"Put annother way, jobs was only able to sell to creatives and the gullible, the scientists, business people and engineers saw through his flim flam"
Not according to Larry Tessler:
1695 posts • joined 8 Feb 2007
Back in the late '80s - early '90s, when the family was exiled out in Los Angeles, all of the grocery store chains supplied carts on which all four wheels were steerable. It took a short time to get used to but the convenience of being able to just pull the cart 90º to the side when some obliviot was barreling down the aisle in one's direction made one an instant convert.
Having to settle for the old, less-maneuverable style of cart was the hardest adjustment to make on moving back to the east coast. I have to assume that the extra couple of dollars' cost of installing two extra swiveling casters is the reason that they seem never to have caught on out here, but I DO miss having them.
"In a way we're lucky, most Republicans this far behind would have invaded somewhere"
They are. Only this time, instead of sending troops to invade some other country, they're sending them to states and cities with Democratic administrations - vis. Portland, Oregon. They escalate mostly-peaceful protests into armed (on their part) conflicts and make sure that there's plenty of nice red meat for the 24-hour news feeds (and their party's base) in the two blocks that get the coverage, while ignoring that -- for the majority of the time in the vast majority of the city -- people go about their business undisturbed by the protesters.
It's quicker and cheaper than sending troops overseas and there are no embarrassing body bags to fly home afterwards, but you still get the "Amurrican troops defending Freedumb!" effect.
At the very least, I think that software upgrade support should cover five years from the date that a product becomes generally available or three years from the date that the product goes off the market, whichever is greater. This should be required of the manufacturer and, if sold through a network provider, of that provider IF they alter or in any way change the manufacturer's software installation. That is: If $PhoneCompany makes their own installation of Android + bloatware (and/or "recommendation" popups suggesting that the user install their cruft), they are required to fully support their full software installation -- including their Android installation -- for the mandated time. Of course, if they DON'T make any changes from the stock Android install and don't require adding any bits and bobs later "to get the full $PhoneCompany experience", then they're off the hook and the responsibility falls back to the manufacturer.
"Their influence doesn't stop at the federal level."
Correct. Honestly, the smartest thing that the Republicans did in 2010 was to divert a lot of their resources to winning state races. The decennial census tells the states how many residents they have, which translates into how many congressional districts they have. It's then up to the states (within certain broad requirements) to draw up the districts however they want. In states where a bipartisan - or, ideally, NONpartisan - committee has that responsibility, districts are generally distributed so that they match the overall voting characteristics. In states where districts are drawn by, say, a committee hand-picked by the head of a legislative house, where it can be packed with members of the dominant party, the districts can be warped and stretched so that it becomes virtually impossible for all but the most heavily-concentrated opposition areas to elect anyone but the party in power's candidates. (Software that can identify voting patterns down to individual precincts and draw districts that best meet whatever criteria one chooses have made this process MUCH more efficient in recent years.)
Add to that the fact that, once a party gets that sort of a hammerlock on the electoral process, they are in a better position to ALSO limit the number of polling places and otherwise disenfranchise voters in the areas that they can't outright gerrymander out of existence, and it gets even uglier
My understanding is that, supposedly, intent counts when providing a tool or service. To use your example, a licensed firearm manufacturer may advertise a a shotgun, say, for hunting. If someone buys that model of shotgun and uses it to rob a bank, the manufacturer is not liable because the purpose for which the gun was used is out of bounds of the intended and advertised use. OTOH if someone offers to sell you a shotgun with a 15" barrel, a pistol grip instead of a shoulder stock and the serial number filed off, and tells you that "those stupid bank guards will never see you coming," that seller IS liable, since the whole intent of the sale is to enable an illegal use.
Just guessing here that the overlays are:
A - Softer because they're designed to be flexible enough not to press several keys at a time, and;
B - Spreading any pressure over a wider area than a half-inch piece of hard plastic that sits right at the edge of a thin sheet of glass.
"For example, grepping the linux kernel headers (just the headers, which all have API compatibility implications) there are 1645 lines containing the word "master" and 1550 lines containing the word "slave". Think of all the code reviews needed to expunge just two banned terms arising from today's moral panic. What about all the others, and what about tomorrow's moral panic?"
I think this was referenced in TFA:
"The proposal has allowed for exceptions when maintaining a userspace API or when updating a code for a specification that mandates those terms. "
"on one occasion most tables returned their meatballs untouched."
This reminds me of my college days -- We had all of the usual complaints about the school's food service, which was often pretty dire (Speaking personally, I was apparently one of the ones who didn't check under the gravy one Friday night, so didn't discover that the roast beef had an iridescent sheen to it and so was part of the one-third of residence students who came down with varying degrees of food poisoning that weekend!).
One day, the lunch menu included something new called "Piccadilly Circles". Well, I mean, it was something new and not the usual "Spaghetti with a side of mashed potatoes, wasn't it? So I took the plate and found a table to sit at. I took one bite and realized that, apparently the food service had gotten an AMAZING deal on english muffins, imitation bacon bits, and Cheez Whiz. I put the horrible thing down and went back up to the serving line to get the spaghetti (Hold the mashed!).
On busing my tray up to the receiving window at the end of my meal, I saw that a good 80% of the trays contained two entree plates, one of which held three Piccadilly Circles, ONE of which had a single bite taken out of it.
They never served them again but, starting about a month later, and for the remainder of the school year, the salad bar had these quite acceptable bacon-cheddar-ish croutons as add-ins, so that was nice!
I've been told that some people had referred my as "that guy with the shifty eyes".
Yes -- It's called a nystagmus, it's uncontrollable and besides making me look nervous it makes it really hard to look people in the eye when I'm talking to them. The stereotypical " criminal look" is exactly that: a stereotype.
"there's a lot of missing context here... and a LOT of unnecessary overreacting."
Running an online ad 88 times isn't that many impressions, but running an ad 88 times that talks about the evils of other political groups AND uses a symbol that was used to identify political enemies in concentration camps is pretty much guaranteed to have the press repeating and amplifying the ads, while being ju-u-u-u-ust vague enough that anyone who draws that connection can be derided as being paranoid, irrational, etc.
While I can't say for sure that that was the plan with these ads -- really, as a way of amplifying a message while maintaining (semi)plausible deniability, all without paying for the ad time, it's pretty brilliant!
"Would you mind backing up that assertion, that Trump has discussed repealing term limits? Can you show some sources for that?"
It was one of those comments that he throws out at random, and he followed it up over a couple of days in his usual fashion:
Step 1 - Make outrageous comment.
Step 2-A - If no one responds, double down and start the "Well, a lot of people are saying that..." comments, or;
Step 2-B - If it gets pushback, claim that he was:
i - only joking, or;
ii - doing it to show up how unfair the [press | liberals | Democrats in Congress | other countries' leaders] are to him (and, by extension, to America).
Here's at least one instance:
The thing is, though, that I'm not sure Pence could be elected; I don't think he'd have the "I'm as batshit crazy as you" vibe that Trump energizes his base with. Sure, he'd get the evangelical death-cult votes, but without the "very fine people" in the alt-reich getting the belly rubs that Trump has given them and Pence hasn't (AFAIK( they won't be as eager to vote for him.
He's really just not as good at blowing that dogwhistle as Trump is.
Sorry... Couldn't resist!
OTOH: "The reseller apparently assured him that the "iPhone simply cannot be exploited and will never be vulnerable to future exploits"."
So shouldn't he be suing the RESELLER...? Or do they not have enough cash on hand to make it worth his lawyer's time?
If we're going to ban "sources say" without any identification of the sources, can we also ban all "...well that's what people tell me" comments, as well?
And "lots of people are saying...." comments?
And maybe even, "I get calls all the time..." claims?
I mean: If we're going to insist on identifiable sources for all public statements then we should probably get those taken out of the national discourse, too, right?
"It's getting hard to satirise various countries leaders these days. It appears like art imitating life."
When Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson wrote their brilliant "Illuminatus" satires back in the early '70s, the biggest problem that they had, according to their later Playboy interview*, was that they were writing about U.S. and Russian administrations that were stupid, venal, and corrupt, and every time they thought that they had come up with something totally bonkers, Nixon and Brezhnev would top them.
Plus ça change...
* Yes, I actually DID read the articles**.
2) Inertia is a powerful thing in business. No matter how good product B is, if the company has been using product A for the last few years, they're not going to change unless they have absolutely no choice.
4) IT departments that have the responsibility for keeping the organization's system's up and running and take the blame when they're not, are loath to bring any new possible points of failure into the mix without either; A - exhaustive testing (for which they often don't have the time or other resources) or; B - The name and address on file of the ultimately-responsible source of the potential vulnerability that they can pass on to the legal beagles if things go flooey.
And, yes -- part of that is mired in the inertia noted above: "Better the devil you kniow...!", because, with Adobe, et.al., they know the hoops to jump through, etc.
But they ALSO know who to blame and -- if necessary -- who to sue if things go decidedly pear-shaped. With OSS like, say, Red Hat Linux, companies know that the service contract that they're paying for means that, if things SHOULD blow higher than up, there's probably going to be someone at the other end of the phone line when they call, and that there's someone that they can throw under the bus when they're called on by the higher-ups: "They've been doing this for N-years, they should have caught this bug LONG before now, we did our due diligence..."etc., etc. With all-volunteer, decentralized software, who do you point at, who do you go after to recoup the expenses of cleaning up the mess? There's no one and it's probably coming out of your already-stretched resources.
Trust me; as one of those that so many of the El Reg commentariat like to refer to as the "colored pencil crowd", I've run into this with trying to get, e.g., FOSS drafting software for a property manager in our department (because BESIDES being the graphic designer, I'm ALSO the department alpha-geek) who doesn't need the considerable licensing expense and learning curves of full-fat AutoCAD or ArcGIS to take an existing map and say "Put a driveway here. Put a hedge there." But IT won't install software if they can't absolutely nail down the provenance and chain of responsibility for it and, with a VERY limited number of IT grunts supporting the administrative systems of a city of 100,000+, they don't have the spare resources to vet and support a bunch of randomly mismatched software installations all across the system. So there WILL be limited customization allowed, and those WILL be from a VERY limited number of VERY well-established companies.
It used to be said that "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM," because companies trusted that they knew who to get on the blower to get problems fixed in a timely manner. Today, that can probably be extended to "Nobody ever got fired for licensing [Microsoft | Adobe | Oracle | RedHat | ...]."
With all-volunteer FOSS...? Not so much. But don't get me wrong; I LIKE and use FOSS where possible at work and at home and I wish nothing but the best for the Inkscape developers. But if they're looking for big uptake from big commercial/government establishments of their all-volunteer-all-the-time software, they probably shouldn't hold their breaths.
The problem with that argument is that it assumes that Google has no indexed articles that mention that the charges were dropped. If they DON'T, then the argument might hold water; if they DO, and they are available with an appropriate search then, as far as I can see, they plaintiff has no case.
Insert requisite "IANAL" disclaimer here.
Terrorism can be caught simply by being in the presence of a terrorist at the grocery store?
Violent crime can be caught by being on the bus with a criminal?
No...? Then they're really not the same as a quite contagious virus, now are they?
False Equivalency on offense -- ten yard penalty and loss of down.
"For obvious reasons the force required is set quite high to stop simple accidents, on the basis that when you really need to pull it you'll be motivated to do it as hard as you can until something happens."
Well, if he was grabbing it to hold himself down during negative Gs, there's him pulling upwards on the handle, while his mass (and anything he's holding onto) is ALSO being accelerated upward.
"Although the cost must have been considerable. I bet a replacement Rafaele cockpit canopy and ejection seat doesn't come cheap."
I'm sure the vendor requesting the "joy" ride will be getting a bill from the air force for the cost of same.
...which expense will be rolled into their next government contract.
...which will eventually be paid by the French taxpayers.
Plus ça change...
"re: 'People tend to look at the image of their correspondent'
That's an etiquette thing, people will adapt over time."
...and once the isolation is over and we're all back to physical interaction, the polite thing will be to look at a point six inches over the other person's head when conversing.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020