There's no way to know if this influenced it but Anonymous threatened Sony on Youtube (transcript here and a few more specifics here) the other day. Of course, even if that did influence Sony I'm sure the last thing you'd want is to send Anonymous the message that they can push you around so don't bother waiting for admission/explanation.
Looking at this list, there's far better targets of groups of lawyers and lobbyists that don't do a goddamn thing or sell any tangible product. Not sure why those wouldn't be prioritized by Anonymous but, well, that's crowdsourcing for you. Maybe they identified Sony as the biggest fish that would disrupt the highest number of placated sheep who might actually contact their senator when their opiate flow is disturbed? Nahhhh...
These people don't understand that their cushy lives and jobs depend on a strong US economy. Even if you aren't seeing the effects of it yet, it will still impact you eventually through soaring costs. We're all in it together.
I think you meant to include the word "should" in there because that's how it should work. However, I might point out that if the government determines you're "too big to fail" then you have a safety net and you can screw up your company as badly as you want. Now, if you're lobbying congress and providing them with tons of soft money, you might just be "too big to fail." Congress might artificially keep their bubble protected by turning briefly to Communism where they buy out and then own parts of the failing companies. And, like Communism, you'll have the citizens in the more sparsely populated parts of the nation suffering to keep the overly populated cities looking like pristine islands (see Moscow through the Cold War).
Google (and the rest of the tech giants) have been dodging taxes and I hope that when those Oakland OWS demonstrations spill over into Mountain View that the police don't have enough tax money to keep drenching the protesters.
Agreed. Companies that don't need political protection to survive, don't need favors from politicians, nor seek value by political manipulation of the marketplace don't need to be Occupied.
I couldn't disagree more. Political manipulation of the marketplace? How about political manipulation to shift the burden of paying taxes onto the individual instead of the corporation? Like lobbying congress to keep tax loopholes in place? And if Google doesn't need to lobby politicians then why give them money?
Now can someone tell me about the Occupy movement's actual goals and desired outcomes?
It seems to me that without an end in mind, this movement could be corrupted and taken over by celebs just like the Tea Party.
Well, as I've posted before, I'd imagine economic justice. To specifically address my point above about tax dodging, I feel that our taxpaying dollars present these companies with one of the best and safest environments in the world to run a business. From police forces to firefighters to the highway infrastructure to educating your customers in the public schools. The reason you might think that all those things are going to shit is -- as I see it -- companies reap the benefits from them and then shift revenue through Ireland or The Netherlands to avoid paying for them! There's something specific you can fix. Right now it's you and me picking up the slack in income and sales tax!
There's also environmental damage. Herbicide-tolerant crops mean the farmer can spray more and push yields higher, but greater use of herbicides damages diversity in the surrounding countryside. I suppose this is related to your point 4.
Here's an anecdote for you. I'm actually home for the holidays (in farmland country) and was asking my parents what happened to a lot of specific insects I remembered as a kid but don't see these days (I realize it's winter but I've been home in the summer too). Specifically we used to have these massive garden spiders that had a golden abdomen like this one. When I was a kid, I used to flick grasshoppers and locusts into these massive webs they built between our pine trees. The webs are no longer there. My mom says it's the Roundup. She's worked her garden since 1977 and I mean like an acre of garden that we basically subsisted on. She's convinced that it's the farmers that drench their crops with Roundup now and that this Roundup is killing certain insects (directly or indirectly in the food chain). She also claims that due to Roundup we never see the number of toads and frogs that we used to (literally our backyard would be full of the young) but I can't say if this is true or not as my dad has since laid plastic lining around our pond to protect our lawn.
Anyway, is there anyone doing these studies? Who applies Roundup to frogs, toads, golden garden spiders or their food and studies the impact? I guess nobody really cares about spiders but there's the obvious recent example of pesticide harming the bee population and that could turn into be a very dreadful problem.
Face it, Blogging, Twitter, even SMS have changed the foundation of journalism as we know it.
When was that ever up for debate? Of course it has! Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse! When 'news' spreads like wildfire across Twitter and it turns out to be correct, it was a great thing. You might be downplaying the other results though.
It's now the people on the street who are witness to events
When was it anybody else? These are the first hand accounts you must go out and find your self, not through Wikileaks through stolen U.S. documents.
and can record them with their cellphones and instantly upload them to the net - anonymously or not.
Record what? Where is Pickens presenting any recorded information here? Hell, I can't even find a sound bite from a Peace Corp volunteer that was raped. You give me video, that's hard to spoof and I might buy that if it's anonymous. In the future, video manipulation will be better and we'll lose the ability to tell if compressed cell phone footage is legit.
The information moves so quickly around the world that many so called traditional journalists are left in the dust. So, you can stick with your old antiquated notions of what constitutes journalism (and many who do are part of an industry that is quickly going bankrupt), or you can get with the program and embrace the technology of the 21st century.
Yeah, so here's the core of your disagreement with me. You think that I'm fighting the speed at which information and news flows. That's not true, I'm one of the highest submitters here on Slashdot. I love it, I want it to move as fast as possible. But all that motion and speed isn't worth a goddamn thing when you're spreading unverified information or lies. And that's what I'm calling out here.
For all the praise of NYtimes, they are run at a loss and are at the behest of the billionaire Carlos Slim. A civilian with a cellphone is now more objective than a journalist worried about their next paycheck.
Seriously? Are you serious? Did you know that "Hugh Pickens" used to be a member of the Peace Corps? Did he disclose that potentially biased information in his article on his site that he linked to and calls "news"? Would that perhaps slant his views? I don't care if he has a cellphone. Other news sources are reporting allegations of espionage from the Peace Corp. Oh, sure, that could just as well be the KNB at work and nowhere is Pickens saying that any of the hundreds of members of Peace Corp could have done anything wrong. But nobody's bothering to try to find this out. I like how you play the 'objectivity' card when it comes to money for journalists but you have got to be out of your goddamn mind if you think that this "news" is more objective than what the NY Times would publish on this piece. They would send reporters to Kazakhstan if they were going to run this piece and they would verify all their sources and you're saying that the motivation of money is why they are biased? Again I ask you, are you serious?
Well, no wonder news reporting is in such a sorry pathetic state these days.
How did you verify this information that you found on a third party site? How did you confirm that the U.S. diplomats were not trying to re-awaken old fears of the KGB by spreading misinformation in their communications? Did you find any evidence in these communications of the volunteers doing anything wrong? Did you contact the people the volunteers had worked with in Kazakhstan? Did you request a comment from the KNB?
Further investigation on Wikileaks revealed...
No, that is wrong. That is not journalism. Nothing was revealed. You have a tip. Face it, you can't wake up, make a cup of coffee in your home and decide that today you're going to 'do' investigative journalism. Journalists are people who go out and acquire information, allegations, evidence, testimony, etc first hand. You could have started with Wikileaks as a tip, as a lead and put together your own external information from multiple sources. At best you have one side of an issue here and at worst you've been indirectly mislead. This shouldn't be called journalism. This should be called "googling."
I'm not saying you are wrong with this information, what I'm saying is that the NY Times wouldn't run this story unless they did due diligence to be completely sure they are 100% right because they are held to journalistic standards. As a blogger or armchair Wikileaks reader, you have nothing to lose by publishing this under your pseudo-name online. "Oh, maybe I'll try my hand at investigative journalism today." But let's face it, you get this wrong and you lose nothing. A journalist gets this wrong and they should lose their job and be blacklisted. And that's how news sources work.
Is there something inherently better with iOS development? Is the API better written? Is there some technological inferiority to Android? Is it cheaper to buy the development tools for iOS?
Oh, I see. What you meant to say is:
Why Publishers Still Prefer iOS To Android
And even that's sort of not very accurate. I mean, there are plenty of apps that are free and are on both Android and iOS like advertising based apps that want you to read some website's stories. And they just want to target the most users, not the most users who shell out money. So maybe it should be:
Why Revenue Seekers Still Prefer iOS To Android
Not everyone developing apps depends on that as their revenue stream.
This is exactly what I thought when I saw pictures. The buses ran over the kid who was texting. Not one but two of them.
How did he cause that?
Well from the article:
A 19-year-old pickup driver rear-ended a truck, and then was rear-ended by two school buses. Two people, including the pickup driver, were killed, and 38 were injured. Although there’s no evidence as to whether the pickup driver was texting at the moment of the crash, he had sent or received 11 texts in the previous 11 minutes.
You conveniently neglected to mention that the 19-year old 'kid' (he should be treated as an adult in my book) was irresponsible and caused the initial accident which then caused the pile up. Was it the bus drivers' fault for following too closely? You bet. But if that initial accident from the cell phone hadn't happened, that whole pile up probably wouldn't have happened either. People follow closely in rush hour traffic and it's bad driving. But maybe if that 'kid' had even put his break lights on, the buses would have also and the collision would have been just a rear ending. You concentrate on the car in front of you and if you are too close, you depend on them to give you some warning. If there's no warning, you both fail.
It's sort of silly to say the NTSB is wrong because this particular accident may or may not have been caused by operating devices while driving. I found this in the article:
Yes, texting while driving is inherently dangerous: It takes your eyes off the road and your hands off the wheel. That is presumably why texting while driving is already illegal in Missouri for drivers under 21. But there’s a big leap from the Missouri accident to the NTSB’s suggestion for a broad, new national ban.
So you would agree that texting while driving decreases your reaction time and decreases how alert you are to the road? Okay so what else does that? Well, being drunk and driving is pretty much a death sentence in most states. I drove a friend to and from work every day for a year adding over 1 hour to my daily commute. Because he was pass the legal limit when he was pulled over. After that he had an interlock system that he had to pay to have installed in his car that wouldn't let him drink and drive. All of this because he was doing something that impaired his reaction time and alertness.
Now you fight the NTSB about banning cell phones while driving? What happens now when you're pulled over while texting (if you even are)? $200? A slap on the wrist? Are you forced to pay to have a Faraday cage installed in your automobile? Is your driver's license revoked for a year? Why not?
I'm reminded of the car talk episode where a guy was calling into a radio station while driving and you hear him hit a car and one of the hosts of Car Talk says "Good, ya jerk!"
I'd agree with you except for the part about having a message.
What I garnered from the more cognizant participants was they wanted one thing: economic justice.
I still can't figure out what they were protesting other than the fact that some people have a shitload more money than other people. As for those rich people getting their money in ethically challenged ways...
Yeah, so I think the real upsetting aspect of "some people have a shitload more money than other people" is how that came to be. I mean, just watching the Daily Show I see it all the time like my hard working father is now jobless and has to drive across three states to work and lives out of an RV away from his wife and home while the fed hands out $13 billion in just free cash to banks? Are you serious? That's not economic justice! Our government bought up tons of shitty toxic assets from dumbshit investors to 'save' them yet no one tried to 'save' the jobs of the working class by just dumping billions of dollars into the rest of America. And when are those investments sold back to the original investors who made the stupid mistake to buy them? When do those people that made imprudent investment decisions get their comeuppance? Or is it only people that just tried to hold on to their jobs that have to pay for that fuck up?
well that's not particularly new, nor is it ever going to change.
You know I think people are okay when you can present them some convincing argument why the 1% deserve the Lion's share of the wealth. But when you paint them as bitching hippies who don't know what they want, you are really part of the problem. I don't want corporations to have more rights than individuals. Reinstate the Glass-Stegall Act to regulate speculation and stop corporations from internationally shifting funds in order to avoid paying the same damn income taxes I pay!
To just say "Aw, the 1% are just harder workers than you and deserve these rewards" is more ignorant than the protesters who don't know what they want.
'By not picking any one individual, they've basically chosen no one.'
Aside from the obvious one percent that didn't protest, there's another element of society that I happen to belong to. I'm not the 1% but I have a job. As such I stood by with at most sympathy and some odd feelings of survivor's guilt as I saw protests unfold in cities around my country. Yet I still had deadlines to make at work. So I'm not Time's Person of the Year but the protesters are because I sat here and sipped Lapsang Souchong tea while they made headlines. And that isn't no one, I think that's actually a very select group of people that were there, were non-violent and had a message. Other people that used the opportunities to loot or arson probably aren't proud enough to say it but Time Magazine has definitely selected a small set of people from around the world to be the Person of the Year. And I disagree that it was a bad choice and that it somehow represents 'no one.'
Sort of off-topic but every time I hear about protesting, this video pops into my head. I will opine that in this video you will see what aspects you want to see about protesting. But I think that it encapsulates a lot about protests -- even from the comparatively non-violent protests of G20 last year in Toronto. From the pacifying elements of society to the occasional brutality involved from either side, this video is oddly satisfying for me.
So you're going to increase the number of sites? I thought Not-In-My-Backyard was the reason we didn't just build more big nuclear reactors. You can make the designs as safe as you want -- hell, look at molten salt thorium reactors and the CANDU design. The problem is that the people living anywhere near it are going to be dead set against it. And Fukushima didn't help that image.
Also I didn't see anything about this increasing the number of attack sites for anyone who wants to hit one of these things or steal it. That would be an increased risk factor, as well, right?
From an engineering and economic perspective these things are probably great ideas. But what state or township is going to approve a nuclear power plant -- even a small modular one -- given unfortunate recent events?
The kids these days, they don't like the broadband. They are fed up with the cable and the fibre. Everyone has the fibre. Also, many are not happy with the complexity of broadband and the increased risk of viruses over broadband. So we do increasingly see that the youth that wants to be on the cutting edge and try something new are turning to dial up.
Right now, it is so confusing to the customer. Where is the softly assuring BEEEEEEP WAHUNG WAHUNG SCSSHHHHHHHHH white noise after connecting that lets you know that you are receiving 56k service?
Alex Trebek: Good evening and welcome to another edition of "Open the Door Jeopardy" where contestants must step through a door after ringing in and answer because answering a 'clue' in the form of a question just isn't confusing enough. Ken Jennings, as our returning champion you start. Ken Jennings: I'll start with the category 'I Confess!' for $400, Alex. Alex Trebek: Very good... 'His death and subsequent disagreement of heir resulted in the Battle of Hastings.' *Ken Jennings rings in, opens the door and steps through it* Ken Jennings: Um... uh... um... I knew it a second ago. Alex Trebek: Ooooh, I'm sorry, time is up. Anyone else? *the heavy treads of IBM's Watson machine crush the door as it rolls in* Watson: Who was Edward the Confessor?
In a big bureaucracy like the military, I assume everyone now knows that buying anything other than traditional computer equipment is going to be a significant carrier-limiting move.
"Several Nimitz Class Aircraft Carriers were rendered immobile after a large acquisition of non-traditional computer equipment on Tuesday by the USAF..."
Yes, geeks and Linux enthusiasts at the Air Force.
I think there would be some other people somewhat upset if you just dropped hundreds of thousands of dollars on what are now tiny black bricks useless to you. Accounts, commanding officers, taxpayers, etc.
I wonder if a FOIA request would yield any information about what exactly those PS3s are doing now?
Sony Marketing Executive: Okay all we're going to do is advertise that the Playstation 4 can play the games from any system ever made. Sony Engineer: But that's not true... well, I mean it could technically run some sort of emulator for each system if it existed but... Sony Marketing Executive: Shut up, we just announce after the launch that this functionality was disabled because of "security concerns." Sony Lawyer, Son of Satan: I can work with that.
But on a more serious note, I looked up Stanislaw Lem expecting to find a footnote and was instead fairly impressed with the depth, cross references and quality. Perhaps this caters to old school sci-fi? Mind filling us in on what's missing?
There's even a short but accurate entry for Kilgore Trout.
'But once a language reaches a certain tipping point of popularity, overhauling it to include support for new features, paradigms, and patterns is easier said than done.' PHP 6, Perl 6, Python 3, ECMAScript 4 — 'the lesson from all of these examples is clear: Programming languages move slowly, and the more popular a language is, the slower it moves.
It's interesting that Google took part in abandoning ECMAScript 4, which would have been almost fully backward compatible with current implementations while solving most of the "fundamental problems" Google claims require a brand new language to fix.
Seriously I'm sick and tired of defending new languages like Clojure, Go, Dart, Ruby, etc. I'm just going to shut up and let the dinosaurs stagnate and get stuck maintaining all the old code for the rest of their unenjoyable never changing ruts.
Yeah so these things are worth millions of dollars (to collectors and researchers alike) and you call them "missing"? Perhaps 'stolen' would be a better word considering the worth of these rocks. Also, I can't believe that the story of the Texan intern who stole and sold lunar samples from NASA and then had sex on top of them with his girlfriend so that they were the first people to have sex on the moon was left out of this article.
I'm guessing they're not missing but rather have long been stolen and sold on the black market.
Just FYI, most other reports are saying that the United States acknowledges this the only incredulity surrounds how the drone went down -- not whether it was there or not. US says technical malfunction. Iran says Allah helped them hack it and control it themselves.
So you've downed a pristine intact drone from your mortal enemy. Do you A) keep it secret to have an upper hand and send it to a lab to analyze all of its weaknesses and offer this information to your allies or B) take pictures in front of it with propaganda surrounding it and show the world? Well, I guess when you don't know how to do A you have to go with B!
Slashdot Mirror
There's no way to know if this influenced it but Anonymous threatened Sony on Youtube (transcript here and a few more specifics here) the other day. Of course, even if that did influence Sony I'm sure the last thing you'd want is to send Anonymous the message that they can push you around so don't bother waiting for admission/explanation.
...
Looking at this list, there's far better targets of groups of lawyers and lobbyists that don't do a goddamn thing or sell any tangible product. Not sure why those wouldn't be prioritized by Anonymous but, well, that's crowdsourcing for you. Maybe they identified Sony as the biggest fish that would disrupt the highest number of placated sheep who might actually contact their senator when their opiate flow is disturbed? Nahhhh
These people don't understand that their cushy lives and jobs depend on a strong US economy. Even if you aren't seeing the effects of it yet, it will still impact you eventually through soaring costs. We're all in it together.
I think you meant to include the word "should" in there because that's how it should work. However, I might point out that if the government determines you're "too big to fail" then you have a safety net and you can screw up your company as badly as you want. Now, if you're lobbying congress and providing them with tons of soft money, you might just be "too big to fail." Congress might artificially keep their bubble protected by turning briefly to Communism where they buy out and then own parts of the failing companies. And, like Communism, you'll have the citizens in the more sparsely populated parts of the nation suffering to keep the overly populated cities looking like pristine islands (see Moscow through the Cold War).
Google (and the rest of the tech giants) have been dodging taxes and I hope that when those Oakland OWS demonstrations spill over into Mountain View that the police don't have enough tax money to keep drenching the protesters.
Agreed. Companies that don't need political protection to survive, don't need favors from politicians, nor seek value by political manipulation of the marketplace don't need to be Occupied.
I couldn't disagree more. Political manipulation of the marketplace? How about political manipulation to shift the burden of paying taxes onto the individual instead of the corporation? Like lobbying congress to keep tax loopholes in place? And if Google doesn't need to lobby politicians then why give them money?
Now can someone tell me about the Occupy movement's actual goals and desired outcomes? It seems to me that without an end in mind, this movement could be corrupted and taken over by celebs just like the Tea Party.
Well, as I've posted before, I'd imagine economic justice. To specifically address my point above about tax dodging, I feel that our taxpaying dollars present these companies with one of the best and safest environments in the world to run a business. From police forces to firefighters to the highway infrastructure to educating your customers in the public schools. The reason you might think that all those things are going to shit is -- as I see it -- companies reap the benefits from them and then shift revenue through Ireland or The Netherlands to avoid paying for them! There's something specific you can fix. Right now it's you and me picking up the slack in income and sales tax!
There's also environmental damage. Herbicide-tolerant crops mean the farmer can spray more and push yields higher, but greater use of herbicides damages diversity in the surrounding countryside. I suppose this is related to your point 4.
Here's an anecdote for you. I'm actually home for the holidays (in farmland country) and was asking my parents what happened to a lot of specific insects I remembered as a kid but don't see these days (I realize it's winter but I've been home in the summer too). Specifically we used to have these massive garden spiders that had a golden abdomen like this one. When I was a kid, I used to flick grasshoppers and locusts into these massive webs they built between our pine trees. The webs are no longer there. My mom says it's the Roundup. She's worked her garden since 1977 and I mean like an acre of garden that we basically subsisted on. She's convinced that it's the farmers that drench their crops with Roundup now and that this Roundup is killing certain insects (directly or indirectly in the food chain). She also claims that due to Roundup we never see the number of toads and frogs that we used to (literally our backyard would be full of the young) but I can't say if this is true or not as my dad has since laid plastic lining around our pond to protect our lawn.
Anyway, is there anyone doing these studies? Who applies Roundup to frogs, toads, golden garden spiders or their food and studies the impact? I guess nobody really cares about spiders but there's the obvious recent example of pesticide harming the bee population and that could turn into be a very dreadful problem.
Face it, Blogging, Twitter, even SMS have changed the foundation of journalism as we know it.
When was that ever up for debate? Of course it has! Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse! When 'news' spreads like wildfire across Twitter and it turns out to be correct, it was a great thing. You might be downplaying the other results though.
It's now the people on the street who are witness to events
When was it anybody else? These are the first hand accounts you must go out and find your self, not through Wikileaks through stolen U.S. documents.
and can record them with their cellphones and instantly upload them to the net - anonymously or not.
Record what? Where is Pickens presenting any recorded information here? Hell, I can't even find a sound bite from a Peace Corp volunteer that was raped. You give me video, that's hard to spoof and I might buy that if it's anonymous. In the future, video manipulation will be better and we'll lose the ability to tell if compressed cell phone footage is legit.
The information moves so quickly around the world that many so called traditional journalists are left in the dust. So, you can stick with your old antiquated notions of what constitutes journalism (and many who do are part of an industry that is quickly going bankrupt), or you can get with the program and embrace the technology of the 21st century.
Yeah, so here's the core of your disagreement with me. You think that I'm fighting the speed at which information and news flows. That's not true, I'm one of the highest submitters here on Slashdot. I love it, I want it to move as fast as possible. But all that motion and speed isn't worth a goddamn thing when you're spreading unverified information or lies. And that's what I'm calling out here.
For all the praise of NYtimes, they are run at a loss and are at the behest of the billionaire Carlos Slim. A civilian with a cellphone is now more objective than a journalist worried about their next paycheck.
Seriously? Are you serious? Did you know that "Hugh Pickens" used to be a member of the Peace Corps? Did he disclose that potentially biased information in his article on his site that he linked to and calls "news"? Would that perhaps slant his views? I don't care if he has a cellphone. Other news sources are reporting allegations of espionage from the Peace Corp. Oh, sure, that could just as well be the KNB at work and nowhere is Pickens saying that any of the hundreds of members of Peace Corp could have done anything wrong. But nobody's bothering to try to find this out. I like how you play the 'objectivity' card when it comes to money for journalists but you have got to be out of your goddamn mind if you think that this "news" is more objective than what the NY Times would publish on this piece. They would send reporters to Kazakhstan if they were going to run this piece and they would verify all their sources and you're saying that the motivation of money is why they are biased? Again I ask you, are you serious?
How did you verify this information that you found on a third party site? How did you confirm that the U.S. diplomats were not trying to re-awaken old fears of the KGB by spreading misinformation in their communications? Did you find any evidence in these communications of the volunteers doing anything wrong? Did you contact the people the volunteers had worked with in Kazakhstan? Did you request a comment from the KNB?
Further investigation on Wikileaks revealed ...
No, that is wrong. That is not journalism. Nothing was revealed. You have a tip. Face it, you can't wake up, make a cup of coffee in your home and decide that today you're going to 'do' investigative journalism. Journalists are people who go out and acquire information, allegations, evidence, testimony, etc first hand. You could have started with Wikileaks as a tip, as a lead and put together your own external information from multiple sources. At best you have one side of an issue here and at worst you've been indirectly mislead. This shouldn't be called journalism. This should be called "googling."
I'm not saying you are wrong with this information, what I'm saying is that the NY Times wouldn't run this story unless they did due diligence to be completely sure they are 100% right because they are held to journalistic standards. As a blogger or armchair Wikileaks reader, you have nothing to lose by publishing this under your pseudo-name online. "Oh, maybe I'll try my hand at investigative journalism today." But let's face it, you get this wrong and you lose nothing. A journalist gets this wrong and they should lose their job and be blacklisted. And that's how news sources work.
But who will I sell my "Circus Clown Photoshop Plugin Set" to now?! Who else could possibly need my patented "Whorify" brush?
Why Developers Still Prefer iOS To Android
Is there something inherently better with iOS development? Is the API better written? Is there some technological inferiority to Android? Is it cheaper to buy the development tools for iOS?
Oh, I see. What you meant to say is:
Why Publishers Still Prefer iOS To Android
And even that's sort of not very accurate. I mean, there are plenty of apps that are free and are on both Android and iOS like advertising based apps that want you to read some website's stories. And they just want to target the most users, not the most users who shell out money. So maybe it should be:
Why Revenue Seekers Still Prefer iOS To Android
Not everyone developing apps depends on that as their revenue stream.
This is exactly what I thought when I saw pictures. The buses ran over the kid who was texting. Not one but two of them. How did he cause that?
Well from the article:
A 19-year-old pickup driver rear-ended a truck, and then was rear-ended by two school buses. Two people, including the pickup driver, were killed, and 38 were injured. Although there’s no evidence as to whether the pickup driver was texting at the moment of the crash, he had sent or received 11 texts in the previous 11 minutes.
You conveniently neglected to mention that the 19-year old 'kid' (he should be treated as an adult in my book) was irresponsible and caused the initial accident which then caused the pile up. Was it the bus drivers' fault for following too closely? You bet. But if that initial accident from the cell phone hadn't happened, that whole pile up probably wouldn't have happened either. People follow closely in rush hour traffic and it's bad driving. But maybe if that 'kid' had even put his break lights on, the buses would have also and the collision would have been just a rear ending. You concentrate on the car in front of you and if you are too close, you depend on them to give you some warning. If there's no warning, you both fail.
Yes, texting while driving is inherently dangerous: It takes your eyes off the road and your hands off the wheel. That is presumably why texting while driving is already illegal in Missouri for drivers under 21. But there’s a big leap from the Missouri accident to the NTSB’s suggestion for a broad, new national ban.
So you would agree that texting while driving decreases your reaction time and decreases how alert you are to the road? Okay so what else does that? Well, being drunk and driving is pretty much a death sentence in most states. I drove a friend to and from work every day for a year adding over 1 hour to my daily commute. Because he was pass the legal limit when he was pulled over. After that he had an interlock system that he had to pay to have installed in his car that wouldn't let him drink and drive. All of this because he was doing something that impaired his reaction time and alertness.
Now you fight the NTSB about banning cell phones while driving? What happens now when you're pulled over while texting (if you even are)? $200? A slap on the wrist? Are you forced to pay to have a Faraday cage installed in your automobile? Is your driver's license revoked for a year? Why not?
I'm reminded of the car talk episode where a guy was calling into a radio station while driving and you hear him hit a car and one of the hosts of Car Talk says "Good, ya jerk!"
I'd agree with you except for the part about having a message.
What I garnered from the more cognizant participants was they wanted one thing: economic justice.
I still can't figure out what they were protesting other than the fact that some people have a shitload more money than other people. As for those rich people getting their money in ethically challenged ways...
Yeah, so I think the real upsetting aspect of "some people have a shitload more money than other people" is how that came to be. I mean, just watching the Daily Show I see it all the time like my hard working father is now jobless and has to drive across three states to work and lives out of an RV away from his wife and home while the fed hands out $13 billion in just free cash to banks? Are you serious? That's not economic justice! Our government bought up tons of shitty toxic assets from dumbshit investors to 'save' them yet no one tried to 'save' the jobs of the working class by just dumping billions of dollars into the rest of America. And when are those investments sold back to the original investors who made the stupid mistake to buy them? When do those people that made imprudent investment decisions get their comeuppance? Or is it only people that just tried to hold on to their jobs that have to pay for that fuck up?
well that's not particularly new, nor is it ever going to change.
You know I think people are okay when you can present them some convincing argument why the 1% deserve the Lion's share of the wealth. But when you paint them as bitching hippies who don't know what they want, you are really part of the problem. I don't want corporations to have more rights than individuals. Reinstate the Glass-Stegall Act to regulate speculation and stop corporations from internationally shifting funds in order to avoid paying the same damn income taxes I pay!
To just say "Aw, the 1% are just harder workers than you and deserve these rewards" is more ignorant than the protesters who don't know what they want.
'By not picking any one individual, they've basically chosen no one.'
Aside from the obvious one percent that didn't protest, there's another element of society that I happen to belong to. I'm not the 1% but I have a job. As such I stood by with at most sympathy and some odd feelings of survivor's guilt as I saw protests unfold in cities around my country. Yet I still had deadlines to make at work. So I'm not Time's Person of the Year but the protesters are because I sat here and sipped Lapsang Souchong tea while they made headlines. And that isn't no one, I think that's actually a very select group of people that were there, were non-violent and had a message. Other people that used the opportunities to loot or arson probably aren't proud enough to say it but Time Magazine has definitely selected a small set of people from around the world to be the Person of the Year. And I disagree that it was a bad choice and that it somehow represents 'no one.'
Sort of off-topic but every time I hear about protesting, this video pops into my head. I will opine that in this video you will see what aspects you want to see about protesting. But I think that it encapsulates a lot about protests -- even from the comparatively non-violent protests of G20 last year in Toronto. From the pacifying elements of society to the occasional brutality involved from either side, this video is oddly satisfying for me.
So you're going to increase the number of sites? I thought Not-In-My-Backyard was the reason we didn't just build more big nuclear reactors. You can make the designs as safe as you want -- hell, look at molten salt thorium reactors and the CANDU design. The problem is that the people living anywhere near it are going to be dead set against it. And Fukushima didn't help that image.
Also I didn't see anything about this increasing the number of attack sites for anyone who wants to hit one of these things or steal it. That would be an increased risk factor, as well, right?
From an engineering and economic perspective these things are probably great ideas. But what state or township is going to approve a nuclear power plant -- even a small modular one -- given unfortunate recent events?
The kids these days, they don't like the broadband. They are fed up with the cable and the fibre. Everyone has the fibre. Also, many are not happy with the complexity of broadband and the increased risk of viruses over broadband. So we do increasingly see that the youth that wants to be on the cutting edge and try something new are turning to dial up.
Right now, it is so confusing to the customer. Where is the softly assuring BEEEEEEP WAHUNG WAHUNG SCSSHHHHHHHHH white noise after connecting that lets you know that you are receiving 56k service?
Alex Trebek: Good evening and welcome to another edition of "Open the Door Jeopardy" where contestants must step through a door after ringing in and answer because answering a 'clue' in the form of a question just isn't confusing enough. Ken Jennings, as our returning champion you start. ... 'His death and subsequent disagreement of heir resulted in the Battle of Hastings.' ... uh ... um ... I knew it a second ago.
Ken Jennings: I'll start with the category 'I Confess!' for $400, Alex.
Alex Trebek: Very good
*Ken Jennings rings in, opens the door and steps through it*
Ken Jennings: Um
Alex Trebek: Ooooh, I'm sorry, time is up. Anyone else?
*the heavy treads of IBM's Watson machine crush the door as it rolls in*
Watson: Who was Edward the Confessor?
In a big bureaucracy like the military, I assume everyone now knows that buying anything other than traditional computer equipment is going to be a significant carrier-limiting move.
"Several Nimitz Class Aircraft Carriers were rendered immobile after a large acquisition of non-traditional computer equipment on Tuesday by the USAF ..."
How dare you intervene on my behalf! I'll have you know that I'm easily twice as dim as he is!
I prefer to remain underestimated with low expectations of my performance.
Yes, geeks and Linux enthusiasts at the Air Force.
I think there would be some other people somewhat upset if you just dropped hundreds of thousands of dollars on what are now tiny black bricks useless to you. Accounts, commanding officers, taxpayers, etc.
I wonder if a FOIA request would yield any information about what exactly those PS3s are doing now?
Sony Marketing Executive: Okay all we're going to do is advertise that the Playstation 4 can play the games from any system ever made. ... well, I mean it could technically run some sort of emulator for each system if it existed but ...
Sony Engineer: But that's not true
Sony Marketing Executive: Shut up, we just announce after the launch that this functionality was disabled because of "security concerns."
Sony Lawyer, Son of Satan: I can work with that.
Geeks and Linux enthusiasts were outraged at the move ...
And the United States Air Force.
This doesn't really look like 20 years of effort. Lot's of holes.
I only found two.
But on a more serious note, I looked up Stanislaw Lem expecting to find a footnote and was instead fairly impressed with the depth, cross references and quality. Perhaps this caters to old school sci-fi? Mind filling us in on what's missing?
There's even a short but accurate entry for Kilgore Trout.
'But once a language reaches a certain tipping point of popularity, overhauling it to include support for new features, paradigms, and patterns is easier said than done.' PHP 6, Perl 6, Python 3, ECMAScript 4 — 'the lesson from all of these examples is clear: Programming languages move slowly, and the more popular a language is, the slower it moves.
What's wrong, Slashdot? Where's the editorializing?
It's interesting that Google took part in abandoning ECMAScript 4, which would have been almost fully backward compatible with current implementations while solving most of the "fundamental problems" Google claims require a brand new language to fix.
Seriously I'm sick and tired of defending new languages like Clojure, Go, Dart, Ruby, etc. I'm just going to shut up and let the dinosaurs stagnate and get stuck maintaining all the old code for the rest of their unenjoyable never changing ruts.
Yeah so these things are worth millions of dollars (to collectors and researchers alike) and you call them "missing"? Perhaps 'stolen' would be a better word considering the worth of these rocks. Also, I can't believe that the story of the Texan intern who stole and sold lunar samples from NASA and then had sex on top of them with his girlfriend so that they were the first people to have sex on the moon was left out of this article.
I'm guessing they're not missing but rather have long been stolen and sold on the black market.
Just FYI, most other reports are saying that the United States acknowledges this the only incredulity surrounds how the drone went down -- not whether it was there or not. US says technical malfunction. Iran says Allah helped them hack it and control it themselves.
I like how they hang American flags with white skulls instead of stars beneath it as well as graffiti covering them. Real mature. Sort of makes me want to photoshop their flag with the tulip being one person stoning another person while blood drips down into the bottom band.
So you've downed a pristine intact drone from your mortal enemy. Do you A) keep it secret to have an upper hand and send it to a lab to analyze all of its weaknesses and offer this information to your allies or B) take pictures in front of it with propaganda surrounding it and show the world? Well, I guess when you don't know how to do A you have to go with B!