You generally have a good point, but the people marching with torches chanting "the Jews will not replace us" are nazis.
Not everyone who disagrees with me is a nazi. Nor is everyone more conservative than I am or everyone who believes negative stereotypes based on skin color or religion.
However, the term "White Nationalist" is semantically and massively wrong (but then, so would "Black Nationalist" or "Asian Nationalist"...) After all, what nation is titled as "White"?
If someone was a nationalist, and thought their nation should be solely or dominantly one race, would it not be semantically and massively correctly to refer to them as a "[Race] Nationalist"?
(Race being not a biological category, as humans are a single species, but a reference to skin color, geographical ancestry, or religion.)
Assuming most of the commentators here are in the US of A, the number of people not just willing but enthusiastically willing to give up on what remains of our constitutional rights is sad.
I've heard of employees and even preferred business partners getting options toward an IPO, but Uber dirvers aren't employees. They're more like customers--drivers who use the Uber service to find riders.
The articles own facts don't support the article's conclusions.
"Netscape’s slide into irrelevance wasn’t entirely due to the rewrite—a court agreed that Microsoft had deliberately abused their monopoly. But the rewrite was certainly a contributing factor"
The graf accompanying this section shows Netscape's market share dropping from about 80% to 50% BEFORE the rewrite. Now that drop continues from 50% to near 0% during and after the rewrite, so the rewrite certainly did not save Netscape. But the slope of the decline barely changes pre- and post-rewrite. Basically, unless there's other evidence not presented, the best conclusion is the rewrite had no effect.
Also, "what finally ended the IE6 era wasn’t Firefox but Google Chrome."
Except your own graf shows IE market share dropping starting in late 2002 in mirror to the rising Mozilla/Firefox. Chrome doesn't even show as a factor until 2008. The articles own facts don't support the article's conclusions.
What really killed Netscape was releases a lousy product. 4.0 suuuuucked. (Folks on the web in '96/97 remember.) And IE at the time was releasing it's first good version, a better version. Fact is, at that time IE was better than Netscape.
What Netscape needed was a better product, and if it took a ground-up rewrite to get that better product, then a rewrite was necessary.
What we know now is the rewrite did not save Netscape. But we'll never know if there was some other course of action that could have saved the it. What we really should be doing is examining what was going on in '95/'96 to produce such a bad product and lose that market share in the first place, not at what rearrangements of the deck chairs was done as the ship went down.
Walls are effective. Plenty of evidence of their efficacy.
Then you should have no problem providing evidence. How will a wall along the southern border of the USA stop immigrants arriving by plane at airports, which is a larger source of illegal immigration than walking or driving across the border?
And I apologize, my "non" threat of violence was intended as a non-threat of violence, but was a very bad example of my point. I tried to think of an action that would be easy argue against on the grounds of being ineffective, immoral, and expensive, and challenge you to argue against that action on basis other than effectiveness, morality, and expense since you didn't think those were rational arguments to make against the wall. Bad form on my part.
There are reasons not to support the wall "in-effective, immoral, expensive, and Never Trump" are not rational defensible arguments.
Ineffective is not a rational argument against? Immoral is not a rational argument against? Expensive is not a rational argument against?
So what would be is a rational argument against?
I mean, I could hire a P.I. to find your real identify, fly first class to your area, come to your house, and kick you in the groin. I would never do any of those things, of course. But I could. And doing so would be immoral, expensive, and likely ineffective for any purpose I might have. So what's your rational, defensible arguments against me doing those things?
Again, I am not considering doing those things, and not suggesting anyone do those things. But in your mind, given that expense, morality, and effectiveness are not rational arguments, how do you suggest I justify not doing those things?
The government shutdown is going on 20 days. Today's date in Jan 11. You might wan to check on which party had majorities in both houses on congress when the shutdown began and who is being obstructionist. If there's anyone to thank or blame, it's Trump and the republicans.
Too bad only Democrats believe in personal responsibility.
I assume the figure in the title is the amount that has gone "missing." Link my checking account to buy bitcoin? Sure. Extended warranty? Absolutely. I won the lottery and just need to send you $3000 to collect my millions? Where do I sign up.
I know there are areas where leaving a package unattended in front of your home is a good way to get a package stolen. I do not know why if I don't trust the people outside my home, I will let them into my home when I'm not at home.
If I trust strangers enough to give them access to my home or garage or car when I'm not around, then wouldn't I trust them enough to leave a package on my front step?
Basically, if I needed this service, I would never use it. If I felt secure enough to use, that would mean I didn't need it.
Locally installed applications are not exposed to this mode of failure. This story is about as interesting as people who complain about breakfast hours at restaurants. Cook your own breakfast any time of day.
Cue Airplane "They bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting in to. I say, let 'em crash."
I don't understand why the parent comment is currently modded 'funny.' It's all that really needs to be said on the subject.
As a consumer, it's nice to know which providers are throttling which services. But as news, this ain't it. From the summary:
"If you are a telephony provider and you provide IP services over that network, then you shouldn't be able to limit the service offered by another telephony provider that runs over the internet," David Choffnes, one of the researchers who developed the app used to conduct the survey, said. "From a pure common sense competition view, it seems directly anti-competitive."
I think most folks in/. agree they "shouldn't be able to," but shoulds got nothing to do with it.
And from a pure common sense competition view, if a business has a chance to put their competition at a disadvantage, it seems pretty obvious to expect they will.
For years we heard people complain about cable channel packages. "They're making me pay for dozens of channels I never watch. Why can't this be a la carte?"
Well, that's essentially what we are getting--a la carte channels. It's streaming services rather than channels from a cable company, but now it's a different bill for each channel. And it sucks. So we (some of us) just to to torrents.
"you'll earn/make enough in 9 years to last 30 or 40 years of retirement?"
Yes. Barring the market absolutely tanking or another act-of-god event.
I made good money in tech. But you're missing my point. If you're smart enough to do that, you're smart enough to be be making a lot more money doing something else.
If you're smart enough for all your "smart enoughs," you're smart enough to know the market will tank and other act-of-god events will happen. It's just a question of when. If you retire in your 40s with a life expectancy in the 70s the chances of living through one of those events approaches 1. But I'm sure you're "smart enough" to realize with the extent of financial deregulation in the last 20 years, the next 40 years are going to be more like the period from 1850 to 1890 than like 1950 to 1990. In other words, boom and busters cycles for everyone!
Perhaps being in tech for "only" 20 years isn't long enough to know people who "retired" during the dot com boom of the late 1990s, only to then return to regular day jobs after that bubble burst.
I'll be able to retire at 45. If I worked in tech, I'd still be struggling to have any savings.
You expect to retire at 45, and yet...
I worked in tech for 20 years.
What's your life expectancy? 50? Or do you count those 20 years in tech starting from birth?
Even if you started working at 16 and left tech at 36, you'll earn/make enough in 9 years to last 30 or 40 years of retirement? Either you're making a lot more than 2.5 times what you were, or you're vastly understating how much you made and saved/invested during those 20 years in tech.
I doubt you usually work over 15 hours a day, 7 days a week. And if you do, it's because you aren't any good at your job, which a competent person would be able to do in less than half the time.
I don't understand how they're going to evaluate students.
Most high schools give students grades in courses they've completed. They'll judge students by high school transcripts.
Yes, the quality of high schools varies across the many local school systems. University and college admissions offices know this. Why do you think they don't know this and can't include that in evaluation of a transcript?
History shows the best predictor of student success in college is not these test scores, or application essays, or anything other than high school grades.
When it comes to people, past performance is the best predictor of future behavior. Standardized test scores just do not add any useful information for the admissions process.
I think the use of standardized tests as you describe it is an indictment of the Danish education system. If your schools are so good, why not use those grades for the university application process, not a separate test?
Here in the USA we've found such tests are basically useless. That is why they are falling out of favor. This isn't a watering down of standards or a sacrifice of quality to achieve more inclusion.
Please note, while this may not be the case in other countries, in the USA these tests--SAT and ACT--are created and administered by private companies. For profit. These tests do 2 things: create profit for the companies (and the associated industries such as test prep courses) and tell you how well you do on that specific test.
The best indicator of level of success you can expect someone to have in college is the level of success they have in high school.
Smart but lazy high school student getting middling grades? Odds are that student is going to get middling college grades, Hard worker, top marks across the board? Winning combination of not bright and not hard worker? Whatever.
These tests are being phased out (and this process has been going on for many years) because they don't really help.
Yes, the USA has very weak national standards for education and the quality of local school systems vary greatly. And university admissions offices know this.
But overall I think it speaks well for our high schools that universities and colleges are finding they simply don't need these tests to judge an applicants qualifications.
If Amtrak is expected to make a profit, or at least survive on its own, then it must have the ability to allocate resources as needed, including not devoting resources to markets that aren't profitable.
However if Amtrak is expected to serve markets that aren't going to be sustainable, make it a public utility supported by public (ie, tax) money.
Slashdot Mirror
Guys, nobody is a Nazi.
You generally have a good point, but the people marching with torches chanting "the Jews will not replace us" are nazis.
Not everyone who disagrees with me is a nazi. Nor is everyone more conservative than I am or everyone who believes negative stereotypes based on skin color or religion.
But that does not mean there are no nazis.
However, the term "White Nationalist" is semantically and massively wrong (but then, so would "Black Nationalist" or "Asian Nationalist"...) After all, what nation is titled as "White"?
If someone was a nationalist, and thought their nation should be solely or dominantly one race, would it not be semantically and massively correctly to refer to them as a "[Race] Nationalist"?
(Race being not a biological category, as humans are a single species, but a reference to skin color, geographical ancestry, or religion.)
Assuming most of the commentators here are in the US of A, the number of people not just willing but enthusiastically willing to give up on what remains of our constitutional rights is sad.
Since when is it socially unacceptable to blow smoke in the face of a baby?
Do you even know what that baby said?
I've heard of employees and even preferred business partners getting options toward an IPO, but Uber dirvers aren't employees. They're more like customers--drivers who use the Uber service to find riders.
Or so Uber has always insisted.
The articles own facts don't support the article's conclusions.
"Netscape’s slide into irrelevance wasn’t entirely due to the rewrite—a court agreed that Microsoft had deliberately abused their monopoly. But the rewrite was certainly a contributing factor"
The graf accompanying this section shows Netscape's market share dropping from about 80% to 50% BEFORE the rewrite. Now that drop continues from 50% to near 0% during and after the rewrite, so the rewrite certainly did not save Netscape. But the slope of the decline barely changes pre- and post-rewrite. Basically, unless there's other evidence not presented, the best conclusion is the rewrite had no effect.
Also, "what finally ended the IE6 era wasn’t Firefox but Google Chrome."
Except your own graf shows IE market share dropping starting in late 2002 in mirror to the rising Mozilla/Firefox. Chrome doesn't even show as a factor until 2008. The articles own facts don't support the article's conclusions.
What really killed Netscape was releases a lousy product. 4.0 suuuuucked. (Folks on the web in '96/97 remember.) And IE at the time was releasing it's first good version, a better version. Fact is, at that time IE was better than Netscape.
What Netscape needed was a better product, and if it took a ground-up rewrite to get that better product, then a rewrite was necessary.
What we know now is the rewrite did not save Netscape. But we'll never know if there was some other course of action that could have saved the it. What we really should be doing is examining what was going on in '95/'96 to produce such a bad product and lose that market share in the first place, not at what rearrangements of the deck chairs was done as the ship went down.
The only "news" here is that the CEO of Twitter had never previously used Twitter.
Electronic receipts shouldn't even touch the internet. They should be beamed via NFC, Bluetooth, Wifi Direct, etc. from the register to your phone.
Ew. I'm not opening up my phone to pick up whatever some strange cash register is carrying.
Walls are effective. Plenty of evidence of their efficacy.
Then you should have no problem providing evidence. How will a wall along the southern border of the USA stop immigrants arriving by plane at airports, which is a larger source of illegal immigration than walking or driving across the border?
And I apologize, my "non" threat of violence was intended as a non-threat of violence, but was a very bad example of my point. I tried to think of an action that would be easy argue against on the grounds of being ineffective, immoral, and expensive, and challenge you to argue against that action on basis other than effectiveness, morality, and expense since you didn't think those were rational arguments to make against the wall. Bad form on my part.
There are reasons not to support the wall "in-effective, immoral, expensive, and Never Trump" are not rational defensible arguments.
Ineffective is not a rational argument against? Immoral is not a rational argument against? Expensive is not a rational argument against?
So what would be is a rational argument against?
I mean, I could hire a P.I. to find your real identify, fly first class to your area, come to your house, and kick you in the groin. I would never do any of those things, of course. But I could. And doing so would be immoral, expensive, and likely ineffective for any purpose I might have. So what's your rational, defensible arguments against me doing those things?
Again, I am not considering doing those things, and not suggesting anyone do those things. But in your mind, given that expense, morality, and effectiveness are not rational arguments, how do you suggest I justify not doing those things?
The government shutdown is going on 20 days. Today's date in Jan 11. You might wan to check on which party had majorities in both houses on congress when the shutdown began and who is being obstructionist. If there's anyone to thank or blame, it's Trump and the republicans.
Too bad only Democrats believe in personal responsibility.
I assume the figure in the title is the amount that has gone "missing." Link my checking account to buy bitcoin? Sure. Extended warranty? Absolutely. I won the lottery and just need to send you $3000 to collect my millions? Where do I sign up.
The very need for this product obsoletes itself.
I know there are areas where leaving a package unattended in front of your home is a good way to get a package stolen. I do not know why if I don't trust the people outside my home, I will let them into my home when I'm not at home.
If I trust strangers enough to give them access to my home or garage or car when I'm not around, then wouldn't I trust them enough to leave a package on my front step?
Basically, if I needed this service, I would never use it. If I felt secure enough to use, that would mean I didn't need it.
Locally installed applications are not exposed to this mode of failure. This story is about as interesting as people who complain about breakfast hours at restaurants. Cook your own breakfast any time of day.
Cue Airplane "They bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting in to. I say, let 'em crash."
I don't understand why the parent comment is currently modded 'funny.' It's all that really needs to be said on the subject.
As a consumer, it's nice to know which providers are throttling which services. But as news, this ain't it. From the summary:
"If you are a telephony provider and you provide IP services over that network, then you shouldn't be able to limit the service offered by another telephony provider that runs over the internet," David Choffnes, one of the researchers who developed the app used to conduct the survey, said. "From a pure common sense competition view, it seems directly anti-competitive."
I think most folks in /. agree they "shouldn't be able to," but shoulds got nothing to do with it.
And from a pure common sense competition view, if a business has a chance to put their competition at a disadvantage, it seems pretty obvious to expect they will.
For years we heard people complain about cable channel packages. "They're making me pay for dozens of channels I never watch. Why can't this be a la carte?"
Well, that's essentially what we are getting--a la carte channels. It's streaming services rather than channels from a cable company, but now it's a different bill for each channel. And it sucks. So we (some of us) just to to torrents.
I agree master-slave is problematic, but what are you going to use in place?
Dom-sub? Capitalist-proletariat? PHB-engineer?
Do they really want to open this can of worms?
"you'll earn/make enough in 9 years to last 30 or 40 years of retirement?"
Yes. Barring the market absolutely tanking or another act-of-god event.
I made good money in tech. But you're missing my point. If you're smart enough to do that, you're smart enough to be be making a lot more money doing something else.
If you're smart enough for all your "smart enoughs," you're smart enough to know the market will tank and other act-of-god events will happen. It's just a question of when. If you retire in your 40s with a life expectancy in the 70s the chances of living through one of those events approaches 1. But I'm sure you're "smart enough" to realize with the extent of financial deregulation in the last 20 years, the next 40 years are going to be more like the period from 1850 to 1890 than like 1950 to 1990. In other words, boom and busters cycles for everyone!
Perhaps being in tech for "only" 20 years isn't long enough to know people who "retired" during the dot com boom of the late 1990s, only to then return to regular day jobs after that bubble burst.
I'll be able to retire at 45. If I worked in tech, I'd still be struggling to have any savings.
You expect to retire at 45, and yet...
I worked in tech for 20 years.
What's your life expectancy? 50? Or do you count those 20 years in tech starting from birth?
Even if you started working at 16 and left tech at 36, you'll earn/make enough in 9 years to last 30 or 40 years of retirement? Either you're making a lot more than 2.5 times what you were, or you're vastly understating how much you made and saved/invested during those 20 years in tech.
I doubt you usually work over 15 hours a day, 7 days a week. And if you do, it's because you aren't any good at your job, which a competent person would be able to do in less than half the time.
Either way, you don't need to be paid more.
SSIA
An educational institution's goal is — or ought to be — education.
So you agree with this move to stop requiring these standardized tests. There's no evidence such tests aid in education.
I don't understand how they're going to evaluate students.
Most high schools give students grades in courses they've completed. They'll judge students by high school transcripts.
Yes, the quality of high schools varies across the many local school systems. University and college admissions offices know this. Why do you think they don't know this and can't include that in evaluation of a transcript?
History shows the best predictor of student success in college is not these test scores, or application essays, or anything other than high school grades.
When it comes to people, past performance is the best predictor of future behavior. Standardized test scores just do not add any useful information for the admissions process.
I think the use of standardized tests as you describe it is an indictment of the Danish education system. If your schools are so good, why not use those grades for the university application process, not a separate test?
Here in the USA we've found such tests are basically useless. That is why they are falling out of favor. This isn't a watering down of standards or a sacrifice of quality to achieve more inclusion.
Please note, while this may not be the case in other countries, in the USA these tests--SAT and ACT--are created and administered by private companies. For profit. These tests do 2 things: create profit for the companies (and the associated industries such as test prep courses) and tell you how well you do on that specific test.
The best indicator of level of success you can expect someone to have in college is the level of success they have in high school.
Smart but lazy high school student getting middling grades? Odds are that student is going to get middling college grades, Hard worker, top marks across the board? Winning combination of not bright and not hard worker? Whatever.
These tests are being phased out (and this process has been going on for many years) because they don't really help.
Yes, the USA has very weak national standards for education and the quality of local school systems vary greatly. And university admissions offices know this.
But overall I think it speaks well for our high schools that universities and colleges are finding they simply don't need these tests to judge an applicants qualifications.
If Amtrak is expected to make a profit, or at least survive on its own, then it must have the ability to allocate resources as needed, including not devoting resources to markets that aren't profitable.
However if Amtrak is expected to serve markets that aren't going to be sustainable, make it a public utility supported by public (ie, tax) money.