Well the journalist who uncovered it died when her vehicle blew up. I'm pretty sure she didn't drive a Pinto so I'm a little but suspicious about the whole ordeal, but it was a pretty big result for her.
More seriously though, the problem is that they're all dirty. Republicans, Democrats, everyone. That makes it easy for any side to ignore the misdeeds of their own and sling mud at the other side. That's why nothing really comes of it, because they all know that they're all dirty, so they can't really go after each other in any serious manner.
Even more seriously though, what the fuck did everyone expect. No one wants to pay high taxes. The people that make most of the money realize how much the government sucks at doing most (not all, just most) of things it tries to do, and the people who are wealthy and okay with high taxes because they can accomplish some good would probably be just as well (if not better) off taking their money and doing it themselves. If you want companies to pay taxes, apply market principles to this situation as well and assume that people will shop around for better deals. Lower tax rates to make it less profitable for companies to try to off shore profits and they'll gladly take the path of least resistance.
It seems to me like this is a good opportunity for the former staff to start their own site. If they collectively own their own business then they don't really have need for a union and since the closed down the companies entirely, its not as though only half of the staff got laid off which makes it hard to start a new business due to lack of key people. The only thing that will have changed is that the owner is out of the picture. I'll assume that they probably don't have the capital for an office right away, but they may be able to secure a loan, or probably just work from home until things get up and running.
What did you expect to happen? Computers are insanely useful and have become ubiquitous. I'm sure there are people who long for the days when you had to crank start cars and basically needed to be your own mechanic on top of that because only small numbers of each model were built and not always with standardized parts. Now it's just been ruined with mass market automobiles that have been made simple enough for almost anyone to use. And the experience has gone to shit as well since they made paved roads to drive on instead of letting everyone forge their own path.
I think I've only returned an online order perhaps three times maximum and that was a completely defective product and it was replaced with a working version of the same model. One in three does sound suspicious, but I think Slashdot readers may be more careful with online purchases or more likely to read reviews or look online for a specific product instead of just shoving the first or cheapest thing into our carts. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a lot of people buy cheap Chinese knock-off products that don't work or aren't even close to what was advertised and are sending them back.
It depends entirely on where Google is hosting that information and the jurisdiction of the court where the case was decided as well as any types of agreements that the U.S. government may have with that country.
Free speech doesn't give a company carte blanche about what information they can post on their website. Child pornography is one example of content that is illegal just about everywhere. The problem arises entirely because different countries have different laws and the internet is globally accessible and has no borders.
Not that I was going to seriously consider buying a Blackberry product before, but I can't think of any possibly way this would make me want to change my mind.
Is he just saying stupid shit like this so he can get fired and collect his golden parachute?
I hear that if you say his name three times while looking in a mirror he'll appear behind you to tell you all about the benefits of using a HOSTS file blocker.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning at all on this one. This almost sounds like the kind of thing one would normally follow up with the cheeky "checkmate atheists!" remark.
Another option would be to have a war first, and then for Spain to stay in the EU, and also agree to welcome Catalonia.
That seemingly requires Catalonia to win the war, which is quite unlikely to happen if it came to open war, which itself is unlikely.
Existing EU member states can veto membership proposals for new countries, so there's no chance Catalonia would get in unless Spain withdrew. This won't even make it to that point though as Spain won't legally recognize the succession as it wasn't even close to legal and there aren't such an overwhelming majority of Catalonians who want to be independent to make a war possible.
If you've looked at the average twitter user, I'm not sure they could handle the sophisticated tool you're proposing. It would be like handing a retarded chimp a Stratovarius. Allowing 140 characters was clearly a mistake. 80 would have sufficed.
It's a joke. He's having a go at another poster who would frequently make comments about his $50k IT job in California, among other things. It's kind of a meme at this point.
Wouldn't by your own logic (not that I agree with it) that action give the government even more power? I'll take a corporation I can ignore (anyone forcing you to use Apple, Google, Facebook, or Amazon?), over a government that has a legal monopoly on violent force any day of the week. As horrific as corporate actions have been throughout history, none have even come close to the heinous shit that governments have been able to do when given too much power. Even religion is far beyond corporations when it comes to atrocities committed.
If you want corporations to have less money, make it easier for them to return profits to share holders, who will clamor and vote for it. If you want them to spend less money lobbying, don't have a powerful government that can grant corporations special favors and privileges.
Yeah, but by next month we'll be hearing about how it was Facebook AI that was actually responsible for getting Trump elected. So either it isn't very intelligent, or it's incredibly intelligent but possibly evil.
That's only a small piece of the puzzle, and this is nothing new. American politics has always been divided to some degree because the first past the post system essentially guarantees that there be two big parties opposed to each other. The biggest change is that the internet has made it easier for people who would have never been able to organize previously to get together and build their own little digital enclaves. People can form communities more easily now than at and point in history and physical presence is no longer a requirement. This is incredibly awesome on the whole, but of course there are going to be bad outcomes as well.
The other big problem is that the internet is entirely impersonal. If you put 99% of people who get pissed off at each other on the internet together in the real world, they'd be a lot more civil. It's pretty easy to forget that there's another human being at the other end of the online conversation when you're just starting at a screen. When there's a real person there, you start to pick up on all manner of body language cues that just don't exist online and can't just mentally write them off as Satan.
Here's an interesting thought. Would these people still say the same thing about the games if they were told there were AI games, but in reality were actually games by two human players?
It reminds me of the recent story where some kids put a pineapple in an art exhibition as a joke and people thought it was art. Most people will believe and/or spew pure bullshit if they think it's what's expected of them.
Actually the first person to give a number has an advantage due to human susceptibility to anchoring bias. If someone asks you for a salary, always high-ball because what they work down from is that initial value you've given. If the goal of any negotiation is to arrive at some intermediate value acceptable to both parties, then it's in your best interest to set the far boundary out as far as you can in order to drag the eventually middle just a bit further along.
People have been making claims about sexual harassment in Hollywood for ages. Everyone knows Polanski raped an underage girl back in the 70's and in her autobiography Shirley Temple wrote that some Hollywood bigshot exposed himself to her when she was underage.
Just because you choose not to pay attention doesn't mean that people haven't been reporting it and coming forward. Similarly there've been loads of lawsuits for decades now for all kinds of workplace discrimination.
I hate Apple's keyboards and their mice have been crap since the original iMac so I always toss them or just give them to a Goodwill type store. I don't understand why they don't make and offer an actual mechanical keyboard like they used to as the Apple Extended Keyboard II was (and still is since they'll last longer than their users in some cases) a great keyboard to use.
You can probably get any number of other mechanical keyboards that will work just as well and I think some companies like Das even have a mac specific model. I can understand that it would be pretty damned difficult to fit a mechanical keyboard with good switches into a notebook, especially as thin as Apple likes to make them, but there's no excuse for desktops, especially desktops being sold to professionals. Give us a nice keyboard that feels delightful to type on and helps to reduce RSI rather than something that may look nice and slim, but is miserable to use.
Yeah, but you have better things to do than to whine about shit like that on Twitter, so no one cares.
I'm not even sure how there were people complaining about it on Twitter in the first place though. I thought they had something in the ToS against children using their service.
Well if they're the highest paid, and their performance is only average, then by definition they're under-performing. Being highly paid doesn't exclude a person from under-performing. Unless a person is some kind of all-star, having a higher pay is almost certainly going to push them into the under-performing category eventually. Maybe they were great at some point in the past and over-performing, which is why they got such a pay bump to start with. However, management doesn't really care how many home runs you hit five seasons ago.
You could save more lives by banning unhealthy junk food (Roughly as many people died of diabetes as traffic fatalities last year) and a whole load of other things. Do I get to propose that the state take away things you like that you may be doing responsibly and call you an entitled asshole when you complain about it being impractical or non-applicable in certain cases (never mind a serious overreach of the government's authority) too?
I reject the premise that your right to play with your phone is more important than the right of people to travel without fear of dying because some idiot cannot pull off the road to send a text message.
I reject your premise that people's fears have any worth in determining rules. If people are afraid of terrorists attacking shopping malls, should we put TSA stations up at every entrance point? Hopefully now you can see how foolish your thinking is, as I can't imagine that you're in support of the TSA, but if you insist on creating some Orwellian hell just so you can feel safe, go found your own country to do it in.
Personally, once we get beyond a certain threshold where we're pretty sure it won't cause harm based on good empirical evidence across several replicated studies then I think it's fine to just label values and let the market sort it out. Let someone who demands under.000001% of some substance pay extra for it and the rest of us who are willing to except under.00001% take our chances.
The problem is that when you go in the other direction and have regulations that are too loose, it's really hard to calculate the non-immediate effects or those that ripples of ripples. Reducing the amount of lead in gasoline is widely believed to be a factor in greatly reduced crime rates. More often than not, humans fail miserable to foresee the consequences of their actions or the side effects of the policies that they implement.
Slashdot Mirror
Well the journalist who uncovered it died when her vehicle blew up. I'm pretty sure she didn't drive a Pinto so I'm a little but suspicious about the whole ordeal, but it was a pretty big result for her.
More seriously though, the problem is that they're all dirty. Republicans, Democrats, everyone. That makes it easy for any side to ignore the misdeeds of their own and sling mud at the other side. That's why nothing really comes of it, because they all know that they're all dirty, so they can't really go after each other in any serious manner.
Even more seriously though, what the fuck did everyone expect. No one wants to pay high taxes. The people that make most of the money realize how much the government sucks at doing most (not all, just most) of things it tries to do, and the people who are wealthy and okay with high taxes because they can accomplish some good would probably be just as well (if not better) off taking their money and doing it themselves. If you want companies to pay taxes, apply market principles to this situation as well and assume that people will shop around for better deals. Lower tax rates to make it less profitable for companies to try to off shore profits and they'll gladly take the path of least resistance.
It seems to me like this is a good opportunity for the former staff to start their own site. If they collectively own their own business then they don't really have need for a union and since the closed down the companies entirely, its not as though only half of the staff got laid off which makes it hard to start a new business due to lack of key people. The only thing that will have changed is that the owner is out of the picture. I'll assume that they probably don't have the capital for an office right away, but they may be able to secure a loan, or probably just work from home until things get up and running.
What did you expect to happen? Computers are insanely useful and have become ubiquitous. I'm sure there are people who long for the days when you had to crank start cars and basically needed to be your own mechanic on top of that because only small numbers of each model were built and not always with standardized parts. Now it's just been ruined with mass market automobiles that have been made simple enough for almost anyone to use. And the experience has gone to shit as well since they made paved roads to drive on instead of letting everyone forge their own path.
I think I've only returned an online order perhaps three times maximum and that was a completely defective product and it was replaced with a working version of the same model. One in three does sound suspicious, but I think Slashdot readers may be more careful with online purchases or more likely to read reviews or look online for a specific product instead of just shoving the first or cheapest thing into our carts. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a lot of people buy cheap Chinese knock-off products that don't work or aren't even close to what was advertised and are sending them back.
It depends entirely on where Google is hosting that information and the jurisdiction of the court where the case was decided as well as any types of agreements that the U.S. government may have with that country.
Free speech doesn't give a company carte blanche about what information they can post on their website. Child pornography is one example of content that is illegal just about everywhere. The problem arises entirely because different countries have different laws and the internet is globally accessible and has no borders.
Everything ages. That's just part of drifting through time. The real trick is, like that jellyfish, not dying as a result of that aging.
We tried, but the AI was really intelligent and didn't want to do it either, so it's busy writing another AI program to do all of its work for it.
Not that I was going to seriously consider buying a Blackberry product before, but I can't think of any possibly way this would make me want to change my mind.
Is he just saying stupid shit like this so he can get fired and collect his golden parachute?
I hear that if you say his name three times while looking in a mirror he'll appear behind you to tell you all about the benefits of using a HOSTS file blocker.
I'm going to assume you're just a troll, but the Puerto Rican government has not historically been Republican: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governors_of_Puerto_Rico#Governors_under_the_Constitution_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Puerto_Rico. The legislation hasn't been quite as one-sided, but the PPD (closest analog to the Democrats in mainland U.S. politics) has had more control historically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_Puerto_Rico#After_the_constitution.
Portugal exists, which destroys your argument.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning at all on this one. This almost sounds like the kind of thing one would normally follow up with the cheeky "checkmate atheists!" remark.
Another option would be to have a war first, and then for Spain to stay in the EU, and also agree to welcome Catalonia.
That seemingly requires Catalonia to win the war, which is quite unlikely to happen if it came to open war, which itself is unlikely.
Existing EU member states can veto membership proposals for new countries, so there's no chance Catalonia would get in unless Spain withdrew. This won't even make it to that point though as Spain won't legally recognize the succession as it wasn't even close to legal and there aren't such an overwhelming majority of Catalonians who want to be independent to make a war possible.
If you've looked at the average twitter user, I'm not sure they could handle the sophisticated tool you're proposing. It would be like handing a retarded chimp a Stratovarius. Allowing 140 characters was clearly a mistake. 80 would have sufficed.
It's a joke. He's having a go at another poster who would frequently make comments about his $50k IT job in California, among other things. It's kind of a meme at this point.
Wouldn't by your own logic (not that I agree with it) that action give the government even more power? I'll take a corporation I can ignore (anyone forcing you to use Apple, Google, Facebook, or Amazon?), over a government that has a legal monopoly on violent force any day of the week. As horrific as corporate actions have been throughout history, none have even come close to the heinous shit that governments have been able to do when given too much power. Even religion is far beyond corporations when it comes to atrocities committed.
If you want corporations to have less money, make it easier for them to return profits to share holders, who will clamor and vote for it. If you want them to spend less money lobbying, don't have a powerful government that can grant corporations special favors and privileges.
Yeah, but by next month we'll be hearing about how it was Facebook AI that was actually responsible for getting Trump elected. So either it isn't very intelligent, or it's incredibly intelligent but possibly evil.
That's only a small piece of the puzzle, and this is nothing new. American politics has always been divided to some degree because the first past the post system essentially guarantees that there be two big parties opposed to each other. The biggest change is that the internet has made it easier for people who would have never been able to organize previously to get together and build their own little digital enclaves. People can form communities more easily now than at and point in history and physical presence is no longer a requirement. This is incredibly awesome on the whole, but of course there are going to be bad outcomes as well.
The other big problem is that the internet is entirely impersonal. If you put 99% of people who get pissed off at each other on the internet together in the real world, they'd be a lot more civil. It's pretty easy to forget that there's another human being at the other end of the online conversation when you're just starting at a screen. When there's a real person there, you start to pick up on all manner of body language cues that just don't exist online and can't just mentally write them off as Satan.
Here's an interesting thought. Would these people still say the same thing about the games if they were told there were AI games, but in reality were actually games by two human players?
It reminds me of the recent story where some kids put a pineapple in an art exhibition as a joke and people thought it was art. Most people will believe and/or spew pure bullshit if they think it's what's expected of them.
Actually the first person to give a number has an advantage due to human susceptibility to anchoring bias. If someone asks you for a salary, always high-ball because what they work down from is that initial value you've given. If the goal of any negotiation is to arrive at some intermediate value acceptable to both parties, then it's in your best interest to set the far boundary out as far as you can in order to drag the eventually middle just a bit further along.
People have been making claims about sexual harassment in Hollywood for ages. Everyone knows Polanski raped an underage girl back in the 70's and in her autobiography Shirley Temple wrote that some Hollywood bigshot exposed himself to her when she was underage.
Just because you choose not to pay attention doesn't mean that people haven't been reporting it and coming forward. Similarly there've been loads of lawsuits for decades now for all kinds of workplace discrimination.
I hate Apple's keyboards and their mice have been crap since the original iMac so I always toss them or just give them to a Goodwill type store. I don't understand why they don't make and offer an actual mechanical keyboard like they used to as the Apple Extended Keyboard II was (and still is since they'll last longer than their users in some cases) a great keyboard to use.
You can probably get any number of other mechanical keyboards that will work just as well and I think some companies like Das even have a mac specific model. I can understand that it would be pretty damned difficult to fit a mechanical keyboard with good switches into a notebook, especially as thin as Apple likes to make them, but there's no excuse for desktops, especially desktops being sold to professionals. Give us a nice keyboard that feels delightful to type on and helps to reduce RSI rather than something that may look nice and slim, but is miserable to use.
Yeah, but you have better things to do than to whine about shit like that on Twitter, so no one cares.
I'm not even sure how there were people complaining about it on Twitter in the first place though. I thought they had something in the ToS against children using their service.
Well if they're the highest paid, and their performance is only average, then by definition they're under-performing. Being highly paid doesn't exclude a person from under-performing. Unless a person is some kind of all-star, having a higher pay is almost certainly going to push them into the under-performing category eventually. Maybe they were great at some point in the past and over-performing, which is why they got such a pay bump to start with. However, management doesn't really care how many home runs you hit five seasons ago.
I reject the premise that your right to play with your phone is more important than the right of people to travel without fear of dying because some idiot cannot pull off the road to send a text message.
I reject your premise that people's fears have any worth in determining rules. If people are afraid of terrorists attacking shopping malls, should we put TSA stations up at every entrance point? Hopefully now you can see how foolish your thinking is, as I can't imagine that you're in support of the TSA, but if you insist on creating some Orwellian hell just so you can feel safe, go found your own country to do it in.
Personally, once we get beyond a certain threshold where we're pretty sure it won't cause harm based on good empirical evidence across several replicated studies then I think it's fine to just label values and let the market sort it out. Let someone who demands under .000001% of some substance pay extra for it and the rest of us who are willing to except under .00001% take our chances.
The problem is that when you go in the other direction and have regulations that are too loose, it's really hard to calculate the non-immediate effects or those that ripples of ripples. Reducing the amount of lead in gasoline is widely believed to be a factor in greatly reduced crime rates. More often than not, humans fail miserable to foresee the consequences of their actions or the side effects of the policies that they implement.