Who ever said anything about them never getting in an accident. It's not a question of perfect, it's a question of better, and they're demonstrably better.
Even if you're so convinced that your situational awareness and reaction times are better than a computer's (they're not) you should at least root for everybody else to be using autopilot because it's certainly better than the average driver.
I'll feel a damn sight safer driving when all the other cars aren't being piloted by distracted meat sacks.
makes it unlawful to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling, that indicates any preference,
'Cause to be made' and 'indicates any preference' are pretty clear. It's settled law.
You can discriminate all you want as long as you don't voice intent, ie you just quietly don't rent to somebody or advertise on 'Duck Dynasty' but if you tell the advertiser: don't show my commercial where black people might see it you have signaled intent and are not in compliance.
Folks can debate whether it should or should not be a law all they want, but the issue of legality is pretty clear.
The Act very clearly covers advertising as well in section 109.5
109.5 Policy.
It is the policy of the United States to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States. The provisions of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3600, et seq.) make it unlawful to discriminate in the sale, rental, and financing of housing, and in the provision of brokerage and appraisal services, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. Section 804(c) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3604(c), as amended, makes it unlawful to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling, that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. However, the prohibitions of the act regarding familial status do not apply with respect to housing for older persons, as defined in section 807(b) of the act.
Considering I seriously doubt there's anything Spencer and I agree on except maybe whether it's raining and that I don't pay any attention to Twitter I'll just go ahead and enjoy my ability to be indifferent to the whole thing.
I think it's safe to assume all of them are. So privatizing the instrument is virtually guaranteed to cost the US more by shifting $14M from NASA (which can afford it) to something more than $14M to NSF in the form of grants which can't. NSF could of course not provide grants at which point it's not self funding and simply closes down. If NASA isn't going to run it then some NSF funded consortium should, otherwise just close it down.
Agreed. The problem isn't public access to information it's limited private access to information. Some of the comments above about corporations using the information as leverage are missing the point. The leverage doesn't extend from their access to the information, it extends from their unique access which the employee doesn't have.
Same here, college I went to in the mid-80s used our SSN as the student ID number, Sometime around 87 or so they appended the number 4 to the end because they claimed it was illegal to use your SSN as a form of identification. I found that logic fascinating.
For years I've been a proponent of just posting everyone's SSN on a website so we can quit pretending it's a secure bit of info. As long as folks falsely think it's secure they'll keep using it.
I agree with the broader sense of your post but disagree with the initial premise. Garland would have been confirmed easily. That's exactly why they didn't allow a vote. It's why any number of pieces of legislation never see the light of day, anything that could possibly result in all democrats and some republicans voting yes is toast (same is true when Dems are in power just reverse the parties).
It's the fundamental difference between Congress today and say 20, 30 or more years ago. Part of the blame lies in exposure. When the populous wasn't really paying attention Congress was more free (note that's a relative not absolute term) to vote their conscience. People like to think that more exposure leads to better legislation but that's only true if you assume that the congressman are there to serve country. Since their primary role is to get re-elected it's critical that any exposure be popular with their constituency.
Garland would have been confirmed easily. That's exactly why McConnell didn't allow a vote. If he was so sure Garland would be shot down he would have happily allowed a vote.
So you're Logan Abbot huh ? Shrug. SourceForge hasn't been all that interesting in years and/. feels more and more like work to visit.
Abbott says that they have a lot of good things planned for both sites. "The biggest thing I want to stress is that we are committed to serving our user base, which consists of the Slashdot community, and the SourceForge users and developers," he says. "We're not going to take any shortsighted approaches that may have been taken in the past. We're focused on building on and improving these two iconic sites for years to come."
I'm probably just old and I'm not the kind of person you're targeting, if I am you sure as hell missed.
If only somehow the headline could have made it clear who it might be terrifying to, the consumer or the supplier and barring that maybe if the summary or even the article made it clear.
Sadly it's apparently left up to people to read one word and speculate from that so we'll never know.
Well I've tried unsuccessfully several times now to take a picture of my phone with my phone. I just can't seem to move it fast enough. But if I succeeded you would have been able to increment the number of phones you'd seen without a lock by one.
My wallet is in one back pocket, phone in another. Neither has a lock, I'd be a lot more concerned if somebody stole my wallet. You can buy things with what's inside, with my phone you can call folks like the plumber, see pictures of my dog or the house I'm remodeling or, if really bored, play Sodoku..
5 seconds is pretty good. The old way took 1 to 9 months just to gauge the base effectiveness and final quality results could take decades of analysis.
KB0056302 was quickly followed by KB0056303 when it was discovered that the previous one caused a lethal catch fire and die exception in the dinosaur automata.
If they're not they will be. It's bloody trivial for a government to gather damning info on another country, leak it to wikileaks and wait for them to get all the flak.
I never brought up Russia though I understand why you'd assume I was talking about them. The US, Russia, China, literally any country or any organization can selectively leak info on competitors if they haven't figured out they can do this (and I'm sure they have) then they will.
It's trivial to manipulate Wikileaks by only leaking the narrative you want told.
The world will make a lot more sense when you realize it's possible for both sides to be bad. Comparative ethics is not a zero sum game.
Wikileaks' intent to provide an outlet for whistle blowers to uncover corruption in various governments and and corporations had a lot of merit. Unfortunately the very model of "we don't care where it came from, we just post it" is its undoing. It didn't take long for governments to figure out if you can destroy it, use it.
They thought they could turn over the chess board, but they're just another pawn.
I collaborate with multiple groups, if there's a video conference or chat system out there one of them probably uses it so I ended up using Polycom, Skype, BlueJeans, Slack, Google+ etc etc.
Last week in one such meeting I commented that this was a solved technical problem nearly 20 years ago and yet it's still one huge interoperability mess. So I view the topic with little enthusiasm when the proposed solution to N protocols is N+1.
Some day I hope to see a submission with the headline: "Is Ian Betteridge's Law of Headlines Real ?". Sure, it might break the universe, but it's a risk we should be willing to take in the pursuit of truth.
By death trap do you mean 'non-zero' risk similar to the people who live below a hydroelectric dam, or near a nuclear power plant, or who mine coal, or who live downwind from a dirty coal plant ? I suspect the human risk is pretty low comparably.
if you mean the critters living nearby, we eat around 100M tons of fish / year, so that might be a better place to focus in terms of 'death trap'.
Slashdot Mirror
Who ever said anything about them never getting in an accident. It's not a question of perfect, it's a question of better, and they're demonstrably better.
Even if you're so convinced that your situational awareness and reaction times are better than a computer's (they're not) you should at least root for everybody else to be using autopilot because it's certainly better than the average driver.
I'll feel a damn sight safer driving when all the other cars aren't being piloted by distracted meat sacks.
This is like zero'th world problems.
You have to be pretty tightly wound to be spun up when your phone gets the delivery person's name wrong.
Read the whole thing:
makes it unlawful to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice,
statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling, that indicates any
preference,
'Cause to be made' and 'indicates any preference' are pretty clear. It's settled law.
You can discriminate all you want as long as you don't voice intent, ie you just quietly don't rent to somebody or advertise on 'Duck Dynasty' but if you tell the advertiser: don't show my commercial where black people might see it you have signaled intent and are not in compliance.
The Fair Housing act begs to differ: https://www.hud.gov/sites/docu...
Folks can debate whether it should or should not be a law all they want, but the issue of legality is pretty clear.
The Act very clearly covers advertising as well in section 109.5
109.5 Policy.
It is the policy of the United States to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing
throughout the United States. The provisions of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3600, et seq.)
make it unlawful to discriminate in the sale, rental, and financing of housing, and in the provision
of brokerage and appraisal services, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status,
or national origin. Section 804(c) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3604(c), as amended, makes
it unlawful to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice,
statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling, that indicates any
preference, limitation, or discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial
status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.
However, the prohibitions of the act regarding familial status do not apply with respect to housing
for older persons, as defined in section 807(b) of the act.
Considering I seriously doubt there's anything Spencer and I agree on except maybe whether it's raining and that I don't pay any attention to Twitter I'll just go ahead and enjoy my ability to be indifferent to the whole thing.
I think it's safe to assume all of them are. So privatizing the instrument is virtually guaranteed to cost the US more by shifting $14M from NASA (which can afford it) to something more than $14M to NSF in the form of grants which can't. NSF could of course not provide grants at which point it's not self funding and simply closes down. If NASA isn't going to run it then some NSF funded consortium should, otherwise just close it down.
Agreed. The problem isn't public access to information it's limited private access to information. Some of the comments above about corporations using the information as leverage are missing the point. The leverage doesn't extend from their access to the information, it extends from their unique access which the employee doesn't have.
Same here, college I went to in the mid-80s used our SSN as the student ID number, Sometime around 87 or so they appended the number 4 to the end because they claimed it was illegal to use your SSN as a form of identification. I found that logic fascinating.
For years I've been a proponent of just posting everyone's SSN on a website so we can quit pretending it's a secure bit of info. As long as folks falsely think it's secure they'll keep using it.
I agree with the broader sense of your post but disagree with the initial premise. Garland would have been confirmed easily. That's exactly why they didn't allow a vote. It's why any number of pieces of legislation never see the light of day, anything that could possibly result in all democrats and some republicans voting yes is toast (same is true when Dems are in power just reverse the parties).
It's the fundamental difference between Congress today and say 20, 30 or more years ago. Part of the blame lies in exposure. When the populous wasn't really paying attention Congress was more free (note that's a relative not absolute term) to vote their conscience. People like to think that more exposure leads to better legislation but that's only true if you assume that the congressman are there to serve country. Since their primary role is to get re-elected it's critical that any exposure be popular with their constituency.
Garland would have been confirmed easily. That's exactly why McConnell didn't allow a vote. If he was so sure Garland would be shot down he would have happily allowed a vote.
How did you mod the parent down if you posted. That's a basic premise of /., mod or post but not both.
So you're Logan Abbot huh ? Shrug. SourceForge hasn't been all that interesting in years and /. feels more and more like work to visit.
Abbott says that they have a lot of good things planned for both sites. "The biggest thing I want to stress is that we are committed to serving our user base, which consists of the Slashdot community, and the SourceForge users and developers," he says. "We're not going to take any shortsighted approaches that may have been taken in the past. We're focused on building on and improving these two iconic sites for years to come."
I'm probably just old and I'm not the kind of person you're targeting, if I am you sure as hell missed.
Good luck with your holdings
If only somehow the headline could have made it clear who it might be terrifying to, the consumer or the supplier and barring that maybe if the summary or even the article made it clear.
Sadly it's apparently left up to people to read one word and speculate from that so we'll never know.
Correct, nobody cares what offends you. And while this clearly offends you, nobody cares.
Well I've tried unsuccessfully several times now to take a picture of my phone with my phone. I just can't seem to move it fast enough. But if I succeeded you would have been able to increment the number of phones you'd seen without a lock by one.
My wallet is in one back pocket, phone in another. Neither has a lock, I'd be a lot more concerned if somebody stole my wallet. You can buy things with what's inside, with my phone you can call folks like the plumber, see pictures of my dog or the house I'm remodeling or, if really bored, play Sodoku..
5 seconds is pretty good. The old way took 1 to 9 months just to gauge the base effectiveness and final quality results could take decades of analysis.
KB0056302 was quickly followed by KB0056303 when it was discovered that the previous one caused a lethal catch fire and die exception in the dinosaur automata.
Probably not. You should drop a note to John and link to a wiki article or something about them. He might find it fascinating.
If they're not they will be. It's bloody trivial for a government to gather damning info on another country, leak it to wikileaks and wait for them to get all the flak.
I never brought up Russia though I understand why you'd assume I was talking about them. The US, Russia, China, literally any country or any organization can selectively leak info on competitors if they haven't figured out they can do this (and I'm sure they have) then they will.
It's trivial to manipulate Wikileaks by only leaking the narrative you want told.
The world will make a lot more sense when you realize it's possible for both sides to be bad. Comparative ethics is not a zero sum game.
Wikileaks' intent to provide an outlet for whistle blowers to uncover corruption in various governments and and corporations had a lot of merit. Unfortunately the very model of "we don't care where it came from, we just post it" is its undoing. It didn't take long for governments to figure out if you can destroy it, use it.
They thought they could turn over the chess board, but they're just another pawn.
This is exactly right.
I collaborate with multiple groups, if there's a video conference or chat system out there one of them probably uses it so I ended up using Polycom, Skype, BlueJeans, Slack, Google+ etc etc.
Last week in one such meeting I commented that this was a solved technical problem nearly 20 years ago and yet it's still one huge interoperability mess. So I view the topic with little enthusiasm when the proposed solution to N protocols is N+1.
Some day I hope to see a submission with the headline: "Is Ian Betteridge's Law of Headlines Real ?". Sure, it might break the universe, but it's a risk we should be willing to take in the pursuit of truth.
Death trap for whom ?
By death trap do you mean 'non-zero' risk similar to the people who live below a hydroelectric dam, or near a nuclear power plant, or who mine coal, or who live downwind from a dirty coal plant ? I suspect the human risk is pretty low comparably.
if you mean the critters living nearby, we eat around 100M tons of fish / year, so that might be a better place to focus in terms of 'death trap'.
Not my pension fund.
And your statement would be true w.r.t. the market as a whole but IPOs have an inordinate number of small investors.
There's actual academic research on the subject, first hit on a quick search: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...