roninb

Not sure if you know this or not but they're already pivoting to avocados...

Weird way to try to discredit someone...(?) Works fine on my 2017 XPS 15/Firefox Quantum.

Don't have a problem with that phrase in a vacuum but in context of this discussion I find it highly problematic. Who decides the standard? Which standards actually matter?

I guess I see information (esp with regards to video tutorials/demos) as agnostic. If you're reading a tutorial online, there's no telling whether the person who wrote it was completely naked while doing so. Does the information change simply because you thought they should at least throw a robe on before trying to share info? As long as she's sharing good info, I don't see why it matters what she's wearing. And no, I cannot see what issue other people have other than a difference in taste (which, again, has no bearing whatsoever on whether what she's sharing is factual and helpful or not...).

I think the reason OP listed "sexism, slutshaming" separately is because they're separate issues. The downvotes are coming from your erroneous conflation of the two (and possibly being perceived as purposeful conflation to strawman the argument).

That said, I think the slutshaming you pointed out is just as damaging as what's going on in Wu's case. Who gives a shit if @sexyengineer is wearing a speedo in all of his tutorials? The point is the information and if he's not sharing bad info I don't see the problem other than the fact that you and I have differences in taste.

I.e., don't yuck in other people's yum :)

Some people, pedantically, agree xD

https://xkcd.com/435/

But again, that literally has nothing to do with filming in court and only whether or not the judge should've recused themself...

Where in "Akins also argues that the district court erred by granting the motions todismiss and for summary judgment filed by the defendants and by denying his ownmotion for partial summary judgment" is there anything about filming anyone?

Wait, where do you see anywhere in the ruling a decision about anything other than whether the judge should've been recused or not...?

It's literally linked in the article in full. It's only like 5 pages long. Very clear and obvious that this case had nothing to do with whether you could or couldn't film a public official in public...

Yeah, the ruling wasn't at all about his filming of police officers, it was about whether or not the judge should have recused themself..(?) I'm very confused as to how you could say "Eighth Circuit: Citizens do not have a right to film public officials in public" after the only sentence having to do with filming public officials in public was "Akins also alleged that the defendants violated his rights by removing videos he had posted on the CPD Facebook page, by ordering him to stop filming the filing of acitizen complaint in the CPD lobby, and by posting in the police department a flyer with information about him"

But again, the judgement wasn't at all about him filming public officials, only about whether or not the judge should've presided over the case.

Better yet, take the advice given and download the free epub and pick a random page and decide for yourself whether iambic pentameter is kept!

Hopefully this will at least get you to look for modern, home defense rounds and then come to your old conclusions about 5.56 and dry wall... I'm not trying to prove you wrong here, just trying to get you to do some research about modern 5.56/.223 and really just modern ballistic advancement in general.

"The hypothesis turned out to be correct: V-Max bullets started fragmenting within the first sheet of drywall and completely blew to pieces on their way out of the second sheet, leaving dramatic craters." http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/results.html

I think this is a good time to maybe do some research into whether your complaints are valid or not before making them... You clearly aren't seeing that the point, in fact, does not stand...

Not trying to sound rude at all, but you should actually read the link...

Relevant excerpts:

"Tests 1-6: Bare gelatin, heavy clothing, automobile sheet metal, wallboard, plywood, and vehicle windshield safety glass, were shot a distance of 10 feet from the muzzle."

"Tests 7-13: All involved shots through heavy clothing, safety glass and bare gelatin at 50 to 100 yards, concluding with internal walls, external walls and body armor at 10 feet."

"The Bureau’s research also suggests that common household barriers such as wallboard, plywood, internal and external walls are also better attacked with pistol rounds, or larger caliber battle rifles, if the objective is to "dig out" or neutralize people employing such object as cover or concealment."

"If an operator misses the intended target, the .223 will generally have less wounding potential than some pistol rounds after passing through a wall or similar structure."

Really unsure as to how you could possibly have come to that conclusion after reading the link....

Edit: now that I think about it, people unfamiliar with ballistic testing might not know that gelatin is almost always used to find out data about efficacy downrange regardless of what other things are being tested, so I can kinda see how you might take my comment at face value and feel that it was immediately contradicted if you didn't read the entire summary (which is a bit long).

FBI decided that, "[i]n every test, with the exception of soft body armor, which none of the SMG fired rounds defeated, the .223 penetrated less on average than any of the pistol bullets...".

[0] http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=vie...

Right, but that's only for attempted suicide and it doesn't mean they aren't kept AFTER. I was looking for a citation that suggests involuntary stays are shorter than a month on average, saying that there is a minimum of 3 days in some cases doesn't give me an answer to that.

Could you possibly do the same for your numbers: "less than 4 days"?

I trust that you're a psychiatrist but you could be spewing old or incorrect numbers just as easily as anyone else who may unknowingly make a mistake.

Really confused as to why you were downvoted as you were the person being asked what IC stood for...

Pretty sure it's because they assumed IC was Individual Contributor but to downvote the "least common answer" is weird seeing as how, in this case, it's the source...

It's floppy on the inside[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk#/media/File:Image3...

IANAL, but in the US, he'd be Trespassing if someone from the company asked him to leave and he didn't (which seems to be the case here). In some jurisdictions, DA/SAs will bump it up to Breaking and Entering so long as that statute allows to charge based on "remaining" in a conveyance rather than "entering" one.

It definitely should not have been requested of them, but it's possible laws were broken.

Right... because a doctor on a plane in the US has some semblance of a chance of carrying a deadly weapon...

This is kinda the point of OP, police violence has become so common-place that we take it as normal happenstance when it's used. There's an air of expected guilt for anyone on the receiving side of the violence but no doubt whatsoever on whether the violence was necessary in the first place.

Just as a heads up, this board is often extremely logical. So using the argument "You won't win people over" around here, being filled with people who care much more about being technically (read: the best kind of) correct, is probably going to not get you very far (if anywhere, at all).

That said, I think you're missing the point most others are making, which is that your argument is missing the point others are trying to make, "where there's a will, there's a way" or perhaps more aptly, "prohibition doesn't work" as we've seen countless times through history.

edit: I also think at the heart of what everyone else is getting at is perhaps anger at the fact that while they feel their argument is perfectly logical ("prohibition doesn't work"), they know, like you, that it's not very convincing (again, look to history, we've had a 4 decade war on drugs after several failed prohibitions throughout our country's history that did all of nothing for stopping revenue streams and usage of prohibited substances).

Distro is synonymous with OS at this point. No one is using it as a derogatory term for OSes that aren't different enough to give them the denotation of "OS".

That said, you're going to have to come up with an argument stronger than "this was forked ages ago" to suggest Dragonfly and FreeBSD are different enough to warrant thought. Ubuntu forked before 2004 and you don't see anyone being called out for comparing it to Debian.

The way I understand it, in the near future, the folk who write languages/compilers/build toolkits will be writing down to LLVM's Intermediate Representation rather than down to some specific machine code for some specific chipset.

Then the folk whom build the processors/architecture/assembly languages (and open source advocates when businesses ultimately ignore LLVM for a bit) will be writing the conversion from IR down to some specific machine code. This allows Intel to convert the IR line "COMPLICATEDFUNCTION $r2 5" to some advanced x86 call that has some significant speed or memory increase and is only one line while TI can still call the 26 lines of MIPS they need to call and both will be semantically equivalent.

That way you can, from the the software side, be relatively agnostic with how you're writing code and the chipset side is able to get every ounce of optimization using advanced functionality (if available). More importantly, software side is then able to ignore any processor features (be they speed ups or slowdowns) because every chipset manufacturer should have some toolset to convert your IR down to the best machine code they've got based on some desires (speed, space, power, etc). Inevitably, there will still be differences in performance between chipsets but being able to build down to IR (even with performance issues for some chipsets while everyone gets on board) and not some large set of assembly languages should be very nice.

I wonder how many of the bugs were squashed by Dr. Su himself and how many were DISs or other forms of work supervised by Su. Maybe he did kill that many bugs on his own but that seems outrageous (without taking time to actually see what kinds of bugs they were).

I'm sure a vast majority of it was phishing, but you may be surprised to know how many and how often people send info like that over unencrypted email.

By that definition, our own government is committing terroristic acts constantly. Hell, Facebook and Google are terrorists by that definition as well.

I don't necessarily agree nor disagree with the particular event at hand being labeled as a terror attack, but I'd implore you to analyze your homebrew definition.

What's added? What's left out? Why should the "mainstream" definition be changed? Is it not specific enough for the people you think we should target with that term? Is it too specifically targeting people you don't think we should care about?

Just making sure, but I hope you know that JJ Abrams had literally absolutely nothing to do with Firefly and wasn't even tangentially related to its creation nor production.

Also, I'm relatively positive that JJ (in the sci-fi works he actually, well, worked on), himself, knew nothing (see Armageddon for sources) and that his script supervisors dealt with any discrepancies with reality JJ had.

One simple example would be Verizon only allowing free nights and weekends to certain services. For example, Verizon allows free night and weekend data usage for Hulu but not for any other streaming video services. This is a huge loss to Netflix, Amazon Video, YouTube and any other streaming services, including those whom don't yet exist since it would be harder to gain users due to the newer service "using more data" than using Hulu (read: the Verizon subsidized alternative).

At least, I'm assuming that's what OP meant. Not simply that "free nights and weekends" would be anti-net neutrality on its own, but that it could very easily be made more proprietary than it initially sounds. And we've seen it done in the past when free nights and weekends were were restricted to those within your telco, the x-amount of people within your network that are free to call[I believe AT&T made it 10?], the free mobile to mobile that was eventually restricted to free mobile to mobile only within the same telco again, etc., etc.

Do you think a similar series of events are unlikely to play out when you look at the microprocessor field right now? I see similarities in that there essentially are no open source processor options (MIPS is the only one I can think of off the top of my head). Intel, AMD, IBM, TI, ARM, Qualcomm, Oracle, the lot of them are closed source and I would think the same benefits that came with an open source operating system would come with an open source processor architecture.

That said, I think the biggest difference is the parity between OSes in in the 70s vs ARM/Intel's current dominance. That's definitely going to make it more difficult to get people to adopt RISC-V. I'd imagine if there was any likelihood that IBM, RedHat, Google, or Intel could customize a RISC-V chipset to outperform (whether it's TWP, flops/sec, whathaveyou) any current offerings they'd pour dumptrucks of money into it just the same.

I think their point is that they don't know enough about the innerworkings (read: code) to be sure that turning off one feature doesn't enable far more security vulnerabilities than existed when the feature was on...

They aren't suggesting using compile flags requires code changes...