1) We got to see corporate lobbying in action. They effectively got themselves a loophole that would let them reduce their fines by 70% or whatever.
2) Even so, an electric car company got a big cash infusion paid for by a big polluter; helping increase the competitiveness of Tesla at the expense of Fiat.
It's effectively subsidizing electric car research, development and production, paid for by fiat... which really means it's paid for by the people who chose to buy chryslers and fiats.
It also seems like this, at least, is precisely the desired outcome.
Well said. However, you are moving the goal posts here. I was merely responding to the previous argument which was rubbish.
I actually am not really for this system either, and agree with your reasoning on why. Although if it were more like the seatbelt system -- its there, its mandatory, there's warning lights, but the car doesn't actually refuse to start or move if you aren't wearing it that might be a good compromise.
"Should the government have the right to force me to buy a car with a fragile false-positive-providing automaton"
They already force all kinds of safety and pollution control equipment. And it's already the case that sometimes if if a sensor in the emissions control system fails the car won't start.
Of course it will happen. But if 10 drunk idiots freeze to death and 10,000 drunk driving related deaths are eliminated, that seems a good trade doesn't it?
And that's making a lot of assumptions -- a few years out from now even if the engine won't start, he's probably got an electric, so the heater will work just fine even if the car refuses to move. He'll also probably have phone with which he can call people for help. Even old cars will run the accesories without the engine running (although many old cars don't have electric heat as they just use engine heat). But seriously... I lived in manitoba. If your driving around at 2am in -35 below in the spaces without a lot of people without some emergency thermal gear in the car, blankets, candles, emergency lights/flares, maybe a even a little camp stove/heater... then you are asking for trouble.
Now If you are wandering around 'lit up big time' by yourself, at 2am, in that environment, *knowing* you own a car that doesn't start if you are drunk, and you don't have a backup plan and/or are too drunk to execute it... well... that's a darwin award candidate.
I mean seriously... what happens in your world when at 2am, at -35 in winter he goes to start the car and then it dies half way home because he ran out of gas, because he was too lit to notice the fuel need was on empty, and nothing was open at 2am anyway...
The point stands though. You can much more easily replace your sub$100 MiBox 3 than you can your TV though.
The bad news is that roku dropped the 4k ultra unit which i have. Now if you want 4k you can only get the stick which only does wifi.
I only got the roku because netflix on the smarttv was buggy buffering garbage. Netflix on windows 10 was idiotic garbage. The roku just works and works well, but the one i'd recommend buying is discontinued...... facepalm.
Like i said elsewhere, most short term rentals I've used were permanently run as such, with property managers etc.
I'm not sure what the breakdown is between those and genuine people renting their house when they go on vacation but the pros definitely skew the listings since their units are available 24x7 365 a year unless someone else has already booked it... instead of a week or two here and there when the owners aren't home.
And I prefer dealing with the pros -- for them its a business, they're less likely to be crazy neurotic as its really not 'their home' and they're more experienced, and know what guests are going to want and need and more organized about everything, they have professional cleaners and property managers etc.
Plus they have more reviews because they've got lots of units and lots of people coming through. So i have a better idea what im getting. And I can avoid the people who don't know what they are doing.
So I've never stayed in someones actual house while they were away, and honestly I prefer it that way.
Sure. Lots of people are stupid and do stupid things. We don't even need hard evidence of that, but I agree lots of people rent their house out to randos without thinking it through.
For what its worth though, I've rented a fair number of short term rentals around the world, and all the ones I've stayed at were NOT someone's regular home -- they have been 2ndary properties permanently run as short term rentals, furnished accordingly, nice, clean, but nothing especially valuable in them; and in most of the cases I even interacted with a property manager rather than the property owner.
"And there is no real hard evidence you would not other than some declaration made anonymously in slashdot."
Hard evidence of me personally? Sure I guess not, but there is plenty of hard evidence that LOTS of people are running their short term rentals the same way I claimed I would. Go look at airbnd... lots of them are clearly and obviously no one's primary residence. And there is also plenty of hard evidence that lots of people aren't running their primary residence as a short term rental when they go on vacation.
So I'm not sure what your point was in attempting to shoot down my argument by attacking my credibility... surely you don't find it that incredible that people would operate the way I claim to. Surely you agree beyond a doubt that there are plenty of people doing exactly what I claimed I'd do.
"Looking forward to hearing you complain when you let a bunch of randoms stay in your house while you're away and they end up trashing it "
I wouldn't let randos stay in my house while I was away. So I will never have that problem.
And if I did purchase a 2ndary property to rent out to randos, I'd furnish it accordingly, and insure it accordingly, and then charge accordingly. And I still wouldn't put a camera in the living room.
Airbnb's rules allow cameras outdoors and in living rooms and common areas, but never in bathrooms or anywhere guests plan to sleep, including rooms with foldout beds.
I don't really see how a camera in the living room is acceptable either.
Mine is about 90% there. Some of the fixtures use halogen etc (the range hood, undercounter lighting, one of the bathrooms...) Almost everything else except a couple fixtures using edison style light bulbs are LED now. The edison bulbs are available in LED but do not look nearly as nice.
My main and still ongoing complaint with LED is that 50%+ of the lights in my home are dimmable. Other than a couple hallways and my office, pretty much everything is dimmable.
LED dimmables still SUCK. 1) The SKUs are always changing. The tech is evolving, the bulbs i bought two years ago are discontinued and replaced with newer models today, which leads me to item 2:
2) No two SKUs dim the same way. IF I have a fixture with 4 leds and one flakes out the replacement will not dim the same. At full brightness they are indistinguishable, at half the new one is markedly brighter or dimmer than the rest. And usually a different color temperature too. So it either looks stupid or I have to replace all 4 at once which sucks.
3) Color temperature is a PITA in combination with dimming. Incandescent bulbs all get warmer until they turn off -- that's what i want. LEDs... some do, some sort of do, some don't at all, the specs on the boxes aren't specific enough, and no two SKUs seem to follow remotely the same profile. And again finding a model bulb that I'm happy with that still available year after year has been impossible.
"but the smart components failed and I coudn't use the app to control it. "
I do not want "smart" bulbs at all. The inexpensive light switches on the wall are working fine. I see no advantage in a vastly more convoluted and complicated system to replace that.
"DMA, channel I/O, multiprocessing and coprocessors all date to the 1960s or earlier."
"You only think the architecture has changed because you're ignorant of the pre-PC history."
A simple embedded finite state machine in some 60s peripheral is not a full blown turing complete computer. And when 60s era subsystems had bona fide computers of their own in them they were first-class discrete systems in their own right and treated as such. They were not completely overlooked chips hidden in the nooks and crannies.
The CPU doesn't mediate or process all IO. Half the components on the motherboard can pass for full blown computers unto themselves now, with their own memory and io, and many of them can talk directly among each other without involving the CPU. Then you've got stuff like IME as a who 2nd computer running the first one.
The architecture is totally different now. It's just convenient to still think of it the same way, and the software is designed to make that the old metaphor logically applicable... again for convenience.
But its also why we have certain classes of vulnerability now. Because we _don't_ usually think about all these bits as first class computers in their own right but they _are_, and they can steal or modify data or run malicious code and the thing labelled "CPU" has no real control over any of it.
"As for everything else, I'd be happy with an AI that detects when it's out of its depth."
How does it know that? Sure it might get a weather report over the network. But maybe during a storm the network isn't reliable. So now its relying on its sensors? What if it doesn't recognize a flooded lane as 'too deep to cross' or that its flooded at all instead of just flat? And it only discovers its 'out of its depth' after its literally in too deep?
"My commutes are 99% boring, if it one day it says there's a blizzard outside I got other options."
Sure... if you are still inside thinking about going outside.
But what if the whatever comes up while you are in it? Its just going to stop and you are going to wait it out? A tree falls across the road and you are lucky enough it realizes it can't proceed instead of just driving through it. What then... you just going to sit there until someone comes? What if a bridge is washed out? Maybe you could set an alternate route... but its in a one way lane aimed at the bridge... is it going to know to drive in reverse 2 miles to the do-not-enter gravel service vehicles exit? Or go up on the sidewalk, or assess if it can drive through the ditch or open field, or drive in the oncoming lane. All by itself? By next year it'll have this capability? Really? Even in 10 years?
So what happens? You are going to drive? Why... in this utopian future car the pundits keep proclaiming it will not even have manual controls...and you might not even have a drivers license. And even if it does and you do so what? You haven't driven in years, are you really qualified to drive anymore? Not really... but you are going to take over in this difficult situation? That seems worse somehow.:)
Nobody disputes that, and some people do think more names are apropropriate.
And in fact, if you think about it, lots of distros are named primarily for/differentiated by the preferred window manager, update system, or init system.
Linux is just the kernel though; which since you are making car analogies is closer to the engine under the hood than the tires. GNU is everything else; the body, seats, steering wheel, headlights.
If you buy a Lotus Evora, do you tell people you have a Lotus? A Lotus/Toyota or just a Toyota? Do you call a Pagani a Pagani/Mercedes or just Mercedes? If you take an old Porsche and put a Covette V8 into it... as some have done, do they have a modified Porsche, a Porsche/Chevrolet, or a modified Chevrolet?
If anything your argument suggests it should just be GNU OS or something, because nobody refers to what they drive by the manufacturer of the engine.
And further, what about ChromeOS and Android? Those get referred to as ChromeOS and Android, despite resting on the Linux, not ChromeOS/Linux and not Android/Linux, and certainly not "just Linux" right?
All that said, I don't actually disagree with you per se, I call it Linux too, 99% of the time, but that convention doesn't really make a lot of sense when you actually think about it, and your argument doesn't really make a lot of sense either.
So why actively defend a convention that doesn't really make much sense, when that convention's only real merit is that its a "common usage".
I'm personally probably going to keep calling it "Linux" as long as most everyone else does, but I can't see the merit of arguing that it is somehow more "correct" this way.
"In my 30+ years of driving I have never seen that kind of signage or markers that are apparently used to dynamically close lanes at certain times. I would wonder what I was seeing myself the first time I encountered that."
In my nearly 30 years of driving I've seen type of signage lots of times. I know of a bridge that for years had an alternating direction center lane (west bound in the morning, east bound during evening and access to that lane was controlled by signage like this; that bridge has since been twinned. And I know of another on ramp that closes during certain hours of the day.
"I would wonder what I was seeing myself the first time I encountered that."
I don't dispute that you would wonder what it was if you hadn't seen it before; but I'm also pretty confident you wouldn't have tried driving into it.
You searched for 'git reset', and are upset that ddg didn't tell you git ammend?? Wow. FWIW ddg returns what you wanted if you don't actively search for the wrong thing.
" They are the first people to say that they are biased and expressing opinions, not facts."
My distaste for them is not that they have opinions, It's that they shamelessly lie.
"Conversely, the leftist shitrag you pretend is a news source does exactly the same thing, but traipses about in the dead flesh of objective journalism"
I'd agree CNN is a shitrag right now. But that doesn't make fox news defensible for the same sort of shit. But neither CNN nor Fox are actually operated by the political party as a propaganda front. (If any thing Fox is tugging at the strings of the president right now.)
You are a smug, condescending, elitist fuck whose only talent is convincing himself that he's more informed, rational, unbiased, or intelligent than the next asshole.
I said I agreed CNN was a leftist shitrag these days but you are much to busy attacking your preconceived notion of what I must be to give a shit about the truth.
Because apparently if CNN is a lefttist shitrag, then it's ok for the GOP to directly operate local news outlets as a propagranda front in key battleground states?
Slashdot Mirror
"If 'The Dread Pirate Roberts' was caught, then why does his mischief continue?"
Do the majority of people beleive they caught the wrong guy, or that this is a copycat? That's all that matters.
"It was supposed to stay Dread Pirate Roberts, from person to person."
That only works if the previous one isn't caught and convicted.
That's basically 1) again.
" So what in the world was accomplished? "
Two things actually:
1) We got to see corporate lobbying in action. They effectively got themselves a loophole that would let them reduce their fines by 70% or whatever.
2) Even so, an electric car company got a big cash infusion paid for by a big polluter; helping increase the competitiveness of Tesla at the expense of Fiat.
It's effectively subsidizing electric car research, development and production, paid for by fiat ... which really means it's paid for by the people who chose to buy chryslers and fiats.
It also seems like this, at least, is precisely the desired outcome.
Well said. However, you are moving the goal posts here. I was merely responding to the previous argument which was rubbish.
I actually am not really for this system either, and agree with your reasoning on why. Although if it were more like the seatbelt system -- its there, its mandatory, there's warning lights, but the car doesn't actually refuse to start or move if you aren't wearing it that might be a good compromise.
"Should the government have the right to force me to buy a car with a fragile false-positive-providing automaton"
They already force all kinds of safety and pollution control equipment. And it's already the case that sometimes if if a sensor in the emissions control system fails the car won't start.
Of course it will happen. But if 10 drunk idiots freeze to death and 10,000 drunk driving related deaths are eliminated, that seems a good trade doesn't it?
And that's making a lot of assumptions -- a few years out from now even if the engine won't start, he's probably got an electric, so the heater will work just fine even if the car refuses to move. He'll also probably have phone with which he can call people for help. Even old cars will run the accesories without the engine running (although many old cars don't have electric heat as they just use engine heat). But seriously... I lived in manitoba. If your driving around at 2am in -35 below in the spaces without a lot of people without some emergency thermal gear in the car, blankets, candles, emergency lights/flares, maybe a even a little camp stove/heater ... then you are asking for trouble.
Now If you are wandering around 'lit up big time' by yourself, at 2am, in that environment, *knowing* you own a car that doesn't start if you are drunk, and you don't have a backup plan and/or are too drunk to execute it... well... that's a darwin award candidate.
I mean seriously... what happens in your world when at 2am, at -35 in winter he goes to start the car and then it dies half way home because he ran out of gas, because he was too lit to notice the fuel need was on empty, and nothing was open at 2am anyway...
The point stands though. You can much more easily replace your sub$100 MiBox 3 than you can your TV though.
The bad news is that roku dropped the 4k ultra unit which i have. Now if you want 4k you can only get the stick which only does wifi.
I only got the roku because netflix on the smarttv was buggy buffering garbage. Netflix on windows 10 was idiotic garbage. The roku just works and works well, but the one i'd recommend buying is discontinued... ... facepalm.
And so is the "Outlook connector for gmail for business" so that you aren't stuck using browser mail.
Are you seriously comparing the expectation of privacy in a hotel lobby to the living room in your hotel suite?
Like i said elsewhere, most short term rentals I've used were permanently run as such, with property managers etc.
I'm not sure what the breakdown is between those and genuine people renting their house when they go on vacation but the pros definitely skew the listings since their units are available 24x7 365 a year unless someone else has already booked it... instead of a week or two here and there when the owners aren't home.
And I prefer dealing with the pros -- for them its a business, they're less likely to be crazy neurotic as its really not 'their home' and they're more experienced, and know what guests are going to want and need and more organized about everything, they have professional cleaners and property managers etc.
Plus they have more reviews because they've got lots of units and lots of people coming through. So i have a better idea what im getting. And I can avoid the people who don't know what they are doing.
So I've never stayed in someones actual house while they were away, and honestly I prefer it that way.
"There is plenty of evidence others would."
Sure. Lots of people are stupid and do stupid things. We don't even need hard evidence of that, but I agree lots of people rent their house out to randos without thinking it through.
For what its worth though, I've rented a fair number of short term rentals around the world, and all the ones I've stayed at were NOT someone's regular home -- they have been 2ndary properties permanently run as short term rentals, furnished accordingly, nice, clean, but nothing especially valuable in them; and in most of the cases I even interacted with a property manager rather than the property owner.
"And there is no real hard evidence you would not other than some declaration made anonymously in slashdot."
Hard evidence of me personally? Sure I guess not, but there is plenty of hard evidence that LOTS of people are running their short term rentals the same way I claimed I would. Go look at airbnd... lots of them are clearly and obviously no one's primary residence. And there is also plenty of hard evidence that lots of people aren't running their primary residence as a short term rental when they go on vacation.
So I'm not sure what your point was in attempting to shoot down my argument by attacking my credibility... surely you don't find it that incredible that people would operate the way I claim to. Surely you agree beyond a doubt that there are plenty of people doing exactly what I claimed I'd do.
"Looking forward to hearing you complain when you let a bunch of randoms stay in your house while you're away and they end up trashing it "
I wouldn't let randos stay in my house while I was away. So I will never have that problem.
And if I did purchase a 2ndary property to rent out to randos, I'd furnish it accordingly, and insure it accordingly, and then charge accordingly. And I still wouldn't put a camera in the living room.
Airbnb's rules allow cameras outdoors and in living rooms and common areas, but never in bathrooms or anywhere guests plan to sleep, including rooms with foldout beds.
I don't really see how a camera in the living room is acceptable either.
"My whole house has been LED for years."
Mine is about 90% there. Some of the fixtures use halogen etc (the range hood, undercounter lighting, one of the bathrooms...) Almost everything else except a couple fixtures using edison style light bulbs are LED now. The edison bulbs are available in LED but do not look nearly as nice.
My main and still ongoing complaint with LED is that 50%+ of the lights in my home are dimmable. Other than a couple hallways and my office, pretty much everything is dimmable.
LED dimmables still SUCK.
1) The SKUs are always changing. The tech is evolving, the bulbs i bought two years ago are discontinued and replaced with newer models today, which leads me to item 2:
2) No two SKUs dim the same way. IF I have a fixture with 4 leds and one flakes out the replacement will not dim the same. At full brightness they are indistinguishable, at half the new one is markedly brighter or dimmer than the rest. And usually a different color temperature too. So it either looks stupid or I have to replace all 4 at once which sucks.
3) Color temperature is a PITA in combination with dimming. Incandescent bulbs all get warmer until they turn off -- that's what i want. LEDs ... some do, some sort of do, some don't at all, the specs on the boxes aren't specific enough, and no two SKUs seem to follow remotely the same profile. And again finding a model bulb that I'm happy with that still available year after year has been impossible.
"but the smart components failed and I coudn't use the app to control it. "
I do not want "smart" bulbs at all. The inexpensive light switches on the wall are working fine. I see no advantage in a vastly more convoluted and complicated system to replace that.
"DMA, channel I/O, multiprocessing and coprocessors all date to the 1960s or earlier."
"You only think the architecture has changed because you're ignorant of the pre-PC history."
A simple embedded finite state machine in some 60s peripheral is not a full blown turing complete computer. And when 60s era subsystems had bona fide computers of their own in them they were first-class discrete systems in their own right and treated as such. They were not completely overlooked chips hidden in the nooks and crannies.
The CPU doesn't mediate or process all IO. Half the components on the motherboard can pass for full blown computers unto themselves now, with their own memory and io, and many of them can talk directly among each other without involving the CPU. Then you've got stuff like IME as a who 2nd computer running the first one.
The architecture is totally different now. It's just convenient to still think of it the same way, and the software is designed to make that the old metaphor logically applicable... again for convenience.
But its also why we have certain classes of vulnerability now. Because we _don't_ usually think about all these bits as first class computers in their own right but they _are_, and they can steal or modify data or run malicious code and the thing labelled "CPU" has no real control over any of it.
"As for everything else, I'd be happy with an AI that detects when it's out of its depth."
How does it know that? Sure it might get a weather report over the network. But maybe during a storm the network isn't reliable. So now its relying on its sensors? What if it doesn't recognize a flooded lane as 'too deep to cross' or that its flooded at all instead of just flat? And it only discovers its 'out of its depth' after its literally in too deep?
"My commutes are 99% boring, if it one day it says there's a blizzard outside I got other options."
Sure... if you are still inside thinking about going outside.
But what if the whatever comes up while you are in it? Its just going to stop and you are going to wait it out? A tree falls across the road and you are lucky enough it realizes it can't proceed instead of just driving through it. What then... you just going to sit there until someone comes? What if a bridge is washed out? Maybe you could set an alternate route... but its in a one way lane aimed at the bridge... is it going to know to drive in reverse 2 miles to the do-not-enter gravel service vehicles exit? Or go up on the sidewalk, or assess if it can drive through the ditch or open field, or drive in the oncoming lane. All by itself? By next year it'll have this capability? Really? Even in 10 years?
So what happens? You are going to drive? Why... in this utopian future car the pundits keep proclaiming it will not even have manual controls...and you might not even have a drivers license. And even if it does and you do so what? You haven't driven in years, are you really qualified to drive anymore? Not really... but you are going to take over in this difficult situation? That seems worse somehow. :)
Nobody disputes that, and some people do think more names are apropropriate.
And in fact, if you think about it, lots of distros are named primarily for/differentiated by the preferred window manager, update system, or init system.
"In it, he was emphatic that from a technical standpoint, the kernel *is* the OS."
Shrug; and in the 90s a computer was a CPU and everything else was just IO peripherals. I'm not sure that really applies anymore either.
Besides, Tanenbaum's and a CS perspective on operating systems is hardly representative of what regular people care about when choosing between OSes.
I don't drive a Pirelli/Ford, it's just "Linux".
Linux is just the kernel though; which since you are making car analogies is closer to the engine under the hood than the tires. GNU is everything else; the body, seats, steering wheel, headlights.
If you buy a Lotus Evora, do you tell people you have a Lotus? A Lotus/Toyota or just a Toyota?
Do you call a Pagani a Pagani/Mercedes or just Mercedes?
If you take an old Porsche and put a Covette V8 into it... as some have done, do they have a modified Porsche, a Porsche/Chevrolet, or a modified Chevrolet?
If anything your argument suggests it should just be GNU OS or something, because nobody refers to what they drive by the manufacturer of the engine.
And further, what about ChromeOS and Android? Those get referred to as ChromeOS and Android, despite resting on the Linux, not ChromeOS/Linux and not Android/Linux, and certainly not "just Linux" right?
All that said, I don't actually disagree with you per se, I call it Linux too, 99% of the time, but that convention doesn't really make a lot of sense when you actually think about it, and your argument doesn't really make a lot of sense either.
So why actively defend a convention that doesn't really make much sense, when that convention's only real merit is that its a "common usage".
I'm personally probably going to keep calling it "Linux" as long as most everyone else does, but I can't see the merit of arguing that it is somehow more "correct" this way.
"In my 30+ years of driving I have never seen that kind of signage or markers that are apparently used to dynamically close lanes at certain times. I would wonder what I was seeing myself the first time I encountered that."
In my nearly 30 years of driving I've seen type of signage lots of times. I know of a bridge that for years had an alternating direction center lane (west bound in the morning, east bound during evening and access to that lane was controlled by signage like this; that bridge has since been twinned. And I know of another on ramp that closes during certain hours of the day.
"I would wonder what I was seeing myself the first time I encountered that."
I don't dispute that you would wonder what it was if you hadn't seen it before; but I'm also pretty confident you wouldn't have tried driving into it.
So who else makes these?
You searched for 'git reset', and are upset that ddg didn't tell you git ammend?? Wow.
FWIW ddg returns what you wanted if you don't actively search for the wrong thing.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=git+...
What's next? you going to search for the honda sports car with split rear window... and then get mad if it doesn't return "Corvette" ?
" They are the first people to say that they are biased and expressing opinions, not facts."
My distaste for them is not that they have opinions, It's that they shamelessly lie.
"Conversely, the leftist shitrag you pretend is a news source does exactly the same thing, but traipses about in the dead flesh of objective journalism"
I'd agree CNN is a shitrag right now. But that doesn't make fox news defensible for the same sort of shit. But neither CNN nor Fox are actually operated by the political party as a propaganda front. (If any thing Fox is tugging at the strings of the president right now.)
You are a smug, condescending, elitist fuck whose only talent is convincing himself that he's more informed, rational, unbiased, or intelligent than the next asshole.
I said I agreed CNN was a leftist shitrag these days but you are much to busy attacking your preconceived notion of what I must be to give a shit about the truth.
Because apparently if CNN is a lefttist shitrag, then it's ok for the GOP to directly operate local news outlets as a propagranda front in key battleground states?