They are the Thai people, not the Thailanders. The country is also just "Thai" in the Thai language. Thailand is just to make it easier on foreigners.
I encourage you to spend more time learning about them than you do trying to incite conflict.;) You may find out that there is no Thai gulag, they're not being held for months, and that they have a broad concept of "civil liberties" that doesn't include any "right" to get blown up by grenade attacks for protesting, and it does not include a "right" for newly elected politicians to replace career government professionals with their cousins, or to plunder the national budget with no-bid contracts given to... themselves!
Also I think it is pretty obviously a breakdown in "democracy" when the elected Prime Minister is allowing a former PM (her brother) who is a wanted criminal (for corruption!) to be fairly openly running the country via video conference from an undisclosed foreign location. In most countries that would be some sort of Treason.
It is pretty hard to say that if the military did nothing, that would somehow enhance "civil liberties." It certainly isn't a proposal for how to end the troubles.
Nonsense, Thailand has those laws only because the King is so popular the "populist" politicians refuse to remove them, and so do the elitists, even though the King has stated in clear and simple language that he believes people should be allowed to criticize him, or anyone, openly.
It could only happen in a place where the average person on the street is offended by insults to the King.
Few places in the world have a monarchy with a good enough history for that to be the case. Notice how through all the changes in Thai government and coups and new Constitutions, those laws always remain?
I mean, is that your fear? That having a history of great Kings and a lack of really bad ones is something that can happen anywhere? Because I doubt that is so.
This will only catch idiots. Smart people (the ones who are more dangerous) will be driven even more underground, using encrypted chats, sneakernets, and ways to mask IP like VPNs. Bit if what they want is to "make an example", it might work.
They're not trying to "make an example" they're trying to get the violence and conflict to stop. There were grenade attacks, etc., that were becoming much too "normal" a feature of political protests.
Furthermore, the Thai constitution is easy to change, and is only a few years old. There is no traditional Constitution for the people to fall back on. There is no tradition or history of democracy. Like early Americans, they care a lot more about civil rights than "democracy." They share similar negative views of "mob rule" that the US "Founding Fathers" did. And rightly so; their recent history of "democracy" has largely featured rather open corruption and nepotism.
They do have a traditional value of meritocracy, so seeing corrupt politicians plunder billions from their nation and replace career workers with cousins, it really bothers a lot of people. If they had a strong Constitution, like the US does, then preserving and strengthening it would make sense. But they don't, and the one they have, most Thais don't even know what it says. They do know that it was not the result of any sort of national dialogue about what it should say, though.
That is the current situation; the military sat both sides down and asked them what their plan was for how to start a national dialogue and work towards a Constitution that represents Thai values. Nobody had any idea for that, they just wanted to engage in a sort of emotive bickering that is unique to places without a history of Democratic ideals.
Here in the US the politics is emotive, but they have to at least pretend to have real points and policies and positions; in Thailand there is not even that expectation. They tend to start and end at raw, emotive accusations and hyperbole. That is why they have low voter turnout, and there seems to be a "silent majority" that supports the King and national unity, but doesn't support any of the political groups.
For people from countries with a Democratic tradition it is very hard to comprehend that the military isn't taking over to rule, and that this is actually a restoration of more traditional Thai government. If you look at Thai history, unlike most places, massacres happen at the hand of civilian groups, and then the military steps in to restore peace. The military takes over when the people start fighting in the streets. The people support the military because they do not want to fight a civil war over political BS, and there is no underlying issue or abuse that warrants war.
Elections will happen as soon as the sides are willing to sit down and come up with a plan to fix the politics, to enact a robust system. The past system was so broken that when the Prime Minister called early elections, she stopped being a real PM, and became a caretaker; then when the election failed, everything was up-in-the-air. That is not a robust system. Democracy had failed, due to the low quality of the Constitution. So far nobody is even proposing a consensus replacement that would allow for some sort of National Unity government. Once they get used to not being allowed to behave like children and also have power, they'll start to make those sorts of proposals. I give it 9 months to start serious talks, 2 years to fail at that a couple times, and then another 6 months to plan elections.
When the "manager" is a support person whose job is to handle logistics for the team, and coordinate with other departments, then it is natural and efficient for them to be the "idiot," assuming that "idiot" only means they're slower than the rest of the team.
If someone pulls a boner and tries to commit it, you explain in precise and objective terms *why* the thing was rejected.
No, these days the process uses git and pull requests. Some boner pull request can be ignored. You only need to explain it if it is a person that has also made good requests. And there is really no reason why the explanation has to be "objective." There are lots of reasons to do OSS, not every project claims to follow some sort of principle of scientific objectivity.
For example if you attempt to contribute to a project like RubyOnRails, which has development based on opinionated programming, you should really be expecting a subjective reason, because that is what you can reasonably expect going in.
There are also dozens of people sending pull requests for every one that gets merged. Most of the changes are just made using the "wrong" opinions. Many small projects have the same issue; the developer in charge is not guaranteed to want to accept your contributions just because the project is small or has lots of open tickets.
Claimed by who? Claimed by people outside the project. The main claim is from twitter from a person who hasn't talked to them since 2004, and is going by memory, and hasn't even clarified if they gave specific changes that would happen; though clearly not if it wasn't written down and that much time passed.
No, look up the law for National Security Letters. There are only civil penalties. And indeed, it is from the wrong branch of government to have anything else attached. They can sue you for an unlimited amount of money, they cannot imprison you. That threat is connected to traditional process that involves the Courts.
Not really, when the project used an incompatible license all along and while marginally "open source," they were clearly taking a hostile stance towards other FLOSS projects, as nobody could integrate their work with anything else.
In that context their explanation makes perfect sense; they didn't do it for love of FLOSS, they did it because there was no other portable options that included support for all windows versions. Without XP, that ceases being true.
As a supporter of Free Software that reasoning might sound lame to me, but it is very consistent. And if their whole point was to provide an option for windows users, then recommending bitlocker is actually consistent. Having different values doesn't imply he's lying about his.
As far as canaries go, you have to have the live bird before going into the mine, and then have the dead bird. In this case there was no live bird in advance, and there is dead bird afterwards. Not only have we not been warned by a canary, nobody actually even claims to have seen one, dead or alive.
The name of the person who registered a non-profit and for-profit for TrueCrypt in the US was David Morgan. That person has already verified the posted information from an email address @truecrypt, so this other person not known to be associated with TrueCrypt should be ignored.
Think about all the traffic jams that exist in busy cities, and how much less congestion there would be with an organised public transport system where each passenger takes a fraction of the space.
A swarm of electric bubble cars could also prevent those traffic jams by using traffic-aware re-routing. That is really easy for computers, but humans are better at following known routes. Humans wait until they're stuck in traffic and then it too late to change the route. Computer cars with good sensors can also drive much faster when packed tight, by accelerating in unison. Humans add 1-2 seconds of delay for each car in a line that has to start moving.
A few bubble cars will just be more cars on the road, but lots of bubble cars means improved vehicle efficiency. And with electric, you no longer lose power idling.
Eventually, self-driving taxis will kill public transit.
Not if they're owned by the local public transit organization.;)
This is the future of public transit for people who insist on transportation freedom. It will be like an electric magic carpet. Instead of whistling out the window, and stepping onto the magic carpet as it flies up to the door, you just enter your destination on your phone/tablet, and the electric bubble drives over from the neighborhood underground automated parking.
I know math is hard, but being at the end of your credit isn't the same as being out of money, or in a state of economic collapse.
Certainly failing to invest is the worst thing you can do in that situation.
Blaming '"green" laws" is kinda silly. You might investigate that and find some numbers before believing in it. I mean, unless you heard it on AM radio, in which case it just has to be true...
Well, slap a yellow light on the top and it might be able to provide a much, much cheaper taxi ride.
This would also be great for car-share programs.
If the costs get pushed down, and they're being built as commodity devices and not model-of-the-year, then it might even make sense to go the next step and operate them as public transit. They deliver you to your destination, and then instead of driving in a circle like a bus, they drive to spread out to be available for the next person. There is no reason for public transit to have to be a big bus with open seating. Something like an enclosed golf cart for local trips would be fine, and for longer distances, you might transfer to light rail in the middle of the trip.
The point was about them not paying their taxes. That is what is meant when the complaint is that they "declare the income of a pauper." The complaint is not that they tried to look poor to their neighbors.;)
By this logic, a mugger is less scary than a police officer, because a police officer has legal authority to arrest you. News flash: people do not need legal authority to fuck you over.
Well, if private credit agencies had a tendency to show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records, then I'd say you had a good point.
Wait, you're saying government "has" a "tendency" to "show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records?"
Amazon is trying to lower prices to a level that still leaves ebook margins higher than for printed books. There is no anti-competitive argument to be made there. Other retailers can match their price and still make a profit. And customers are only protected from increased prices, not from decreased prices.
Especially when the anti-trust issue involved inflating the price of ebooks, and the contract dispute is over the publisher insisting on those higher prices, instead of reverting to the pre-anti-trust prices.
Their current prices are at break-even level, and they don't want to increase prices, so they'll cut their costs.
The dispute is about ebook pricing. You should probably find a link, any link, to information comparing ebook and printed book profit margins.
You might find that whatever assumptions you were making were totally off-base, and that the margins involved are epic compared to other products amazon sells.
Much analysis has amazon actually wanting the margins to be narrower, because their focus is volume and low retail prices.
Once you see the ebook publisher margins and the retail prices, it becomes obvious that amazon isn't trying to keep anybody out.
Slashdot Mirror
They are the Thai people, not the Thailanders. The country is also just "Thai" in the Thai language. Thailand is just to make it easier on foreigners.
I encourage you to spend more time learning about them than you do trying to incite conflict. ;) You may find out that there is no Thai gulag, they're not being held for months, and that they have a broad concept of "civil liberties" that doesn't include any "right" to get blown up by grenade attacks for protesting, and it does not include a "right" for newly elected politicians to replace career government professionals with their cousins, or to plunder the national budget with no-bid contracts given to... themselves!
Also I think it is pretty obviously a breakdown in "democracy" when the elected Prime Minister is allowing a former PM (her brother) who is a wanted criminal (for corruption!) to be fairly openly running the country via video conference from an undisclosed foreign location. In most countries that would be some sort of Treason.
It is pretty hard to say that if the military did nothing, that would somehow enhance "civil liberties." It certainly isn't a proposal for how to end the troubles.
For values of "or else" that mean you'll be temporarily detained and then released unharmed.
Nonsense, Thailand has those laws only because the King is so popular the "populist" politicians refuse to remove them, and so do the elitists, even though the King has stated in clear and simple language that he believes people should be allowed to criticize him, or anyone, openly.
It could only happen in a place where the average person on the street is offended by insults to the King.
Few places in the world have a monarchy with a good enough history for that to be the case. Notice how through all the changes in Thai government and coups and new Constitutions, those laws always remain?
I mean, is that your fear? That having a history of great Kings and a lack of really bad ones is something that can happen anywhere? Because I doubt that is so.
This will only catch idiots. Smart people (the ones who are more dangerous) will be driven even more underground, using encrypted chats, sneakernets, and ways to mask IP like VPNs. Bit if what they want is to "make an example", it might work.
They're not trying to "make an example" they're trying to get the violence and conflict to stop. There were grenade attacks, etc., that were becoming much too "normal" a feature of political protests.
Furthermore, the Thai constitution is easy to change, and is only a few years old. There is no traditional Constitution for the people to fall back on. There is no tradition or history of democracy. Like early Americans, they care a lot more about civil rights than "democracy." They share similar negative views of "mob rule" that the US "Founding Fathers" did. And rightly so; their recent history of "democracy" has largely featured rather open corruption and nepotism.
They do have a traditional value of meritocracy, so seeing corrupt politicians plunder billions from their nation and replace career workers with cousins, it really bothers a lot of people. If they had a strong Constitution, like the US does, then preserving and strengthening it would make sense. But they don't, and the one they have, most Thais don't even know what it says. They do know that it was not the result of any sort of national dialogue about what it should say, though.
That is the current situation; the military sat both sides down and asked them what their plan was for how to start a national dialogue and work towards a Constitution that represents Thai values. Nobody had any idea for that, they just wanted to engage in a sort of emotive bickering that is unique to places without a history of Democratic ideals.
Here in the US the politics is emotive, but they have to at least pretend to have real points and policies and positions; in Thailand there is not even that expectation. They tend to start and end at raw, emotive accusations and hyperbole. That is why they have low voter turnout, and there seems to be a "silent majority" that supports the King and national unity, but doesn't support any of the political groups.
For people from countries with a Democratic tradition it is very hard to comprehend that the military isn't taking over to rule, and that this is actually a restoration of more traditional Thai government. If you look at Thai history, unlike most places, massacres happen at the hand of civilian groups, and then the military steps in to restore peace. The military takes over when the people start fighting in the streets. The people support the military because they do not want to fight a civil war over political BS, and there is no underlying issue or abuse that warrants war.
Elections will happen as soon as the sides are willing to sit down and come up with a plan to fix the politics, to enact a robust system. The past system was so broken that when the Prime Minister called early elections, she stopped being a real PM, and became a caretaker; then when the election failed, everything was up-in-the-air. That is not a robust system. Democracy had failed, due to the low quality of the Constitution. So far nobody is even proposing a consensus replacement that would allow for some sort of National Unity government. Once they get used to not being allowed to behave like children and also have power, they'll start to make those sorts of proposals. I give it 9 months to start serious talks, 2 years to fail at that a couple times, and then another 6 months to plan elections.
Off the lawn you will get. Put up with this I will not!
So there is the person who can't not learn
I wish my teams had more of these people! Why is it I almost never get one of these mythical super-learners?
When the "manager" is a support person whose job is to handle logistics for the team, and coordinate with other departments, then it is natural and efficient for them to be the "idiot," assuming that "idiot" only means they're slower than the rest of the team.
I don't care if you're sitting there reading the article, Get Off The Lawn!
If someone pulls a boner and tries to commit it, you explain in precise and objective terms *why* the thing was rejected.
No, these days the process uses git and pull requests. Some boner pull request can be ignored. You only need to explain it if it is a person that has also made good requests. And there is really no reason why the explanation has to be "objective." There are lots of reasons to do OSS, not every project claims to follow some sort of principle of scientific objectivity.
For example if you attempt to contribute to a project like RubyOnRails, which has development based on opinionated programming, you should really be expecting a subjective reason, because that is what you can reasonably expect going in.
There are also dozens of people sending pull requests for every one that gets merged. Most of the changes are just made using the "wrong" opinions. Many small projects have the same issue; the developer in charge is not guaranteed to want to accept your contributions just because the project is small or has lots of open tickets.
Claimed by who? Claimed by people outside the project. The main claim is from twitter from a person who hasn't talked to them since 2004, and is going by memory, and hasn't even clarified if they gave specific changes that would happen; though clearly not if it wasn't written down and that much time passed.
No, look up the law for National Security Letters. There are only civil penalties. And indeed, it is from the wrong branch of government to have anything else attached. They can sue you for an unlimited amount of money, they cannot imprison you. That threat is connected to traditional process that involves the Courts.
I say we believe david@truecrypt
https://twitter.com/stevebarnh...
Not really, when the project used an incompatible license all along and while marginally "open source," they were clearly taking a hostile stance towards other FLOSS projects, as nobody could integrate their work with anything else.
In that context their explanation makes perfect sense; they didn't do it for love of FLOSS, they did it because there was no other portable options that included support for all windows versions. Without XP, that ceases being true.
As a supporter of Free Software that reasoning might sound lame to me, but it is very consistent. And if their whole point was to provide an option for windows users, then recommending bitlocker is actually consistent. Having different values doesn't imply he's lying about his.
As far as canaries go, you have to have the live bird before going into the mine, and then have the dead bird. In this case there was no live bird in advance, and there is dead bird afterwards. Not only have we not been warned by a canary, nobody actually even claims to have seen one, dead or alive.
The name of the person who registered a non-profit and for-profit for TrueCrypt in the US was David Morgan. That person has already verified the posted information from an email address @truecrypt, so this other person not known to be associated with TrueCrypt should be ignored.
Think about all the traffic jams that exist in busy cities, and how much less congestion there would be with an organised public transport system where each passenger takes a fraction of the space.
A swarm of electric bubble cars could also prevent those traffic jams by using traffic-aware re-routing. That is really easy for computers, but humans are better at following known routes. Humans wait until they're stuck in traffic and then it too late to change the route. Computer cars with good sensors can also drive much faster when packed tight, by accelerating in unison. Humans add 1-2 seconds of delay for each car in a line that has to start moving.
A few bubble cars will just be more cars on the road, but lots of bubble cars means improved vehicle efficiency. And with electric, you no longer lose power idling.
Eventually, self-driving taxis will kill public transit.
Not if they're owned by the local public transit organization. ;)
This is the future of public transit for people who insist on transportation freedom. It will be like an electric magic carpet. Instead of whistling out the window, and stepping onto the magic carpet as it flies up to the door, you just enter your destination on your phone/tablet, and the electric bubble drives over from the neighborhood underground automated parking.
I know math is hard, but being at the end of your credit isn't the same as being out of money, or in a state of economic collapse.
Certainly failing to invest is the worst thing you can do in that situation.
Blaming '"green" laws" is kinda silly. You might investigate that and find some numbers before believing in it. I mean, unless you heard it on AM radio, in which case it just has to be true...
Well, slap a yellow light on the top and it might be able to provide a much, much cheaper taxi ride.
This would also be great for car-share programs.
If the costs get pushed down, and they're being built as commodity devices and not model-of-the-year, then it might even make sense to go the next step and operate them as public transit. They deliver you to your destination, and then instead of driving in a circle like a bus, they drive to spread out to be available for the next person. There is no reason for public transit to have to be a big bus with open seating. Something like an enclosed golf cart for local trips would be fine, and for longer distances, you might transfer to light rail in the middle of the trip.
The only loser here are the poor people living in that state.
No, if they get our money back then the loser will be the company that did the substandard work; Oracle.
Darn you and your government conspiracy to spy on my taxable income! What does the darn IRS need my SSN for?!
The point was about them not paying their taxes. That is what is meant when the complaint is that they "declare the income of a pauper." The complaint is not that they tried to look poor to their neighbors. ;)
By this logic, a mugger is less scary than a police officer, because a police officer has legal authority to arrest you. News flash: people do not need legal authority to fuck you over.
Well, if private credit agencies had a tendency to show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records, then I'd say you had a good point.
Wait, you're saying government "has" a "tendency" to "show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records?"
Paranoid hyperbole much?
Amazon is trying to lower prices to a level that still leaves ebook margins higher than for printed books. There is no anti-competitive argument to be made there. Other retailers can match their price and still make a profit. And customers are only protected from increased prices, not from decreased prices.
Especially when the anti-trust issue involved inflating the price of ebooks, and the contract dispute is over the publisher insisting on those higher prices, instead of reverting to the pre-anti-trust prices.
See, I'm not necessarily upset at Amazon for doing this, as they're being seemingly open and honest about it.
Sure they are. But that doesn't make it right.
Cheap books now, but in the long run, fewer choices.
1. Cheap books now ...
2.
3. Fewer choices!
Where have I seen this pattern before...
Their current prices are at break-even level, and they don't want to increase prices, so they'll cut their costs.
The dispute is about ebook pricing. You should probably find a link, any link, to information comparing ebook and printed book profit margins.
You might find that whatever assumptions you were making were totally off-base, and that the margins involved are epic compared to other products amazon sells.
Much analysis has amazon actually wanting the margins to be narrower, because their focus is volume and low retail prices.
Once you see the ebook publisher margins and the retail prices, it becomes obvious that amazon isn't trying to keep anybody out.