As if miles weren't the equivalent of cash back...
It's just simple math. Miles are worth real money, even for those with fear of flying, as you can convert them to pay for hotel rooms, wine, rental cars, and what not.
That's nuts. None of that other stuff is going to have good value for the dollar (purchased through deals your credit card company instead of the free market), and it has nearly zero value if you don't desire hotels/wine/cars at that moment. Hotels vouchers are not fungible with cash unless you can sell them.
If I could trade airline miles for power tools or single malt whisky, it would be another matter entirely.
What's your bank? Every six months, Chase locks my account so I can't pay my credit card or check statements. Bank of America did far worse, levying improper fees. What's your bank?
Do care more for this guy than the others because he worked for a tech company? The other three had hobbies, relationships, careers (except the eleven year-old).
I get that this is a tech news site, but the fact that he worked for a company we've heard of (or that he made a lot of money) does not seem like sufficient cause to care about his death so much more than the other victims.
it's not about money, it's about sending a message. Because I wouldn't be surprised if using those weapons set back the US more than it did the side owning the targets.
In the short run, maybe so. In the long run, what's the value of deterring use of chemical weapons? How the value of US credibility when we make threats? That's surely worth something, particularly if the US wants to continue being the international police man. (Maybe the US isn't the best international police man, but we've done better than any other country that's held the post. Certainly better than Russia or China would do, if you value any type of freedom.)
If they don't use BLOBs, wouldn't that just mean the vulnerabilities are baked into silicon? I thought BLOBs were just a way of abstracting logic from hardware to software. Is the problem that a BLOB is actually being overwritten in a way that isn't possible for logic baked into hardware?
So, only way to avoid this? Turn off Wi-Fi completely unless you know you're patched.
Don't forget to turn off wifi+location services integration. Recent versions of Android push you to scan for wifi networks for location services, even when wifi is disabled. So you'll lose location accuracy, in addition to losing wifi.
You misunderstood. "Virtue signaling" is a more accurate term, and it better explains why people don't like it. "SJW" is a simple slur, but "virtue signaler" accurately describes how one is misbehaving.
the people who lost children would at least have known how cheaply dicks like you were willing to sell their lives. having dicks like you trample on people piss off those who know better.
I'm not sure why you're associating me with warmongering. All I'm proposing is having a greater degree of respect for the truth when quoting people and holding people accountable for their words.
Typically the only people who use the term SJW are bigots and racists who are butthurt over being called out by others. It's hilarious to hear them complain about lack freedom of speech and group think as they post Pepe meme's, call other people Cucks and do their best to curtail other's freedom of speech for not following THEIR group think.
Hi there, counterexample here! When I'm on social media, I find some of my statements are misrepresented or words are put in my mouth, seemingly for the purpose of virtue signalling. Virtue signalling is a more precise term than "social justice warrior", and I think when someone says SJW, they mean a person is kicking up a fuss to make themselves look righteous. When this is done to me, I typically do not believe I've made a racist or sexist statement, even after careful reflection. (Last time it happened, an argument broke out among that extremely liberal, mixed gender friend group, because it was not at all clear that I had said anything wrong.)
I'm concerned about freedom of speech because nothing but the truth should ever prevent someone from getting a job or being accepted into a community. What I see is misrepresentation of words (such as quoting with wrong context), and that's not the truth. For example: pewdepie's anti-racism video being portrayed as pro-racism. For another, Gawker's republication without context of an admittedly bad joke from Justine Sacco forced her out of a job and prevented her from finding other work. A developer whose name I can't recall was forced out of a software project amid accusations of "sexual impropriety", despite the alleged victim publicly going to bat for him, explaining they had a consensual fling.
I humbly propose that while you should of course be concerned about the rights of the minority, you should also be concerned about the freedom to speak without needing to cover your ass by preempting any possible misconstrual.
Looks like someone hates being called to account for being a dick Because, honestly, that is all the Social JUSTICE workers ever do
You must know different social justice warriors than I do. I've been called to account for lots of perfectly innocent statements. Statements that it's easy to misrepresent: statements that are excellent fodder for virtue signalling. On the other hand, when I'm actually being a dick (whether justified or not, by accident or on purpose), nobody calls me out. Because it's not easy to deliver true criticism.
I see your point as well. I don't know law well enough to have a grip on the real-world ramifications of such a contract, but here's some food for thought: when a written contract turns out to be substantially different than how it was portrayed, the contract is invalid. Secondly, a judge can ignore the literal when he judges it to be a sham. (A company calling its people "contractors" doesn't make it so.) I don't know for sure that either of these factors apply to this situation, but if I were a judge or lawmaker, I would treat "payment for permanent media" as a purchase, regardless of what the fine print says. (And I would hold it to every other standard a purchase is held to.)
For example, if you want to prevent a buyer from later selling it, that's not legal.
Ok but we're not talking about buying and selling content here, what we're talking about is licensing. Where/what is the law that enshrines the right to transfer a license?
I have licenses to drive a car, ride a bike and recreational watercraft and I paid for them but I can't sell these licenses to other people.
You may have paid for those licenses, but you didn't purchase them. I don't view Netflix as a purchase, and I agree that that falls under the umbrella of licensing. But when a movie/book is paid for for perpetual viewing, you have to bend over backwards to say that's not a purchase, regardless of what the license says.
Go setup a screen in a public park and project that DVD onto it if you would like to find out how much you really "own" it.
That's really not the same. You can own a copy of a work without having broadcast or republication rights just as a teen can own a car but not have the right to drive it.
Steam's DRM only works because games have a finite shelf life. If my copy of Portal 2 stops working in ten years when Steam shuts down, I won't mind. If I purchase books and they stop working at any point for any reason, I will be upset.
If I create some original digital content should I not have the right to set the terms of use and distribution? If someone doesn't agree with the terms they do not have the right to circumvent the terms just because they can.
Nice thought, but no! The rights of buyers are enshrined in law, just as the rights of content creators are. For example, if you want to prevent a buyer from later selling it, that's not legal. Yet that's what DRM lets you do. You can also use DRM to block copying beyond the life of copyright, which may not be illegal, but is certainly unethical.
I'm not sure if you can sell a product and set terms of use at all. Certainly you can set terms when you provide a service or make an agreement beyond a simple sale, but the grocery store cannot tell me how to use or not use the zuccini I just bought. (Perhaps they could, but they would have absolutely no legal grounds to enforce it.) DRM lets you control your customers in ways the legal system does not.
MEK? I thought xylene was the one that dissolves everything.
I do know something about solvents, so I'm of course the above is just me being silly. But what about methylene chloride? I thought that dissolved a huge variety of stuff. And I thought MEK was almost as safe as acetone. Not so?
Can I join if I bought my phone outside the US? What if I'm currently residing outside the US (but have a US address)?
LG has refused to repair my boot-looping phone in the past. Have they changed their stance? Is there any way I can push them to reconsider? (It's long out of warranty by now, but the fact remains that they sold me a badly defective phone.)
More like PREVENT. There are patents that push the state of the art forward, saving readers thousands of hours of R&D. I doubt this is one of them. The only result will be to dissuade manufacturers from pursuing this type of wireless charging.
Slashdot Mirror
As if miles weren't the equivalent of cash back...
It's just simple math. Miles are worth real money, even for those with fear of flying, as you can convert them to pay for hotel rooms, wine, rental cars, and what not.
That's nuts. None of that other stuff is going to have good value for the dollar (purchased through deals your credit card company instead of the free market), and it has nearly zero value if you don't desire hotels/wine/cars at that moment. Hotels vouchers are not fungible with cash unless you can sell them.
If I could trade airline miles for power tools or single malt whisky, it would be another matter entirely.
What's your bank? Every six months, Chase locks my account so I can't pay my credit card or check statements. Bank of America did far worse, levying improper fees. What's your bank?
Do care more for this guy than the others because he worked for a tech company? The other three had hobbies, relationships, careers (except the eleven year-old).
I get that this is a tech news site, but the fact that he worked for a company we've heard of (or that he made a lot of money) does not seem like sufficient cause to care about his death so much more than the other victims.
it's not about money, it's about sending a message. Because I wouldn't be surprised if using those weapons set back the US more than it did the side owning the targets.
In the short run, maybe so. In the long run, what's the value of deterring use of chemical weapons? How the value of US credibility when we make threats? That's surely worth something, particularly if the US wants to continue being the international police man. (Maybe the US isn't the best international police man, but we've done better than any other country that's held the post. Certainly better than Russia or China would do, if you value any type of freedom.)
You know arms dealing is a type of control, right? We really don't want our frenemies to buy arms somewhere else.
If they don't use BLOBs, wouldn't that just mean the vulnerabilities are baked into silicon? I thought BLOBs were just a way of abstracting logic from hardware to software. Is the problem that a BLOB is actually being overwritten in a way that isn't possible for logic baked into hardware?
factory reset the phone, update to and then restore settings. Best way to avoid bricking or bootloop.
I thought LG phones normally bricked/bootlooped because of poorly manufactured hardware, not settings. At least, that's why mine self-destructed.
So, only way to avoid this? Turn off Wi-Fi completely unless you know you're patched.
Don't forget to turn off wifi+location services integration. Recent versions of Android push you to scan for wifi networks for location services, even when wifi is disabled. So you'll lose location accuracy, in addition to losing wifi.
I'm fairly confident my Linux laptop doesn't violate my privacy, except by having a fairly unique browser fingerprint.
You've either confused me with someone else, or perceived a subtext that didn't exist. I have no idea what you're talking about.
You misunderstood. "Virtue signaling" is a more accurate term, and it better explains why people don't like it. "SJW" is a simple slur, but "virtue signaler" accurately describes how one is misbehaving.
the people who lost children would at least have known how cheaply dicks like you were willing to sell their lives.
having dicks like you trample on people piss off those who know better.
I'm not sure why you're associating me with warmongering. All I'm proposing is having a greater degree of respect for the truth when quoting people and holding people accountable for their words.
How is this related to tech in anyway whatsoever?
It could be useful for machine-generated grammar (for example, in procedural UI prompts). (I'm reaching, I know.)
Try calling them "virtue signalers" instead of "SJWs". It might help make your point regarding them not actually having truthful intentions.
Typically the only people who use the term SJW are bigots and racists who are butthurt over being called out by others. It's hilarious to hear them complain about lack freedom of speech and group think as they post Pepe meme's, call other people Cucks and do their best to curtail other's freedom of speech for not following THEIR group think.
Hi there, counterexample here! When I'm on social media, I find some of my statements are misrepresented or words are put in my mouth, seemingly for the purpose of virtue signalling. Virtue signalling is a more precise term than "social justice warrior", and I think when someone says SJW, they mean a person is kicking up a fuss to make themselves look righteous. When this is done to me, I typically do not believe I've made a racist or sexist statement, even after careful reflection. (Last time it happened, an argument broke out among that extremely liberal, mixed gender friend group, because it was not at all clear that I had said anything wrong.)
I'm concerned about freedom of speech because nothing but the truth should ever prevent someone from getting a job or being accepted into a community. What I see is misrepresentation of words (such as quoting with wrong context), and that's not the truth. For example: pewdepie's anti-racism video being portrayed as pro-racism. For another, Gawker's republication without context of an admittedly bad joke from Justine Sacco forced her out of a job and prevented her from finding other work. A developer whose name I can't recall was forced out of a software project amid accusations of "sexual impropriety", despite the alleged victim publicly going to bat for him, explaining they had a consensual fling.
I humbly propose that while you should of course be concerned about the rights of the minority, you should also be concerned about the freedom to speak without needing to cover your ass by preempting any possible misconstrual.
Looks like someone hates being called to account for being a dick
Because, honestly, that is all the Social JUSTICE workers ever do
You must know different social justice warriors than I do. I've been called to account for lots of perfectly innocent statements. Statements that it's easy to misrepresent: statements that are excellent fodder for virtue signalling. On the other hand, when I'm actually being a dick (whether justified or not, by accident or on purpose), nobody calls me out. Because it's not easy to deliver true criticism.
I see your point as well. I don't know law well enough to have a grip on the real-world ramifications of such a contract, but here's some food for thought: when a written contract turns out to be substantially different than how it was portrayed, the contract is invalid. Secondly, a judge can ignore the literal when he judges it to be a sham. (A company calling its people "contractors" doesn't make it so.) I don't know for sure that either of these factors apply to this situation, but if I were a judge or lawmaker, I would treat "payment for permanent media" as a purchase, regardless of what the fine print says. (And I would hold it to every other standard a purchase is held to.)
For example, if you want to prevent a buyer from later selling it, that's not legal.
Ok but we're not talking about buying and selling content here, what we're talking about is licensing. Where/what is the law that enshrines the right to transfer a license?
I have licenses to drive a car, ride a bike and recreational watercraft and I paid for them but I can't sell these licenses to other people.
You may have paid for those licenses, but you didn't purchase them. I don't view Netflix as a purchase, and I agree that that falls under the umbrella of licensing. But when a movie/book is paid for for perpetual viewing, you have to bend over backwards to say that's not a purchase, regardless of what the license says.
Funnily, the GPLv3 restricts use. I'm not sure how that works. Do they even have standing for enforcement?
Go setup a screen in a public park and project that DVD onto it if you would like to find out how much you really "own" it.
That's really not the same. You can own a copy of a work without having broadcast or republication rights just as a teen can own a car but not have the right to drive it.
Steam's DRM only works because games have a finite shelf life. If my copy of Portal 2 stops working in ten years when Steam shuts down, I won't mind. If I purchase books and they stop working at any point for any reason, I will be upset.
If I create some original digital content should I not have the right to set the terms of use and distribution? If someone doesn't agree with the terms they do not have the right to circumvent the terms just because they can.
Nice thought, but no! The rights of buyers are enshrined in law, just as the rights of content creators are. For example, if you want to prevent a buyer from later selling it, that's not legal. Yet that's what DRM lets you do. You can also use DRM to block copying beyond the life of copyright, which may not be illegal, but is certainly unethical.
I'm not sure if you can sell a product and set terms of use at all. Certainly you can set terms when you provide a service or make an agreement beyond a simple sale, but the grocery store cannot tell me how to use or not use the zuccini I just bought. (Perhaps they could, but they would have absolutely no legal grounds to enforce it.) DRM lets you control your customers in ways the legal system does not.
MEK? I thought xylene was the one that dissolves everything.
I do know something about solvents, so I'm of course the above is just me being silly. But what about methylene chloride? I thought that dissolved a huge variety of stuff. And I thought MEK was almost as safe as acetone. Not so?
Can I join if I bought my phone outside the US? What if I'm currently residing outside the US (but have a US address)?
LG has refused to repair my boot-looping phone in the past. Have they changed their stance? Is there any way I can push them to reconsider? (It's long out of warranty by now, but the fact remains that they sold me a badly defective phone.)
More like PREVENT. There are patents that push the state of the art forward, saving readers thousands of hours of R&D. I doubt this is one of them. The only result will be to dissuade manufacturers from pursuing this type of wireless charging.