Strangely enough, Slashdot does not consider this news...
It's not, because we all saw this coming the day they killed off all of the "Windows" features from the Windows 8 preview. That's information from like, a whole year and a half ago.
I know people complain about Slashdot posting old news that's a year or two old. I didn't think they'd complain about Slashdot not posting old news.
Wouldn't stop the trolls from initiating lawsuits if they haven't already, but at least legally they'd be on shaky ground, and would have to settle for far less.
If you break the rules, you will be severely punished, and there is no excuse.
Sometimes, it's worth it. It all depends on who is breaking the rules, which rule is being broken, the reasons behind breaking the rules, and the punishment. Early Christianity is filled with accounts of martyrdom. It continues today in Islam.
In fact, the U.S. was founded on breaking the rules. And the punishment for those rules broken wasn't going to be torture and some jail time. It was going to be torture followed closely by death.
Remember that Nathan Hale was hung. Thoreau went to jail for his act of civil disobedience. Socrates took his poison even when his jailer offered him escape. Punishment is a necessary part of civil disobedience. It magnifies the injustice (though it is arguable whether Thoreau was jailed justly or not) and gives significance to the act itself. Nothing risked is nothing gained.
Sure, you can use it as a phone, you just need a bluetooth headset that you have to keep charged when you're using it as a desktop.
Actually, a lot of people use Skype while they're on the desktop, as opposed to a phone. Skype doesn't just do video, but it does reduce the need to talk on a separate device (that's probably on speaker anyway).
A dockable phone to use as a desktop is a great idea (but nothing new or novel at this point). It's a matter of seeing who'll be the first to do it correctly. And who owns the patent at the end of the day.
Well, not quite the perfect analogy. Nukes are quite complicated. U.S. scientists built the first nuke (though there's quite a bit of evidence that Hitler would've had it if not for certain scientists' subtle sabotage), and most of the other countries "acquired" those blueprints shortly.
Nah, that'd be unreasonable. What would be more reasonable is that now that Volkswagon is known to not act in good faith (i.e. lawsuit ensue) after an act of responsible disclosure, there's no good reason to first notify them about any subsequent security holes.
Oh, and before anybody tells me it's a New York-based "watchdog" group, Apple's based in California, and it's Californians who're most up in arms about these kinds of things.
Californians want to have their cake and eat it too. And the worst part is, this culture of absolute idealism that much of California embodies is spreading.
Actually, there was a full awareness of Germany building up its war machine in the years leading up to WWII. However, the European governments, in particular the French and English, who were still scarred by WWI, were reluctant for confrontation that might escalate into another equally bloody war or worse. They looked the other way, and placated the masses (easily, the people were weary from war too) with excuses.
WWII began in part because there was no political capital to go to war after WWI. If the other Europeans hadn't bent Germany over and raped it after WWI, the Nazis might not have risen to power (might, because the Great Depression still would've happened). But had the rest of Europe been more willing to be confrontational, Germany would not have been able to get their war machine started.
You need to consider that it's a suite of applications, with each one at a different level of maturity.
Three thousand would seem like a big number. Except if you break it down, it might (hypothetically) be a hundred in Writer, a hundred in Calc, and two thousand in Base. And, I wonder how much of these are behind-the-scenes fixes, like changing exception handlers to do something useful instead of logging and then throwing the exception away.
Don't need one. This was an amendment to another bill, namely the defense spending bill. Obama could threaten to veto the entire bill, but he can't just strike out the amendment.
Not that it would have passed the Senate. Most of what the House does is symbolic. But it's also indicative of where the winds are blowing.
Firstly, PBS does not come out of our taxes. What grants it does get from CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) was negligable to begin with and has been cut to the point where it's practically nonexistent.
Second, the ultimate result may be no more OTA television. I don't see how taking the TV away, a device that lowers brain activity to lower than sleeping, is a bad thing.
Those who want to use words to stop this missed the train a long time ago. You may have a short memory, but most geeks don't. The NSA had a system to filter out American communications. They had something in place to prevent monitoring of Americans.
Guess what happened to the system? They scrapped it.
Money talks. Words on a piece of paper are just that.
the car(s) in front of ME is what's actually holding up the left lane.
Sometimes, it's not. Sometimes, people are in the left lane (or the middle lane) because they're too scared of merging traffic to stay in the right lane (they're comfortable in the left lane), or they're trying to stop people from traveling faster than them (yes, there's tons of those out there who drive at the speed limit and insist the rest of the world do the same). I've seen people recklessly switch two lanes into the left the moment they merge into a three-lane highway, and then proceed to camp there at the speed of the right lane. Sometimes, it's a two-lane highway and they'll just run parallel or near-parallel to the vehicle on the right, which is actually fairly dangerous. People can be assholes on the road, and they're not limited to the fast or aggressive drivers.
That's why laws that target being in the left lane but not passing are becoming popular. But tailgating is still not a good idea.
Humans are socially heirarchial. People like being told what to do, and being a part of a bigger organization. It's part of the herd mentality, where we feel there's safety in numbers. Note that humans stampede not so unlike gazelle or elephants. But most people don't like telling others what to do. They do it out of necessity rather than want, and only because they are more able than their peers. People don't found organizations to be bosses of other people. They found organizations to achive their goals, and become bosses because they cannot do it alone. Only a few people desire being the head of the organization, and there's a special term for those people: sociopaths.
Monarchy comes out of this organization structure. In fact, monarchy is the structure extruded one additional level up. The monarch is usually decided upon by tribal or clan leaders between many tribes or clans, the leader of leaders so to speak. Those local leaders become the remainder of the nobility, and while they enjoy some degree of autonomy, they also place themselves subject to the whims of the current reigning monarch, which if they chose correctly, would not be detrimental to their own goals.
The problem with monarchy is not in the organizational system of power itself. It is, after all, the most natural and hence the most efficient system for getting things done. Instead, it is in the method of succession. It has to do with the two conflicting goals of the unlucky sap chosen to be monarch.
The monarch is given the position for the good of the whole society. The monarch thus must act for the good of the whole society. However, the monarch is a human being, and as all other living creatures, the goal of humans is to ensure the survival of their line. Thus monarchs almost always chooses their successor, always chooses among their children, and almost always chooses the first born of the same sex (without an existing code, a male monarch will always choose the eldest male child, the female monarch will always choose the eldest female child). Again, the reason for doing this goes back to the goal of life itself.
And, for the most part, the other leaders go with it. They go with it because the monarch was chosen to make such decisions. The point of the monarchy is to resolve the conflicts between the individual localities, and having the local leaders instead determine the succession would be reintroducing the very type of conflict the establishment of the monarchy was supposed to resolve. They go with it because the previous monarch was pretty good, and there's a decent chance his issue would be about the same. They go with it because they didn't want their current minor leadership position in the first place, and they weren't going to risk getting a major one.
Of course, we know that while the first few successors may be decent or outright good, things inevitably go bad. The line of monarchs goes weak. It forgets its purpose and begins to overreach. It attracts those who desire power, and it goes sociopathic. What follows is always conflict among the other heads, some war, lots of overthrowing, maybe some splitting or some joining, and eventually, a new monarchy is established. Again, things are good for a generation or several, and again, things go bad.
The purpose of a republic is to break out of this cycle of rising and falling leadership, in particular the chaos in between monarch lines. It has the same structure, local leaders, and a chosen leader of leaders. But the leaders are not set for life, and the succession is chosen by the ruled on a set period. This is an important distinction. Term lengths and to a lesser extent, term limits are what separates republics from monarchies. George Washington could have been king. Most people forget that he had both popular support and the army on his side. And that's usually sufficient grounds to establish a new monarchy. Instead, he set two precedents, these being the two, and it is because of his choices, not the Constitution nor the Declaration, that th
Slashdot Mirror
Strangely enough, Slashdot does not consider this news...
It's not, because we all saw this coming the day they killed off all of the "Windows" features from the Windows 8 preview. That's information from like, a whole year and a half ago.
I know people complain about Slashdot posting old news that's a year or two old. I didn't think they'd complain about Slashdot not posting old news.
Running consequitively sounds like cruel and unusual punishment.
Anticipated, but likely not covered.
Wouldn't stop the trolls from initiating lawsuits if they haven't already, but at least legally they'd be on shaky ground, and would have to settle for far less.
If you break the rules, you will be severely punished, and there is no excuse.
Sometimes, it's worth it. It all depends on who is breaking the rules, which rule is being broken, the reasons behind breaking the rules, and the punishment. Early Christianity is filled with accounts of martyrdom. It continues today in Islam.
In fact, the U.S. was founded on breaking the rules. And the punishment for those rules broken wasn't going to be torture and some jail time. It was going to be torture followed closely by death.
Remember that Nathan Hale was hung. Thoreau went to jail for his act of civil disobedience. Socrates took his poison even when his jailer offered him escape. Punishment is a necessary part of civil disobedience. It magnifies the injustice (though it is arguable whether Thoreau was jailed justly or not) and gives significance to the act itself. Nothing risked is nothing gained.
Sure, you can use it as a phone, you just need a bluetooth headset that you have to keep charged when you're using it as a desktop.
Actually, a lot of people use Skype while they're on the desktop, as opposed to a phone. Skype doesn't just do video, but it does reduce the need to talk on a separate device (that's probably on speaker anyway).
A dockable phone to use as a desktop is a great idea (but nothing new or novel at this point). It's a matter of seeing who'll be the first to do it correctly. And who owns the patent at the end of the day.
No, it's New Mexico. It's in the same system as the more popular Football Field (FF) unit of measurement, or Library of Congress (LoC).
Well, not quite the perfect analogy. Nukes are quite complicated. U.S. scientists built the first nuke (though there's quite a bit of evidence that Hitler would've had it if not for certain scientists' subtle sabotage), and most of the other countries "acquired" those blueprints shortly.
Nah, that'd be unreasonable. What would be more reasonable is that now that Volkswagon is known to not act in good faith (i.e. lawsuit ensue) after an act of responsible disclosure, there's no good reason to first notify them about any subsequent security holes.
Oh, and before anybody tells me it's a New York-based "watchdog" group, Apple's based in California, and it's Californians who're most up in arms about these kinds of things.
Californians want to have their cake and eat it too. And the worst part is, this culture of absolute idealism that much of California embodies is spreading.
The CD was created by Sony. DVD was created by Panasonic.
I wouldn't put it past them to put in DRM. It wouldn't surprise me if the DRM was completely bypass-able.
And I presume Lenovo uses their own CPU and BIOS chips?
The point of GGP is that a Dell box is not any more or less secure from compromise at the hardware level than a Lenovo box.
So all of this is probably just ridiculous political posturing.
Actually, there was a full awareness of Germany building up its war machine in the years leading up to WWII. However, the European governments, in particular the French and English, who were still scarred by WWI, were reluctant for confrontation that might escalate into another equally bloody war or worse. They looked the other way, and placated the masses (easily, the people were weary from war too) with excuses.
WWII began in part because there was no political capital to go to war after WWI. If the other Europeans hadn't bent Germany over and raped it after WWI, the Nazis might not have risen to power (might, because the Great Depression still would've happened). But had the rest of Europe been more willing to be confrontational, Germany would not have been able to get their war machine started.
See the big problem is that snow has this issue of just, well, melting away.
Basically, Time is ending. Or may be anyway.
You need to consider that it's a suite of applications, with each one at a different level of maturity.
Three thousand would seem like a big number. Except if you break it down, it might (hypothetically) be a hundred in Writer, a hundred in Calc, and two thousand in Base. And, I wonder how much of these are behind-the-scenes fixes, like changing exception handlers to do something useful instead of logging and then throwing the exception away.
Don't need one. This was an amendment to another bill, namely the defense spending bill. Obama could threaten to veto the entire bill, but he can't just strike out the amendment.
Not that it would have passed the Senate. Most of what the House does is symbolic. But it's also indicative of where the winds are blowing.
(remember when cable was advertising-free?)
No. Unless you count the premium channels like HBO or Showtime.
Firstly, PBS does not come out of our taxes. What grants it does get from CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) was negligable to begin with and has been cut to the point where it's practically nonexistent.
Second, the ultimate result may be no more OTA television. I don't see how taking the TV away, a device that lowers brain activity to lower than sleeping, is a bad thing.
The letters of the law mean nothing. Money talks.
Those who want to use words to stop this missed the train a long time ago. You may have a short memory, but most geeks don't. The NSA had a system to filter out American communications. They had something in place to prevent monitoring of Americans.
Guess what happened to the system? They scrapped it.
Money talks. Words on a piece of paper are just that.
More than one. More than one.
Enlightenment.
No, seriously.
It's elitist because GGP is suggesting buying the PS4 instead. After all the crap Sony pulled, I wouldn't trust them either...
the car(s) in front of ME is what's actually holding up the left lane.
Sometimes, it's not. Sometimes, people are in the left lane (or the middle lane) because they're too scared of merging traffic to stay in the right lane (they're comfortable in the left lane), or they're trying to stop people from traveling faster than them (yes, there's tons of those out there who drive at the speed limit and insist the rest of the world do the same). I've seen people recklessly switch two lanes into the left the moment they merge into a three-lane highway, and then proceed to camp there at the speed of the right lane. Sometimes, it's a two-lane highway and they'll just run parallel or near-parallel to the vehicle on the right, which is actually fairly dangerous. People can be assholes on the road, and they're not limited to the fast or aggressive drivers.
That's why laws that target being in the left lane but not passing are becoming popular. But tailgating is still not a good idea.
Humans are socially heirarchial. People like being told what to do, and being a part of a bigger organization. It's part of the herd mentality, where we feel there's safety in numbers. Note that humans stampede not so unlike gazelle or elephants. But most people don't like telling others what to do. They do it out of necessity rather than want, and only because they are more able than their peers. People don't found organizations to be bosses of other people. They found organizations to achive their goals, and become bosses because they cannot do it alone. Only a few people desire being the head of the organization, and there's a special term for those people: sociopaths.
Monarchy comes out of this organization structure. In fact, monarchy is the structure extruded one additional level up. The monarch is usually decided upon by tribal or clan leaders between many tribes or clans, the leader of leaders so to speak. Those local leaders become the remainder of the nobility, and while they enjoy some degree of autonomy, they also place themselves subject to the whims of the current reigning monarch, which if they chose correctly, would not be detrimental to their own goals.
The problem with monarchy is not in the organizational system of power itself. It is, after all, the most natural and hence the most efficient system for getting things done. Instead, it is in the method of succession. It has to do with the two conflicting goals of the unlucky sap chosen to be monarch.
The monarch is given the position for the good of the whole society. The monarch thus must act for the good of the whole society. However, the monarch is a human being, and as all other living creatures, the goal of humans is to ensure the survival of their line. Thus monarchs almost always chooses their successor, always chooses among their children, and almost always chooses the first born of the same sex (without an existing code, a male monarch will always choose the eldest male child, the female monarch will always choose the eldest female child). Again, the reason for doing this goes back to the goal of life itself.
And, for the most part, the other leaders go with it. They go with it because the monarch was chosen to make such decisions. The point of the monarchy is to resolve the conflicts between the individual localities, and having the local leaders instead determine the succession would be reintroducing the very type of conflict the establishment of the monarchy was supposed to resolve. They go with it because the previous monarch was pretty good, and there's a decent chance his issue would be about the same. They go with it because they didn't want their current minor leadership position in the first place, and they weren't going to risk getting a major one.
Of course, we know that while the first few successors may be decent or outright good, things inevitably go bad. The line of monarchs goes weak. It forgets its purpose and begins to overreach. It attracts those who desire power, and it goes sociopathic. What follows is always conflict among the other heads, some war, lots of overthrowing, maybe some splitting or some joining, and eventually, a new monarchy is established. Again, things are good for a generation or several, and again, things go bad.
The purpose of a republic is to break out of this cycle of rising and falling leadership, in particular the chaos in between monarch lines. It has the same structure, local leaders, and a chosen leader of leaders. But the leaders are not set for life, and the succession is chosen by the ruled on a set period. This is an important distinction. Term lengths and to a lesser extent, term limits are what separates republics from monarchies. George Washington could have been king. Most people forget that he had both popular support and the army on his side. And that's usually sufficient grounds to establish a new monarchy. Instead, he set two precedents, these being the two, and it is because of his choices, not the Constitution nor the Declaration, that th