What the fuck are you talking about? Nothing in Chrome requires a root user.
What the fuck are you talking about? Nothing in Chrome requires a root user.
On the other hand: Two weeks after a police station in Dallas is shot at, a guy is hiding in bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas. Cops approach to see what's going on. The guy is filming the police station (casing it?). Cops ask for ID. The guy asks to speak to a supervisor. The cops call their supervisor to come over, handcuffing the guy for five minutes until the supervisor arrives. Did they violate his Constitutional rights? Maybe. Does every reasonable officer *know* that what they did violates his civil rights? No, an officer might reasonably *think* it's okay to cuff the guy for five minutes. There's not *clearly established law* that in the situation described, they can't cuff him while awating the supervisor he requested. Therefore he can sue the city the cops work for, but can't sue the individual cops personally.
The second scenario above, in which a reasonable cop might mistakenly think cuffing him for a minute is okay, is patterned after the actual events in this case. In reality, he wasn't hiding in the bushes. I added that to make it a better example, an example of a scenario where a reasonable cop might be unsure of what they can and can't legally do.
Actually, I don't think that would be legal, and there is clearly established law that the cuffing is at least a detention requiring reasonable suspicion. It's been well established that they can pat the guy down for weapons legally, and that should be sufficient to assuage their concerns - cuffing someone simply because they refuse to give their ID would be unreasonable.
In this particular case, you'll note that the officers actually won the appeal (affirming qualified immunity) on the first amendment claim and the fourth amendment claim for unlawful detention, but lost on the fourth amendment claim for unlawful arrest. As the court noted, "an investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.” Specifically:
... the officers were not taking investigative steps to determine who he was (aside from repeatedly asking him for identification) or what threat he might have posed. Neither does anything in the amended complaint suggest that Turner had a weapon, was using his hands in a threatening way, or otherwise posed a threat that required such restraint. The officers’ handcuffing Turner and placing him in the patrol car, as alleged in the amended complaint, were not reasonable under the circumstances. We conclude that a reasonable person in Turner’s position would have understood the officers’ actions “to constitute a restraint on [Turner’s] freedom of movement of the degree which the law associates with formal arrest.”
In your hypothetical, the cops handcuff the guy while waiting for the supervisor that he asked for. They're not taking further investigative steps to determine who he is or what threat he might have posed, and he hasn't done anything to indicate he poses a threat. Just like in this case, handcuffing the guy would be unreasonable, and would likely be considered retaliation for 'being uppity' and 'contempt of cop' for daring to ask for a supervisor.
Imagine if those who have taken a vow of celibacy had to fornicate just one little time to assert their right to remain celibate.
That's called seminary school, and apparently, what happens there, stays there.
I have no idea what you're point is
You mean someone else builds the indexes? Wow? Really?
Actually, if he's doing a lifelong, pay-up-front insurance model, it will be a lot more expensive to stop providing it later. The rates have to increase with cost and inflation (which will be slower than income increases), and such an insurance model is essentially flow-through and uses new money to pay for current service. It's the same way Social Security works.
I doubt battery replacement will be a big expense in 20 years. In real life, we've seen those batteries perform such that they should still have 94% of their charge capacity after 100,000 miles. At 20 years in and 12,000 miles per year, 240,000 miles, they'll quite likely have 85% of their capacity--which means the 150 mile range is a 136 mile range. With high-voltage DC J1772 combined charge connectors, you can power that up in an hour (Tesla has supercharger stations boasting something ridiculous like 50% charge in 20 minutes). Some of these Teslas have a 280-mile range, which still gives you a 238 mile range--over 2 hours between recharging on a road trip. The extra 15-30 miles is as many minutes of driving, so is insignificant--either the long trip has too many charges already, or it's a minor inconvenience that shifts your schedule by a few minutes.
Consider modern vehicles have a 200-300 mile range. My Mazda 3 needs a gas tank fill-up every 240 miles--about 2 weeks. Since most people aren't filling their 12-gallon tank every day ($800/month of gasoline), we can surmise the range of a Tesla is well more than the range required for nearly 100% of driving. When that range decreases by 15%... you're still using 10% of the battery's charge, then charging back up when you get home. Shrug.
The battery has to start physically failing before it needs real replacing. Even if it's a $12,000 battery, it'll be an $8,000 battery or a $6,000 battery in 20 years (plus inflation--which means it might still be a $12k battery, but the median income will be $118k anyway so it's still half as expensive). Amortize that over 20 years. Gas today is $600/year (with 2% inflation over 20 years: $891); battery tech taking half the labor (low-maintenance, self-driving, electric freight haulers to deliver heavy shit; automated factories) means you'd be looking at $300/year paid in the inflated future. You're comparing roughly $20k of gas to $6k of batteries--and, again, you can probably defer the battery replacement.
Consider that plus the damn things require a bit under 1/4 of the cost of gasoline--you're looking at $5k over 20 years there. So you're saving $9k out of $20k. You could also get a Zero SR and pay about $1,620 over 20 years instead.
The problem is that it is a shitty manager who insults any subordinate. If you have a problem with a member of your team, you take them aside and try to deal with it. If it rates disciplinary action, then so be it, but that can still be done respectfully. Either we are adults who can behave with some decorum, or we are unruly children. I won't have unruly children as managers, period. Behave appropriately or you will be demoted. Calling anyone a "fag", get into shouting matches with them, and I will be making you apologize to the persons involved and to anyone who overheard them, and do it repeatedly, and you'll be shown the door. A work place should not be a place where people with power feel some right to behave badly to other people.
My experience from my coursework was that the cited studies seemed to me to be pretty rigorous. There was an entire section dedicated to what might have been titled "junk science", though as I recall the authors of the textbook used a somewhat more diplomatic term. In there were all kinds of commonly-held disorders like pre-menstrual syndrome, seasonal affective disorder in the like where research suggests that while the disorders may be real, they in fact effect a far smaller group of people than earlier studies had claimed. In other words, even in psychology it sure looks to me like there is at least some psychologists who follow valid methodological principles.
The other thing to remember is that "psychology" is a pretty damned broad term, and that in a lot of cases other professions like psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, counselors and the like often get lumped in, and in some cases these other groups publish in journals of varying degrees of quality. That's not to say that some of these people don't adhere to pretty strong methodologies, but it does tend to be a bit of a wild west in some cases. But when you're talking about cognitive psychology and other similar branches, there's a lot of overlap there that pulls in neurological experts, behavioral experts and the like who sit within the harder edges of the psychology field. It most certainly isn't all just kooky neo-Freudians.
Having taken a college-level psychology course (which of course makes me an expert in the field!) I can tell you that psychology isn't necessarily as soft as you think, and while there are certainly holdover schools of psychology that are based on partial or total rubbish, when you start talking about cognitive psychology and behaviorism, these are just as hard a science as physics or geology, to the point that I got the strong impression that my instructor viewed many of the other schools pretty dimly as being as much wishy-washy metaphysics as anything else. Psychology is an awfully big field, so claiming most of it is rubbish is deeply unfair.
The problem being is that the effects of CO2 aren't that hard to pin down. The skepticism is basically fake, fueled by some of the wealthiest companies and individuals on the planet, even as they themselves prepare for the low-carbon future.
Of course there has been in a lot of research on management styles, some of it predating WWII which suggested that bullying management style may bring about short-term gains, but usually at the cost of a paranoid and low-morale organization which can negatively effect long term performance.
I've only been yelled at once in my working life, and while it scared the shit out of me to be sure, the only take-away I had was that my boss was a fucking asshole. I could only work as fast as I was going, and because he was a cheap asshole, he wouldn't hire someone else to take over some of my sysadmin role so I could more coding.
I see little evidence that science is regaining ground. There has been far too concerted an effort in the last ten to fifteen years to demonize scientists, to make them out to be profiteering frauds. In the end reality will very much bring back the pro-science movement, but for now, even on Slashdot, the attitude on everything from climate change to basic research is incredibly negative.
Computing is pretty much ubiquitous nowadays. When I first got into computing back in grade school around 1981-82, computers were just this incredibly awesome thing. There was a pioneering spirit to the home computing world. I remember taking my crappy little Radio Shack computer to local meetups, and you'd have everyone from ten year olds like myself to grizzled old guys (who could actually afford cool peripherals like disk drives and the like). That persisted to some extent until the early 1990s, with the earliest versions of Linux like the original Slackware release being the swan song of an age of computing that had persisted since the mid-70s. Once the Internet really overtook the old BBS culture, that was the final nail. I blame it all on AOL!
I can remember pouring through Byte magazine back in the mid-80s and just salivating over the idea of having a modem or a double-sided floppy drive. It was just a very optimistic age. I found an old box of computer magazines from the era, and still smiled at the three page BASIC program listing for some sort of text adventure game, remembering how I built my first one based on a how-to book I'd ordered from an advertisement in the back. Good times.
This is why I wish Slashdot would get rid of ACs. I have no idea who I'm debating. Are they responding to what I wrote? Are they the parent?
AT any rate, lots of people of every stripe care about money. Whoever you are, the AC I was responding to heavily suggested that Milo is vindicated because he makes lots of money. How that squares with your post is beyond me.
Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol