Oh, oh. Be afraid. Be very afraid!
I'd be happy with aware. Barring that, awake would do.
Oh, oh. Be afraid. Be very afraid!
I'd be happy with aware. Barring that, awake would do.
Isn't that like saying because somebody found a discarded Star Bucks
Like a Rooski spy such as yourself that cannot even spell "Starbucks" does not already know there are Starbucks in Russia...
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in AT&T v. FTC that the FTC has no authority over common carriers. This FCC rule that Republicans got rid of filled the gap from that court decision.
So instead of going to the supreme court to fix yet another boneheaded decision from the 9th, someone decided to plaster over the bad mistake with an FCC ruling.
Which as it turns out is like patching holes in a roof with cotton candy - one wisp of rain and the protection is gone.
If someone wanted real protection why not try and pass a real law to do so, instead of jiggering the FCC to patch something wrong?
...if everyone were to post as AC, then it would be the content of their posts that would be rated and nothing else.
Which is why I don't typically post AC. When a
And now, folks, it's time for "Who do you trust!" Hubba, hubba, hubba! Money, money, money! Who do you trust?
And where is the Batman? He's at home washing his tights!
I trust my VPN provider. Why? Because if I don't, what other options do I have?
Whatever you think, Trump is either the cure or the symptom. He is not the disease, and he is not part of the problem.
What? Of course he is. He is not the whole disease, but he is part of the disease. Think of THE PROBLEM (greed) like HIV. It attacks the immune system and makes you susceptible to other illnesses (Clinton, Trump, etc.)
Trump is a hypocrite. What more do you really need to know?
Do you think the voters know more or less about Trump as a result of his twitter feed? Do you believe there will be any confusion about who Trump is come November 2020?
We definitely know more about Trump from his Twitter feed. He's painted himself as a thin-skinned, reactionary conspiracy-theorist. This is a good thing - I want to know as much about the candidates as possible. The bad side is the impression he's giving the world.
I think Trump's Twitter feed is a historic landmark in the evolution of democracy.
Me too. That doesn't mean I think it's a net positive in this case.
Anita Sarkesian tells us were having wrongfun if we enjoy mainstream video games. The folks at WorldCon tell us we're having wrongfun if we enjoy good SF books without regard to the political leanings of the authors.
Who the fuck is Anita Sarkesian and why should anyone care if she or WorldCon don't encourage or condone what I do? Are these examples of "my betters"? I don't feel oppressed. I guess "unapproved fun" is only important to me if I give a shit about the approval.
just like every other law congress passes, it doesn't apply to them.
That's probably true. Just because their ISPs can sell their information doesn't mean they will. I'm not necessarily saying they won't bite the hand that fed them, but I don't think it's likely.
How dare the president talk directly to the voters in a democracy!
I'm all for the president having a line to the people - It's the sole reason I installed Twitter. If I hadn't, I wouldn't know that Snoop's career is failing - Thanks @POTUS! The problem is that he's often so full of shit or so far off in the weeds that it makes the whole damn country look foolish. I check Twitter every morning before work to see if he's tweeted anything that could damage my world.
It's a scandal, not letting the press tell the peasants what they're supposed to think.
Recently, when the press has told "the peasants what to think" in conflict with the White House, it's because the White House is just wrong. It started day one with the crowd size alternative facts and has just gotten worse with, for example, the millions of illegal Hillary votes or the wiretap Obama ordered.
This whole country is going to fail, given the way people are thinking unapproved thoughts and having unapproved fun. Why won't they just listen to their betters? It's for their own good!
Have "our betters" been barring open thought and fun? I missed that chapter. I'd like to believe that I think for myself. I don't believe in fun.
Just because a company CAN sell something does not mean they will.
I think it will be pretty interesting to see what they can actually end up buying.
I also warned people, that they criticized and hated Flash because of how it was used intrusively by marketers. Pop-over ads, etc. I warned and said that with Flash dead, they would simply turn to HTML5. Except now it would be native, and you'd no longer be able to block their ads. And I was right.
The final nail, was when Adobe's own executive exclaimed that he saw HTML5 as the future. When these words were said, Adobe pretty much pointed a shotgun at it's developers and pulled the trigger.
Why did Adobe's CEO say this? Because he was stupid. Even thought true, it was not what a CEO was supposed to do. But Adobe saw HTML5 as their holy grail. They would be able to have their cake and eat it too. They could write tools and take Flash developer and update it to create HTML5 content, and save millions on development of the Flash player.
Business-wise, it was a sweet opportunity from Adobe's viewpoint. However, Adobe hadn't reached that point, and the dumbf*** CEO basically publicly stated this before Adobe had migrated both it's tools and developer base. Imagine if Microsoft decided they were going to cease supporting all
The sad thing is that Adobe's Flex team was moving in a really great direction. Meanwhile, HTML5 was released, and in many areas it went "stupid". Sure canvas and all is great. But seriously, adding more input type was the very last thing HTML needed.
Adobe's Flex team realized this with their transition from Flex 3 to Flex 4. Rather than trying to develop new components for every situation (Checkbox, radio, drop down, text input, listbox, etc, etc). They realized a simple fact. Check all the apply and a multi-select listbox are the same data. A radio button and a dropdown is the same data. The presentation is just different. So they went the opposite direction of HTML5, and reduced the input types.
Now you have Boolean, string, list. You could define if the list allowed multiple selection. And you could style the list with a visual layer to be a vertical list, radio buttons, or even a custom skin (thumb images in a grid layout). It was brilliant. They took the revered MVC model and applied it to their input components - something HTML5 should of done.
Meanwhile, their ActionScript 3.x was actually a nice language in many ways. Very similar to Java, but with a few really nice abilities. Properties for example. Forget creating getter and setter methods. Define a property. "MyFoo.color". But hey, what if you have to add a restriction. No problem, there was a getter setter operation for all property elements. So if you later wanted to restrict the colors to 256 color palette, you could add the getter/setter for the property. No need to say MyFoo.setColor or MyFoo.getColor. It was simply MyFoo.color = blue, or display MyFoo.color.
I really wish HTML5 had gone a more intelligent route instead of the stupidity it went. HTML5, should of reduced the number of inputs to Bool, String, List. Then rather than adding new inputs such as phone, url, etc. Added the ability to associate "formatters". A formatter would be similar to a schema definition, that would also denote a preferred keyboard type. Then add keyboards to the HTML5 spec.
So rather than telephone, you'd have a string input with a telephone formatter. The formatter would detail input type "numberic", "9 chars", etc. as well as a preferred keyboard. "keyboard=keypad". Similar a ZIP code, SSN, etc would all merely be strings, restricted to numeric, and default to a keypad keyboard. Sadly, Adobe's Flex team was headed in this beautiful direction. HTML5 went fruit loopy...
Had they done this, they would of accomplished much of their goals. While at the same time not shooting themselves and all their developers in the head.
as a Canadian I agree! We don't Americans coming up here and ruining this great nation with their bizarre, trashy world views.
Counterpoint: Yesterday when walking along a trail in the U.S. I had to pick up a Tim Hortons bag and various boxes inside. Americans may have some "trashy views" but you Canadians are spreading LITERAL trash in America. Yet again Americans are left to clean up messes other countries make.
So I'm more than happy to support that wall into Canada, I'm not so sure all the Canadians that cross over to shop in the U.S. from Canada or to get real health care would be all that happy.
To be fair, handing out jobs to women for being minimally competent doesn't really sit well with people that earned their position with years of effort.
For sure, they get annoyed.
It harms women
But here's the thing - it doesn't harm women. It harms people's respect for women as competent developers.
But think of it from the standpoint of the woman. Were I a woman, and people thought I was incompetent because of diversity quotas, I would laugh and wave my arms wildly in my pit of extra money I was making.
Respect of others is only valuable when you can use it as leverage to get things like jobs you enjoy. But currently being a woman has far more leverage in getting hired at technical jobs than does respect or competency. So why care what people think about you?
Plus honestly in the end after a while people will respect you for what you have done anyway, no matter what they think at first. So it's not like I'd slack off if it were me, thinking about it from a very long term standpoint, not to mention maintain an internal measure of respect which is important for a strong feeling of self-worth.
Remember that stat, that 25% of women in colleges have been sexually assaulted? How initially it seems unbelievable because, hey, you wouldn't, and I wouldn't, and most men you know wouldn't, so how can that be?
And then you found out that it was unbelievable because it was a lie?
One office I worked for had such a person
Nothing helps a lie along like a nice little one-off anecdote, am I right?
But the idea it's limited to SV is absurd
It's not limited to SV but it's rare outside of there. In SV it is pervasive. If I were a woman I would stay far away from SV if I valued my mental health. There's plenty interesting stuff going on outside of SV, and then you also avoid being in a huge bubble of groupthink that has fifty Snapchat clones getting funding.
But if you are a women and want a lot of money, suck it up and take SV for all they are worth. After 5-10 years you could probably retire for life if you play your cards right and change companies often enough.
The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends without any means. -- Saul Alinsky