reeducation camp of sorts to straighten out that improper attitude. Over time that will fade and so will China's propensity for trying to exert this level of control.
Who takes the time to try to look up someone based on their real name for a question on an internet website? However, this begs the question as to why people are using their real name on the internet to begin with though. That's just basic common sense.
I'm also not sure how readily apparent someone's gender or ethnicity are from most user names either. For example, people have often assumed that you're female based on your username (or maybe it's just the constant feminism), but they're wrong from what you've stated. I'm not sure how anyone could or is supposed to be able to infer nationality, ethnic group, or whether you have some kind of disability from your username. I would probably guess French (based on ami being a French word) but that still doesn't mean you're French as there are plenty of other countries which are not France where French is the main spoken language.
Beyond that, I can't fathom why anyone should care who's asking the question and if these websites were that concerned about the problem, they could just create a pseudonym for each question asked that doesn't contain the actual users name. Then you can't even run into cases where a particular username develops a reputation which causes other users to act dismissively.
So women are too stupid to become mechanics, but not veterinarians? The systemic society won't trust them to fix its automobiles, but will turn over the care of the ledgers of the companies that fix those vehicles to them?
I think you've created one hell of a false dichotomy, and neither option seems to fit the observable world.
If there's something systemic that is preventing women from breaking into directing, that's potentially a huge pool of talent wasted.
In one of the most progressive industries, in one of the most progressive states, in one of the most progressive countries in the world?
I'm somewhat skeptical that any such thing exists or at least not anything that would cause such a large gap or even the majority of it. Especially in a business that cares far more about revenue than it does about art. So if female directors could generate better profits, the studios would be tripping over themselves to hire them. Contrast this with other fields (accounting, veterinary medicine, etc.) that historically had no female practitioners (much like directing), but are now majority female, and you have to explain why this systemic something did not prevent women from breaking into those fields.
I'm not going to claim that Hollywood is a perfect or even a model example. It's quite obvious from recent history that there are plenty of sleazy assholes who were willing to use their positions of authority to coerce women, men, and children into sex. Perhaps Hollywood and the allure of fame makes this more prevalent, but it's hardly unique to the film industry either, so I'm not inclined to believe women in film have had to deal with anything that women in business, medicine, or any other field haven't also had to deal with.
If you know what this systemic something is, by all means share it. Otherwise you could just be tilting at windmills. But to my original point, did you ever stop to think about the fact that there's an even lower percentage of female mechanics? I'm guessing that the thought never crossed your mind, so I really have to ask why you should care in this instance but not in the other? I think you can realize that it really doesn't matter what sex your mechanic is as long as they do a good job, so why not be similarly unconcerned in this case as well?
I wonder if it would just be cheaper to genetically modify the coral to handle the temperature and acidification than to pour a lot of money into other approaches that may not have much chance at success.
When 14 percent of all film directors in the industry are female, and they represent 50 percent of the population, that's a big delta there that needs to get rectified.
The last time I had my alignment done I wasn't at all bothered that I couldn't find a female mechanic. Why should I care any more or less who's directing the movies that I watch?
Maybe we'll get incredibly lucky and Trump will refuse to pass it into law because he hates the big media conglomerates so much. I don't see the Republicans in general being too cozy with Hollywood even if they do like big business so it's pretty unlikely that they can buy enough support for it.
I don't think that's a great comparison or helps make your point very well. Until very recently AMD wasn't very competitive at all beyond the low end of the consumer market and Intel stagnated for quite a long time. If AMD didn't have as much success as they have with Ryzen, Intel would still be pushing 4 core chips for $350. Even with their newfound success, AMD still has a relatively large debt hole to climb out of (though I expect it's manageable in their current situation) and part of their success is Intel blundering horribly with their next generation 10 nm process which has been delayed for years now.
Some conservatives would hate them even if the Democrats proposed dismantling the EPA and removing all gun restrictions. If you're going to get castigated no matter what you do, you should probably stop giving a shit what other people say. Give your side the results they want so that people want to keep voting for your side instead alienating both your own side for doing nothing and the other side merely for existing.
Kim Jong Un could still be quite insane and it seems he at least learned enough of the regular saber-rattling technique from his old man to keep up appearances, but I think that he just ran into someone who was even more unhinged. Someone like a U.S. president that constantly shit talks everyone and anyone on twitter, constantly opens his mouth to invite even more legal trouble that wouldn't exist if he'd just shut up, and who seems to have no problem changing his mind about something mid-sentence.
Kim was like the deranged homeless guy that everyone wanted to stay away from and so people would just let him rummage through their dumpsters because no one really wants to confront the guy for fear of what might happen, and to some degree that homeless guy probably drums up the act a bit because he knows that this works. However, Trump is like a new homeless dude that's caked in mud and smells like piss that's screaming about god or the government that even the other homeless people don't want to fuck with because even they're a little bit worried about what this crazy mother fucker is going to do.
Trump kind of terrifies everyone else because they aren't quite sure how he'll act or behave and most other political leaders really don't want someone to introduce enough chaos that it causes their own gravy train to come crashing down as well. Trump is the new crazy man that the rest of the world leaders will seek to appease because even thought it means giving in a little, it seems to be less painful than what might happen if he doesn't get his way.
Some people want to argue that all of this is somehow brilliant political maneuvering on Trump's part, but that's being far, far too gracious. He may not be the type of complete idiot that much of the media would like to portray him as, but that doesn't make him some kind of chess master playing a highly skilled game that leaves his opponents caught in any number of clever snares. I think it's more of an idiot hero trope comparison where's he's so far out of his league that he's outmaneuvering opponents who were expecting a second best duelist instead of someone who looks like him might stab himself at any given moment.
Slashdot Mirror
Half of internet users are idiots that cannot understand how a browser works. To them, it is perfectly normal to type in the name of a website and click on the first link in Google. To them, that is the way the internet works. Smart bars were not born out of convenience, but from endless support tickets from idiots about not being able to get to a website. Most browsers even hide the full URL as the site of this terrified many a folk. These are the same people who clicked the punch the monkey banner ads and fucked up the web for the rest of us.
Can't wait to see how some people slam this new regulation as an attack on the free speech of Russians...
I'm not going to slam this as I believe that Google is free to do as it likes as a private company, but what I will say is that I find it humorous that the people most likely to be in favor of this move are probably also the same people who are most likely to disapprove of any laws requiring a valid government ID to actually vote in an election.
Most people would happily tick that box without even bothering to read the fine print. It doesn't matter what law you pass if you can't get people to understand the importance of keeping their data private and secure. Hopefully things will improve in future generations, but I suspect that history will look on us as digital barbarians of sorts.
VC is a lovely city for sure, but itâ(TM)s getting to be just as expensive as SV. A lot of property is being bought up by Chinese investors for tax purposes so the costs are out of control and the demand hasnâ(TM)t changed because many of those properties go unused.
But if I were going to live in Canada, it would definitely be somewhere in BC. Lots of beautiful country up there.
You're correct that these are fundamental technologies and that they're worth a lot, but this has to do with how those components became fundamental. Typically, no companies want to be in a position where they can only buy from a single supplier as they're at the mercy of that supplier and can easily get stuck if the overall ecosystem becomes a monoculture that won't let you use anything except for that technology.
So what companies due is offer to license or sell their technology on terms where they typically get less money than what they could otherwise, but agree to give everyone the same deal so that everyone does adopt their technology and they have a higher volume of sales. Sometimes several companies package technology together under these terms. Either way they're referred to as RAND (or sometimes FRAND) terms. Sometimes, governments might even require such terms be used to prevent them from going after a company for being a monopoly if they're the only company that can legally supply the technology due to patents.
One of Apple's key claims in one of these cases (there are a lot of different cases involving Apple and Qualcomm, including several where they're suing each other for various reasons) is that Qualcomm was trying to charge Apple more than they were charging Apple's competitors.
It's the British English spelling, which makes sense given the story is from the Guardian. I guess we could squabble about whether maths or math is more appropriate, but they're both contractions of mathematics.
I can overlook outdated 3D graphics, but the old control schemes are what kills many of these games for me. Some of those older 3D games have terrible controls, typically coupled with bad camera placement. The graphics often did a good job of pushing the limits of the developers ability and systems at the time, but most developers had no experience with designing three dimensional game worlds. The original PlayStation didn't even have a controller built with those kinds of games in mind.
You would think that by now, not storing (or if possible even transmitting) passwords in plain text would be common sense or something that they teach in school. Developers found violating that principle should be sent to a reeducation camp and have that point driven into them, possibly with a mallet.
The skeptical part of me thinks that we're only hearing about this now because, as much as Facebook wouldn't like it to be known that their employees have been pulling this kind of shit all throughout the company's history, they'd rather have us talking about this than the other ways your data has been and is being abused by the company. From how Facebook has behaved, perhaps the only crime that these employees committed in Facebook's eyes was a failure to pay Facebook's going rate for access.
I think we should start some kind of betting pool on when this services gets officially axed. $20 gets you a one week block of your choice, with winner taking the pot minus escrow expenses.
I believe that Orwell's essay on fascism is still as apt as ever. Essentially it's just a way to describe a political (or more generally, any ideological) opponent you don't like and historically been flung at just about everyone from communists to Catholics. It's a fancier way of saying "bad guy" in most cases.
The question is what made Avengers clear 1.5 billion+ and Batman v Superman only do half that?
People are pretty good at finding patterns. In this particular case the pattern is that most Marvel universe movies are pretty good and will be enjoyable and that if a DC universe film is good, it was probably an accident. There isn't really a formula here, just a case of a shitty reputation. You can probably look for the underlying causes of that if you want to avoid such things in the future, or try to correct them now, but on the surface it's not difficult to reason out why one film did vastly more business.
I think there are some easy technical solutions that can get around this problem. Just provide students with an online platform (you could even use a git repository or something similar) where they can upload their work in progress or even edit it in real time in a Google Docs type of environment. This is probably a better system than one large, final delivery anyways as it allows for feedback and discussion. It also is more likely to get students started on time if there are milestone requirements. Cheating becomes a lot easier to detect when someone with an IP from Estonia is trying to connect to the system. You could probably even create some agents that analyze the input as its being created to look for suspicious patterns such as someone pasting in large chunks of text or just typing the whole thing in without ever making corrections, modifications, etc. that would suggest you're not just manually typing something that came from a paper someone else gave you.
So much of that can be automated that it likely means that instructors can focus more on the content and working with students instead of having to worry about plagiarism, which can be difficult for humans to detect unless it's particularly blatant. A system like this might even provide some utility to students if it gets them to actually do some of their own work and develop their skills.
I'd be shocked if it wasn't more pervasive. I've hard several co-workers use the phrase "stalking him/her on Facebook" or something to that extent in a manner of jest that suggests there's a bit more truth to their statement than may be appropriate. I suspect that the great injustice here as that this employee had much better access to stalking functionalities than other users, which is clearly viewed as unfair.
I suggest burying something in your social media persona that normal users don't have access to which can tip you off to anyone who posses information they shouldn't. Works equally well for government types and pathetic stalkers alike.
That doesn't explain why a merger is necessary. Sprint can die the horrible death it deserves and the remaining companies can pick up their customers or other assets. That necessarily implies that they will compete for those resources and that each company is less likely to acquire resources it doesn't need or want.
The likely alternative is that T-Mobile acquires Sprint at an inflated price along with a lot of assets that it has no real interest in, which could well capsize T-Mobile as well if they really screw the pooch on the valuation. History is rife with examples of mergers that left the acquiring company a bloated mess and much less capable. Let dysfunctional things die instead of co-opting them and hoping the cancer doesn't spread.
To be fair, that's how most laws work. Look at the U.S. with respect to copyright. The government can't even investigate or prosecute .01% of cases because its so pervasive. By nailing a few unlucky bastards to the wall and making a big show of force they hope that the rest will fall in line.
I'm under the impression that if streaming services and digital access had been further stifled as the content cartel would have liked, we would have changed copyright laws as a result of popular ballot initiative because a majority would be pirating by this point due to onerous restrictions on accessing content.
China has the benefit of most of the population remembering a time when even allegations of misbehavior could get you sent to a reeducation camp of sorts to straighten out that improper attitude. Over time that will fade and so will China's propensity for trying to exert this level of control.
Who takes the time to try to look up someone based on their real name for a question on an internet website? However, this begs the question as to why people are using their real name on the internet to begin with though. That's just basic common sense.
I'm also not sure how readily apparent someone's gender or ethnicity are from most user names either. For example, people have often assumed that you're female based on your username (or maybe it's just the constant feminism), but they're wrong from what you've stated. I'm not sure how anyone could or is supposed to be able to infer nationality, ethnic group, or whether you have some kind of disability from your username. I would probably guess French (based on ami being a French word) but that still doesn't mean you're French as there are plenty of other countries which are not France where French is the main spoken language.
Beyond that, I can't fathom why anyone should care who's asking the question and if these websites were that concerned about the problem, they could just create a pseudonym for each question asked that doesn't contain the actual users name. Then you can't even run into cases where a particular username develops a reputation which causes other users to act dismissively.
So women are too stupid to become mechanics, but not veterinarians? The systemic society won't trust them to fix its automobiles, but will turn over the care of the ledgers of the companies that fix those vehicles to them?
I think you've created one hell of a false dichotomy, and neither option seems to fit the observable world.
If there's something systemic that is preventing women from breaking into directing, that's potentially a huge pool of talent wasted.
In one of the most progressive industries, in one of the most progressive states, in one of the most progressive countries in the world?
I'm somewhat skeptical that any such thing exists or at least not anything that would cause such a large gap or even the majority of it. Especially in a business that cares far more about revenue than it does about art. So if female directors could generate better profits, the studios would be tripping over themselves to hire them. Contrast this with other fields (accounting, veterinary medicine, etc.) that historically had no female practitioners (much like directing), but are now majority female, and you have to explain why this systemic something did not prevent women from breaking into those fields.
I'm not going to claim that Hollywood is a perfect or even a model example. It's quite obvious from recent history that there are plenty of sleazy assholes who were willing to use their positions of authority to coerce women, men, and children into sex. Perhaps Hollywood and the allure of fame makes this more prevalent, but it's hardly unique to the film industry either, so I'm not inclined to believe women in film have had to deal with anything that women in business, medicine, or any other field haven't also had to deal with.
If you know what this systemic something is, by all means share it. Otherwise you could just be tilting at windmills. But to my original point, did you ever stop to think about the fact that there's an even lower percentage of female mechanics? I'm guessing that the thought never crossed your mind, so I really have to ask why you should care in this instance but not in the other? I think you can realize that it really doesn't matter what sex your mechanic is as long as they do a good job, so why not be similarly unconcerned in this case as well?
I wonder if it would just be cheaper to genetically modify the coral to handle the temperature and acidification than to pour a lot of money into other approaches that may not have much chance at success.
When 14 percent of all film directors in the industry are female, and they represent 50 percent of the population, that's a big delta there that needs to get rectified.
The last time I had my alignment done I wasn't at all bothered that I couldn't find a female mechanic. Why should I care any more or less who's directing the movies that I watch?
Maybe we'll get incredibly lucky and Trump will refuse to pass it into law because he hates the big media conglomerates so much. I don't see the Republicans in general being too cozy with Hollywood even if they do like big business so it's pretty unlikely that they can buy enough support for it.
I don't think that's a great comparison or helps make your point very well. Until very recently AMD wasn't very competitive at all beyond the low end of the consumer market and Intel stagnated for quite a long time. If AMD didn't have as much success as they have with Ryzen, Intel would still be pushing 4 core chips for $350. Even with their newfound success, AMD still has a relatively large debt hole to climb out of (though I expect it's manageable in their current situation) and part of their success is Intel blundering horribly with their next generation 10 nm process which has been delayed for years now.
Some conservatives would hate them even if the Democrats proposed dismantling the EPA and removing all gun restrictions. If you're going to get castigated no matter what you do, you should probably stop giving a shit what other people say. Give your side the results they want so that people want to keep voting for your side instead alienating both your own side for doing nothing and the other side merely for existing.
Kim Jong Un could still be quite insane and it seems he at least learned enough of the regular saber-rattling technique from his old man to keep up appearances, but I think that he just ran into someone who was even more unhinged. Someone like a U.S. president that constantly shit talks everyone and anyone on twitter, constantly opens his mouth to invite even more legal trouble that wouldn't exist if he'd just shut up, and who seems to have no problem changing his mind about something mid-sentence.
Kim was like the deranged homeless guy that everyone wanted to stay away from and so people would just let him rummage through their dumpsters because no one really wants to confront the guy for fear of what might happen, and to some degree that homeless guy probably drums up the act a bit because he knows that this works. However, Trump is like a new homeless dude that's caked in mud and smells like piss that's screaming about god or the government that even the other homeless people don't want to fuck with because even they're a little bit worried about what this crazy mother fucker is going to do.
Trump kind of terrifies everyone else because they aren't quite sure how he'll act or behave and most other political leaders really don't want someone to introduce enough chaos that it causes their own gravy train to come crashing down as well. Trump is the new crazy man that the rest of the world leaders will seek to appease because even thought it means giving in a little, it seems to be less painful than what might happen if he doesn't get his way.
Some people want to argue that all of this is somehow brilliant political maneuvering on Trump's part, but that's being far, far too gracious. He may not be the type of complete idiot that much of the media would like to portray him as, but that doesn't make him some kind of chess master playing a highly skilled game that leaves his opponents caught in any number of clever snares. I think it's more of an idiot hero trope comparison where's he's so far out of his league that he's outmaneuvering opponents who were expecting a second best duelist instead of someone who looks like him might stab himself at any given moment.