Speaking of freedom, did you see the Supreme Court decision today that was written by Clarence Fucking Thomas? He thinks that just because police violated your fourth amendment rights doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to use that evidence against you after all. What does he think has been keeping police from violating fourth amendment rights?
Here's what Thomas wrote (if you can decipher his logic):
The attenuation doctrine holds that unlawfully obtained evidence may be used even if "the fruit of the search is tainted by the initial, unlawful detentionif the taint is dissipated by an intervening circumstance," as the Utah Supreme Court described it. In other words, if police acting in good faith violate the law and don't do it flagrantly, they should be able to use any evidence found as a result of that violation in court.
And here's what Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the dissent:
"The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights," she wrote in her dissent. "Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant. Because the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I dissent."
This is why you gotta hold your nose and vote Democratic and why you gotta hope that creepy Bill Cosby-wannabe Clarence Thomas leaves the court sooner rather than later.
I love how all these guys sit on each others' boards of directors. A corporate board is supposed to put shareholders first. Instead, they vote each other huge raises, make sure the C-level execs are compensated like fucking Midas and have a big jerk-off circle when it comes to laying off employees.
Is there any reason why it should be legal to sit on the board of directors of more than one company?
This is obviously subjective, but - I felt like I heard fewer repeats on Pandora than on either Spotify or Apple Music.
I can speak to the Spotify part of this. Their algorithm for shuffle and radio are just awful. If you've got a 10,000 song playlist and put it on shuffle, you're going to hear the same 50 songs over and over. There has been a complaint thread in the Spotify support forums about this since at least 2012.
If you like jazz, swing and blues, the nice thing about Spotify is that you can find records that are out-of-print and impossible to buy anywhere. But you have to be prepared to do a lot of fiddling with your playlists to hear the songs you want.
Gun manufacturers do not have liability protections. You can't sue a gun manufacturer because someone shot you with a gun made by them the same damn way you can't sue a car manufacturer because someone used a car they produce to run you over.
You can sue a car manufacturer. You cannot sue a gun manufacturer. You've got that wrong. Gun manufacturers have a special immunity to lawsuits, from a law called the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It was passed by the 109th congress and signed by George W. Bush in 2005. Prior to that law, individuals had been successfully suing the gun industry.
Yea, because it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the mental health industry pushing drugs with primary side effects of hallucinations, suicidal tendencies, and increased violence, now could it?
I agree with you that we need far stronger regulations on the pharmaceutical and medical industries. And the gun industry.
You're not going to fix a sociopathic, violent, gun-loving culture with any one simple solution.
You have a chance to ask one of the leading security experts a question, and that's what you come up with? Fucking pathetic!
You're right, I'm so ashamed. Let me try again:
Mikko Hypponen (if that is your real name), it seems like the internet has never been less secure. Can you explain how and why security experts have failed so miserably?
Not until both a) the last non-self driving cars are gone and b) enormous taxpayer funds are spent on new infrastructure.
Neither is going to happen in the lifetime of anyone here. Nor should they happen. If money gets spent on new infrastructure, it should go to making public transportation viable, not to forcing regular drivers off the road.
Ask people you know if they're willing to pay higher taxes to subsidize self-driving cars forcing regular cars off the road.
We've self-driven more than 1.5 million miles and are currently out on the streets of Mountain View, CA, Austin, TX, Kirkland, WA and Metro Phoenix, AZ.
When I was 2, there were no electronics. I had to take apart my parents' abacus. Ate several of the beads, too. And let me tell you, it was NO FUN passing those damn things.
The exception being a few action figures that actually do something, challenging the brain of toddlers as to how to assemble them or get them to do specific things.
I would argue that an action figure/doll that does nothing challenges the brains of toddlers even more, forcing them to create their own stories, to think creatively and to use their brains instead of being told what to do by some jackoffs in the marketing department.
Personally, I gave my kid Lincoln Logs, a chemistry set, and a carton of Chesterfields, just like my parents gave me. She didn't know exactly what to do with them, being only 18 months old, but this week she's defending her thesis toward a PhD in math. In this case, I'm pretty sure it was less about what toys she played with than the genes of her mother whose only fault is having terrible taste in men.
Indeed. If girls want to play with dolls instead of building and exercising faculties like curiosity, experimentation, building and problem solving, it won't do much good
What's the difference between a doll and an action figure? I could argue that the first let's you create a story, with all the curiosity, experimentation, building and problem-solving that entails. The second (action figures, in case you've lost track), impose a story on you. No curiosity, experimentation, building or problem-solving required.
So before you complain about the doll in your neighbor's eye, you might want to remove the Limited Edition Tony Stark as Iron Man Poseable Action Figure from thine own.
Money is a universal solvent. There is hardly any human value that it cannot corrode and, given enough time, dissolve.
Well put. I would change it to, "a love of money is a universal solvent". but the idea is the same. Commerce is necessary, but should not be the goal of all human endeavor.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you have to worry. Nobody would carjack you when you're wearing your clown costume.
Speaking of freedom, did you see the Supreme Court decision today that was written by Clarence Fucking Thomas? He thinks that just because police violated your fourth amendment rights doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to use that evidence against you after all. What does he think has been keeping police from violating fourth amendment rights?
Here's what Thomas wrote (if you can decipher his logic):
And here's what Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the dissent:
This is why you gotta hold your nose and vote Democratic and why you gotta hope that creepy Bill Cosby-wannabe Clarence Thomas leaves the court sooner rather than later.
Scratch that. Zuckerberg owes shareholders closer to $50 billion.
Zuckerberg only controls about 24% of Facebook stock. So, not "most".
No. I'm just suggesting that sitting on more than one board creates an inherent conflict of interest.
Actually, Zuckerberg owes shareholder about $2.8billion.
https://ycharts.com/companies/...
I love how all these guys sit on each others' boards of directors. A corporate board is supposed to put shareholders first. Instead, they vote each other huge raises, make sure the C-level execs are compensated like fucking Midas and have a big jerk-off circle when it comes to laying off employees.
Is there any reason why it should be legal to sit on the board of directors of more than one company?
I can speak to the Spotify part of this. Their algorithm for shuffle and radio are just awful. If you've got a 10,000 song playlist and put it on shuffle, you're going to hear the same 50 songs over and over. There has been a complaint thread in the Spotify support forums about this since at least 2012.
If you like jazz, swing and blues, the nice thing about Spotify is that you can find records that are out-of-print and impossible to buy anywhere. But you have to be prepared to do a lot of fiddling with your playlists to hear the songs you want.
Spotify is best for music that it's impossible to buy. I find out-of-print music on Spotify all the time.
The real value of a service like Spotify is its back catalog.
Wait, you mean Finland is a real place? Who knew? I thought it was out of Tolkien or something.
My bad.
The gun industry was losing those lawsuits in front of judges and juries.
There "had to be a law passed" because the gun industry funnels money through Congress.
You can sue a car manufacturer. You cannot sue a gun manufacturer. You've got that wrong. Gun manufacturers have a special immunity to lawsuits, from a law called the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It was passed by the 109th congress and signed by George W. Bush in 2005. Prior to that law, individuals had been successfully suing the gun industry.
Here's some background. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I agree with you that we need far stronger regulations on the pharmaceutical and medical industries. And the gun industry.
You're not going to fix a sociopathic, violent, gun-loving culture with any one simple solution.
You're right, I'm so ashamed. Let me try again:
Mikko Hypponen (if that is your real name), it seems like the internet has never been less secure. Can you explain how and why security experts have failed so miserably?
Not until both a) the last non-self driving cars are gone and b) enormous taxpayer funds are spent on new infrastructure.
Neither is going to happen in the lifetime of anyone here. Nor should they happen. If money gets spent on new infrastructure, it should go to making public transportation viable, not to forcing regular drivers off the road.
Ask people you know if they're willing to pay higher taxes to subsidize self-driving cars forcing regular cars off the road.
You will never see ubiquitous self-driving cars.
And sucked.
Self-driving cars are utter vaporware. They are the automotive equivalent of Duke Nukem forever.
Yes, there will be expensive driving aids on cars, but no one here will see ubiquitous cars that drive themselves.
The first truly self-driving cars will probably be flying cars. Which means never. So can we please stop with the self-driving cars horseshit?
"Big Tech" sounds like the name of a bluetooth enabled sex toy.
OK, it was a little fun.
When I was 2, there were no electronics. I had to take apart my parents' abacus. Ate several of the beads, too. And let me tell you, it was NO FUN passing those damn things.
I would argue that an action figure/doll that does nothing challenges the brains of toddlers even more, forcing them to create their own stories, to think creatively and to use their brains instead of being told what to do by some jackoffs in the marketing department.
Personally, I gave my kid Lincoln Logs, a chemistry set, and a carton of Chesterfields, just like my parents gave me. She didn't know exactly what to do with them, being only 18 months old, but this week she's defending her thesis toward a PhD in math. In this case, I'm pretty sure it was less about what toys she played with than the genes of her mother whose only fault is having terrible taste in men.
What's the difference between a doll and an action figure? I could argue that the first let's you create a story, with all the curiosity, experimentation, building and problem-solving that entails. The second (action figures, in case you've lost track), impose a story on you. No curiosity, experimentation, building or problem-solving required.
So before you complain about the doll in your neighbor's eye, you might want to remove the Limited Edition Tony Stark as Iron Man Poseable Action Figure from thine own.
Well put. I would change it to, "a love of money is a universal solvent". but the idea is the same. Commerce is necessary, but should not be the goal of all human endeavor.
This has been the week for tech legends proclaiming stuff that's been going on for over a decade.
Show of hands: Who didn't know it would end up exactly like this as soon as they started monetizing the Web?
http://www.wlwt.com/news/1-sho...