Comment Fedora release story (Score 0) 106
Let the hatefest begin!
Let the hatefest begin!
If you are a US citizen, I don't think you could get out of producing a document the court ordered you to supply by airmailing it to a confederate in another country. Similarly, if the data in question are related to Microsoft's US operations, then MS, being a corporation incorporated in the US, should be required to produce them.
Your metaphor is off. It isn't about the court compelling you to produce the document, it's about compelling the foreign confederate to produce the document.
In this case I think the US courts should have some mechanism for petitioning the Irish courts to allow them to perform the search. Justice is still served, but each country still maintains its sovereignty.
Sweden is trying hard to make a name for itself as a place high tech start ups should work. Sweden is a place that will allow them to be creative without fear of undo influence from multinationals or foreign influence. cough cough movie studios cough cough riaa cough cough Assange...
I get the arguments that they don't host anything and they're just a medium for people to exchange files. But their name is literally The Pirate Bay, their business model is about as close to explicit piracy as you can get.
I'm frankly shocked they've remained open this long.
When you decide the morality of the situation is asymmetrical, don't expect the other guy to see your side of it.
This has been the main argument in favor of torture. "Do you think the terrorists treat their prisoners nicely? Then why should we be bound to any conventions we know they won't abide?" The argument has always been that "they" started it.
The morality of any of these situations has to be asymmetrical, and "our side" always needs to be the kinder, more honest, and more fair side. As soon as you demonstrate your willingness to use the unethical or evil techniques of your enemy, you lose any distinction from them.
More than asymmetrical, it has to be utterly unambiguous.
People will always give their side the benefit of the doubt and the good guy isn't always clear. Bin Laden killed 3k in an utterly indefensible act, the Iraq war killed 100k in a much more defensible act. In the west it's easy to consider Bil Laden's act as the greater evil. Afterall he explicitly tried to kill as many people as possible with the goal of starting a wider war. The Iraq war, even if it were a mistake, wasn't started with the objective of mass casualties.
However, if you're from the middle east, and find it easier to identify with the dead Iraqis than the dead Americans, then you might consider the far greater number of Iraqi casualties to make that the worse crime.
Or in Ukraine, where Russia is are using the NATO intervensions in Bosnia and Libya, and the US invasion of Iraq, as justifications for their own actions. It doesn't matter if they're right, it's incredibly easy to rationalize the acts of your side. Just to be certain that you're not one of the bad guys yourself you need to keep your actions way above reproach.
Someone tell this guy, the entire Linux community has spoken... we do not want this.
On install, ask if this is a mobile device... if it is, install your screwy new UI. But no-one will click that option because there's already a fantastic Linux distro for mobile called Android.
If they don't chose mobile (and no-one will) then install a "normal" desktop.
And since you seem to be unaware of history, what you're doing is exactly what Microsoft attempted with Win8 and failed miserably at. No one wants this but you so please give up.
Seriously, what don't you get... Unity was released in 2010. Here's a graph showing distro use:
http://royal.pingdom.com/wp-co...
See how your distro use tanked in 2010? And Mint Spiked? Your users have spoken... listen!
So it sounds like you want them to ask on install if it's a mobile or desktop device, and install a touchscreen or desktop UI accordingly.
What he is saying is they'll auto-detect if it's a mobile or desktop device, and have the UI work as a touchscreen or desktop UI accordingly.
I'm not sure I see why you approach is the right idea and their approach is a disaster?
Performance pay--- how do you measure performance? It is NOT a simple problem and no matter what you come up with humans are naturally talented at adaptation, they will survive and many will thrive by gaming your system. Seniority is the least hackable metric of all and so simple everybody knows it's inherent flaws - but EVERY metric is going to be flawed.
Online performance is largely measured by CLICKS. The result is the trashy click bait we have today. An earth shattering investigative report which might take a year of a senior journalist's time (a REAL journalist) puts them at the bottom of the scale while some twit pushing rumors/gossip who can't spell has tons of clicked of trash gets to the top (and has the nerve to call what they do journalism.)
Even using clicks as a metric making clickbait can be a mistake.
Clickbait attracts casual one-time viewers, they have no loyalty and are just clicking on whomever has the latest viral article. If someone starts doing viral better than you then your traffic drops off a cliff.
But if you don't do clickbait and have writers that develop a unique voice then you now have a monopoly because you're the only one of the planet publishing that voice. It might not make you rich, but as long as you have that writer the traffic is reliable.
Supporting Excellent Iraq War II, pumping the _Bell Curve_, publishing the racist fantasies of Stephen Glass, joining the anti-public education movement, and also publishing the "No Exit" hatchet job on Bill Clinton's health care reform proposal isn't in any way shape or form liberal. And that's not even taking into account Martin Perez' racism and ethnic hatred which is of a variety that is a bit harder to criticize in US society but which most liberals reject.
Representative quote from Andrew Sullivan: "The middle part of the country—the great red zone that voted for Bush—is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead—and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column." [note that he later altered that essay as published on his blog to make it less self-damning; this is the original wording]. Yes, he's gay. No, he's not liberal.
sPh
Sullivan (a Brit) self-identifies as a conservative, which he translates into Democrat in the US.
And he's long admitted his support for the Iraq war was a mistake, I'm curious about your accusation that he altered the essay, he's generally very forthright about when he's wrong and if there's a discrepancy between the TNR article and what he reposted I suspect it's not for the reason you suggest.
Either way, if you ignore the partisanship I don't think supporting the Iraq war was necessarily a conservative or liberal position. If one succeeded in deposing Iraq and replacing him with a relatively healthy democracy with minimal casualties you can make a pretty strong argument for the war from either end of the spectrum. Hitchens identified as a Marxist and I don't believe he ever repented of his support (other than the fact Bush was too incompetent to pull it off).
I saw this article recently on ThePunion.com, I'm sure of it.
Agreed, this reminds of one of those times when a paper in China or Russia rips a story from the Onion.
It still might be legit, according to the article:
But the order from the State Administration for Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television says: “Radio and television authorities at all levels must tighten up their regulations and crack down on the irregular and inaccurate use of the Chinese language, especially the misuse of idioms.”
Which is plausible as random bureaucrats sometimes issue brain dead rules which are quickly forgotten once the laughter dies down.
I'm too busy but we can crowdsource it.
The first sentence says he's a young guy who used to read books.
I knew one promising kid. Was building apache forks by the time he was two, built his own mircokernel when he was three. But then around three and a half some troublemaker in daycare slipped him a copy of Visual Studio and a VB.net book during naptime. By the time he hit four he's writing VB.net webapps for mars bars, six months later it's Windows Phone apps for smarties.
Poor kid never even made it to five, he got wet-willied trying to swipe a chocolate milk carton at lunch.
What a waste.
As long has he generates hits and comments he will be featured. You'd be better just ignoring his articles.
Not if people are just coming to complain, trolling your users isn't a sustainable model (well it is, but only if you make a 3rd party the direction of their rage).
That being said Bennett's proposal is fine, it's just not what people come to
But more importantly there's a status issue, everyone who writes a comment is fighting to get their voice heard and is playing by the same rulebook. No matter how inciteful or amazing your comment the best you're going to get is a +5 hidden in the comments section*. People are going resent the fact that Bennett seemingly feels his musings are so insightful they deserve their own story, the editors deciding to agree with him doesn't help.
* There was a short lived
Assuming there is life elsewhere in the universe, and there's a good chance, it takes many right circumstances to happen.
What's more, to be relevant to us it must also coincide with our time frame. We've only been capable over interacting with extra-terrestrials for about 150 years of 2+B years of the Earth's existence. Another civilization would have to be both advanced (more than we are) and at the right time for us to meet.
Well we know other civs either go silent or don't exist because we don't hear them. But a silent civ isn't necessarily an irrelevant one. If relativity holds they probably haven't even heard of us yet, they might have probes that noticed stone age humans roaming around but they didn't know if we'd developed. And even if they have noticed us they may not be ready to contact us yet. Maybe they want to give us a million years or so to play around on our own first.
The issue with online news isn't that the interesting bits are hard to find. It's that everyone has different interesting bits, there's a ton of duplicated content, and it's hard to follow issues and tell when something new has happened. Plus crowdsourcing is going to be tough when you're following a moving target of quickly developing events.
I think a much cooler idea would be to arrange the facts in a timeline as stories develop across weeks and months. Basically a fancier version of timelines on Wikipedia with better visualizations. When you notice a story you could hop over and get a simple overview of the coverage, and if you're following a story over a period of time you could routinely hop over and see the main events that occurred.
Colonialism is a red herring. Everything is more interesting if you actually learn about Asian history rather than trying to mold it to prove a point.
As countries go China's political history was remarkably stable. How many modern nations actually existed in a recognizable form in 1644, much less 1000AD.
Anyway, my point wasn't that colonialism explains everything, but as a factor it does seem to explain a lot of the issues in a way that makes sense.
A country without stable political institutions is destabilized by power struggles at the local and national level. In a country where everybody understands who's in charge and they all agree they're part of the same country people can worry less about conflict and more about living. If African nations had strong central governments with loyal militaries there wouldn't be warlords driving around extorting villages. If they had a strong tradition of public servents then police wouldn't be corrupt. A stable society creates the opportunity to invest in the future, the whole point of colonialism was to disrupt the old order to impose a European one, it's not a surprise that native populations under colonialism don't fare well.
There will be exceptions to this as there are exceptions to any influencial force, but it seems to explain a lot.
Unless this hypothetical AI is singularly focused on some inscrutable but unobtrusive goal, or so vastly intelligent that various inconvenient physical laws are cleverly bent, I'm not sure why 'ignored' would even be on the table.
I'm not saying that an AI would have to immediately either glom on to us and try to understand what it means to love, or build an army of hunter/killer murderbots; computers require space, supplies of construction materials, and energy; and so do we. Again, barring some post-scarcity breakthrough that our teeny hominid minds can barely imagine, where the AI goes merrily off and builds a dyson hypersphere of sentient computronium powered by the emissions of the galactic core, there isn't too much room for expansion before either the AI faces brownouts and a lack of hardware upgrades or we start getting squeezed to make room.
You don't have to feel strongly about somebody to exterminate them, if you both need the same resources.
More than that.
Hawking is clearly concerned about the strong AI, as would most people, and as such most people will look for ways to contain or otherwise defend themselves against the possibility of the AI going hostile.
The AI would be a moron if it didn't take similar precautions, it has no reason to leave its existence at the whims of humans.
"Don't drop acid, take it pass-fail!" -- Bryan Michael Wendt
