It is a pity one can not get 'caller pays' plans. I would be perfectly happy to pick up scammers and then set my phone down while I go back to work if I did not have to pay for every minute.
That is part of the problem. In general they are not starting with reasonable theories based on prior extensive experimental results. They are starting with ideas that people with no domain knowledge think sound right and experiments that would get laughed out of a professional lab. Their whole ethos is that they are smarter than people who actually know what they are doing and that knowledge means you know less.
Down on my bookshelf I have medical text from the 1800s that goes over the wonders of 'water treatment', a revolutionary form of medicines that became quite popular at the time.
Its big advantage was, it didn't do anything. Doing nothing had a safer range of outcomes than the wide range of DIY and 'professional' cures that were in common use at the time.
So yeah, it is not unheard of for 'doing nothing' to be a better option than random quacks advancing their personal theories, esp when they are taking them straight to 'the public' rather than doing the hard work.
That is the part that confuses me. Often DoD projects have citizenship requirements for even doing non-classified work, sometimes even work that permits publication. So I am not sure what kind of harsher restrictions they are thinking unless they want to go full 'natural born citizen' or even 'no citizen of chinese descent' route.
Yeah, but they are cheaper to hire and you don't have to invest in public education, so there has been a massive reluctance to curtail it.
That being said, DoD projects often have 'US citizen only' requirements, so I am not sure what additional restrictions they are picturing. The research lab I am in has constant problems with this, having to search out students that meet the citizenship requirement and that is not even for classified work.
Or for that matter, any company that depends on 'investors', or ones that depend on tax breaks to survive, or even the massive industries that would quickly die if the government did not twist trade deals and regulations to keep them afloat.
Are you kidding? Private sector is all about looking pretty and justifying their existence. In private sector, it is all about the personal brand and making people above you believe that you are valuable, usually via whatever made up metric or strained statistics are popular with whoever holds some pursestrings.
NASA does not really do anything 'themselves'. The new batch of private companies operate a bit differently, but NASA has always contracted out the actual manufacture of their vehicles.
This is why the 'just read it' rhetoric doesn't quite work. EULAs are written for a very specific audience with specialized knowledge. Even if a layman understands the sentences themselves, they are not generally going to be able to put them into the proper context of the rest of the legal framework.
They half depend on people not reading them, and half depend on the professional arrogance of people reading them and believing that since they are smart computery type people working in the one and only field that requires specialized knowledge, so they understand legal documents just as well as people who actually have that domain knowledge.
I am saying this as someone who voted for Sanders, but to say that Sanders was well liked while Clinton was unpopular just isn't the case. Clinton got more support from the DNC, but she as still quite popular with Democrats and Sanders had a lot of detractors. At the end of the day, the primary was won by more people liking Clinton than Sanders. One can argue that the DNC used its position to influence who people liked and who they did not, but we were still in the minority.
Well, something the GoP demonstrated over the last few years is that political investigations are real crowd pleasers, so they really should not be so shocked the the Democrats actually learned something from them. The GoP made heavy use of the tactic during the Clinton years, and the Democrats did not retaliate during the Bush years I guess in an attempt to keep a moral high ground or hope that such theater could be kept from being 'eye for an eye', but then the GoP doubled down on it during the Obama years, so we are probably going to see more of it now.
'rigged' is probably too strong a word. The DNC gave certain advantages to the Clinton campaign, which one would expect when you have a candidate that is deeply entwined with an institution as opposed to an outsider with few personal or political connections to the group. But 'rigged' gives a false impression that there was cheating or tampering involved, which there wasn't.
Unfortunately there is this pervasive idea in the more libertarian end of tech that equates ethics with difficulty, thus anything that you can smart your way around is morally acceptable because the other (inferior) side did not work hard enough at stopping you. Sorta an extension of the 'it is only cheating if you get caught' taken to the logical extreme of 'it isn't cheating even if you get caught as long as you used tech to do it'
It is the same argument as 'muslims never disavow anything'. No amount of disavowing will ever be enough to satisfy the meme unless they become adopt islamophobic or MRA language.
So basically we have a community complaining that not enough others have discovered their obvious superiority and what to do about it?
Agile has its place, but I think this attitude of 'agile is the way' is one of the reasons a lot of developers avoid it.
You are overlooking the other major reason people use exchanges : trading. A lot of BTC users fancy themselves currency traders, so they want their coins on a service where they can trade them rapidly without hitting the main (slow) network.
In a way, this actually is a bit of a flaw in BTC. It functions poorly for a major use case that people want to use it for, so all these exchanges have popped up to offer a solution for the limitations of it.
At the end of the day, scared suburban parents who think brown pimps are waiting around every corner ready to snatch their daughters vote en-mass, while sex workers living on the edge of financial disaster generally don't.
The sites most at risk are the ones without massive piles of cash and overseas backups that would allow them to survive law enforcement testing out the new law.
That is why so many sites decided to self censor. By the letter of the law very few of them would likely be involation, esp since it includes a section talking about the intent of the changes. However, many of the sites are scared about the law being used against them in a way that would destroy their business even if the case was thrown out.
Sad thing is, the theocratic elements of the US are actually pretty new, part of an anti-communist revivalism only dating back to the mid 20th century.
The original colonies were mostly theocracies, but each colony had problems with oppression of their people when living in other colonies and thus the problems of theocracies were very recent in their minds. I would say today we are mostly in the toddler phase of theocracy, about a half century in with the power of the theocrats waxing and waning.
I will actually be curious to see what happens when the law come up in court since the actual forward to it makes it really explicit that it is intended to be applied to forced prostitution of children. A good lawyer could argue that trying to apply it to self employed sex workers using a service is a gross misapplication of it.
Past decade?
The anti-sex wing of progressives is mostly a left over from the mid 19th century and has been slowly dying off. They are having a bit of a last-hurrah as their membership are now getting close to the peak of their political power and end of careers, but their support has been dwindling among progressives for decades now.
One of the key points is that the site serviced a broad base of sex workers, the majority of which were not children nor being trafficked. The claim that the site worked to help child sex slavers is a bit like claiming uber is helping uber drivers assault passengers. It happens, and the company should probably be doing more to stop it, but it isn't something they are trying for.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a pity one can not get 'caller pays' plans. I would be perfectly happy to pick up scammers and then set my phone down while I go back to work if I did not have to pay for every minute.
That is part of the problem. In general they are not starting with reasonable theories based on prior extensive experimental results. They are starting with ideas that people with no domain knowledge think sound right and experiments that would get laughed out of a professional lab. Their whole ethos is that they are smarter than people who actually know what they are doing and that knowledge means you know less.
Down on my bookshelf I have medical text from the 1800s that goes over the wonders of 'water treatment', a revolutionary form of medicines that became quite popular at the time. Its big advantage was, it didn't do anything. Doing nothing had a safer range of outcomes than the wide range of DIY and 'professional' cures that were in common use at the time. So yeah, it is not unheard of for 'doing nothing' to be a better option than random quacks advancing their personal theories, esp when they are taking them straight to 'the public' rather than doing the hard work.
That is the part that confuses me. Often DoD projects have citizenship requirements for even doing non-classified work, sometimes even work that permits publication. So I am not sure what kind of harsher restrictions they are thinking unless they want to go full 'natural born citizen' or even 'no citizen of chinese descent' route.
Yeah, but they are cheaper to hire and you don't have to invest in public education, so there has been a massive reluctance to curtail it. That being said, DoD projects often have 'US citizen only' requirements, so I am not sure what additional restrictions they are picturing. The research lab I am in has constant problems with this, having to search out students that meet the citizenship requirement and that is not even for classified work.
Or for that matter, any company that depends on 'investors', or ones that depend on tax breaks to survive, or even the massive industries that would quickly die if the government did not twist trade deals and regulations to keep them afloat.
Are you kidding? Private sector is all about looking pretty and justifying their existence. In private sector, it is all about the personal brand and making people above you believe that you are valuable, usually via whatever made up metric or strained statistics are popular with whoever holds some pursestrings.
NASA does not really do anything 'themselves'. The new batch of private companies operate a bit differently, but NASA has always contracted out the actual manufacture of their vehicles.
Someone should craft and experiment to determine if shoes can become oil...
This is why the 'just read it' rhetoric doesn't quite work. EULAs are written for a very specific audience with specialized knowledge. Even if a layman understands the sentences themselves, they are not generally going to be able to put them into the proper context of the rest of the legal framework. They half depend on people not reading them, and half depend on the professional arrogance of people reading them and believing that since they are smart computery type people working in the one and only field that requires specialized knowledge, so they understand legal documents just as well as people who actually have that domain knowledge.
I am saying this as someone who voted for Sanders, but to say that Sanders was well liked while Clinton was unpopular just isn't the case. Clinton got more support from the DNC, but she as still quite popular with Democrats and Sanders had a lot of detractors. At the end of the day, the primary was won by more people liking Clinton than Sanders. One can argue that the DNC used its position to influence who people liked and who they did not, but we were still in the minority.
Well, something the GoP demonstrated over the last few years is that political investigations are real crowd pleasers, so they really should not be so shocked the the Democrats actually learned something from them. The GoP made heavy use of the tactic during the Clinton years, and the Democrats did not retaliate during the Bush years I guess in an attempt to keep a moral high ground or hope that such theater could be kept from being 'eye for an eye', but then the GoP doubled down on it during the Obama years, so we are probably going to see more of it now.
'rigged' is probably too strong a word. The DNC gave certain advantages to the Clinton campaign, which one would expect when you have a candidate that is deeply entwined with an institution as opposed to an outsider with few personal or political connections to the group. But 'rigged' gives a false impression that there was cheating or tampering involved, which there wasn't.
Unfortunately there is this pervasive idea in the more libertarian end of tech that equates ethics with difficulty, thus anything that you can smart your way around is morally acceptable because the other (inferior) side did not work hard enough at stopping you. Sorta an extension of the 'it is only cheating if you get caught' taken to the logical extreme of 'it isn't cheating even if you get caught as long as you used tech to do it'
It is the same argument as 'muslims never disavow anything'. No amount of disavowing will ever be enough to satisfy the meme unless they become adopt islamophobic or MRA language.
Yet SJWs are generally against FOSTA-SESTA. It is almost like people make up what they believe....
So basically we have a community complaining that not enough others have discovered their obvious superiority and what to do about it? Agile has its place, but I think this attitude of 'agile is the way' is one of the reasons a lot of developers avoid it.
You are overlooking the other major reason people use exchanges : trading. A lot of BTC users fancy themselves currency traders, so they want their coins on a service where they can trade them rapidly without hitting the main (slow) network. In a way, this actually is a bit of a flaw in BTC. It functions poorly for a major use case that people want to use it for, so all these exchanges have popped up to offer a solution for the limitations of it.
At the end of the day, scared suburban parents who think brown pimps are waiting around every corner ready to snatch their daughters vote en-mass, while sex workers living on the edge of financial disaster generally don't.
The sites most at risk are the ones without massive piles of cash and overseas backups that would allow them to survive law enforcement testing out the new law. That is why so many sites decided to self censor. By the letter of the law very few of them would likely be involation, esp since it includes a section talking about the intent of the changes. However, many of the sites are scared about the law being used against them in a way that would destroy their business even if the case was thrown out.
Sad thing is, the theocratic elements of the US are actually pretty new, part of an anti-communist revivalism only dating back to the mid 20th century. The original colonies were mostly theocracies, but each colony had problems with oppression of their people when living in other colonies and thus the problems of theocracies were very recent in their minds. I would say today we are mostly in the toddler phase of theocracy, about a half century in with the power of the theocrats waxing and waning.
I will actually be curious to see what happens when the law come up in court since the actual forward to it makes it really explicit that it is intended to be applied to forced prostitution of children. A good lawyer could argue that trying to apply it to self employed sex workers using a service is a gross misapplication of it.
Past decade? The anti-sex wing of progressives is mostly a left over from the mid 19th century and has been slowly dying off. They are having a bit of a last-hurrah as their membership are now getting close to the peak of their political power and end of careers, but their support has been dwindling among progressives for decades now.
One of the key points is that the site serviced a broad base of sex workers, the majority of which were not children nor being trafficked. The claim that the site worked to help child sex slavers is a bit like claiming uber is helping uber drivers assault passengers. It happens, and the company should probably be doing more to stop it, but it isn't something they are trying for.
*nod* I think it would be more accurate to say that an acquittal can lay the foundation of a lawsuit for restitution.