jgeorge
And frankly, I have no intention of showing /anyone/ that I appreciate them as a civil servant because there's not one elected civil servant today that appreciates civil liberties in the way I do, and tearful pleas to the contrary will not easily convince me that they mean what they say. And if I could humbly suggest a life lesson to you as a student from someone who's likely been alive a number of decades longer than you have, they shouldn't easily convince you either.
Almost by definition though child pornography requires the exploitation of someone who can't consent to it - that's really the crux of the illegal part (the non-consentuality), not the pornography part. Once the participants are of consentual age, the pornography part is completely legal.
[Yes, I know there are issues surrounding drawn/animated images of children, and of-age adults portraying themselves as children, but the point I'm trying to make is geared toward the free speech issues WRT ISIS and not the flaming hairball that is pornography law.]
What bothers me most about this article is the completely serious tone in which Slate decides that we're so afraid of a foreign enemy attacking us that it's only natural for us to seriously consider dismantling the very foundation of what these enemies hate about us. Think ISIS is a big supporter of free expression? Of course not. Think that governmental limitation of freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc., is something that ISIS would like to have in their own little Sharia world? They do indeed, and demonstrate that interest often and in brutally medieval ways.
The answer to "our enemy hates us because of the freedoms we have" is NOT "...so we should give up those freedoms", the answer is that we should exercise those freedoms MORE. Free speech? Tell the world what you think of ISIS. Why hide it? Religious freedom? Pick a deity and pray to one, just for the heck of it. Pick a different one every week, not because you believe in anything those deities stand for, but because you can do so without persecution. Make macaroni art of Buddha, invite Robert Mappelthorpe to fingerpaint Jesus on the side of your home. Go nuts. Do it because you CAN, and because ISIS doesn't WANT you to.
Why we feel the need to placate ISIS is beyond me - what do they stand for that makes so many of us collectively want to prostrate ourselves in front of them, so as to not hurt their feelings?
If they attack us, but we've been sensitive to their beliefs and have given up chunks of our own freedoms to try to placate them, what do you think will happen? Maybe they'll let us all off by only killing us a little bit?
I really hope Slate is trolling us all and will laugh at people like me who take them seriously - enough of the "news" nowadays is some sort of trolling that it may actually be the case. But judging from Slate's typical slant, I don't think they're trolling.
A more elegant poster, from a more civilized time.
"REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED"
As a society, we're screwed.
I don't like google sniffing my search terms much less every packet traversing their router, which I would be shocked to find out this /didn't/ do.
If Amazon charged more for their products, they wouldn't treat their employees any better than they do now. It's a cultural problem (or a bad management problem), not a revenue problem.
Amazon treats its employees the way it does because it chooses to do so, not because of it's customers.
Arrangements "made and paid for" can be reused, it's not like they're going to waste it if you don't go.
Also if company B competes with company A /at all/ and you go out there on their dime to "learn some of the technology" and they find out you had already accepted an offer from the other company before you even went out there, you'll probably wind up with networking experience that would be better for you not to have.
If you get him talking about something other than arcade games he's a bit more down to earth, though.
Definitely a larger-than-life personality.
To add the 2nd frame onto a S/38 - the L-shaped frame on the left, held more I/O cards and I think four more 62ED disk drives (64MB each, IIRC) - there were data cables that ran from the far corner of the 2nd frame to the extreme lower right corner of the card cage in the main unit. The cables ran through every cable channel and card gate in the system, and if the weren't run exactly the way IBM wanted them to be run, they'd come up about a half an inch short and you'd have to re-run them again.
Miserable? Nah. Good times.
The cost is a bit higher than a Pi (The Galileo would be around $79 and the wifi card another $30 or so) but still far cheaper than kitting up a NUC.
I'm rather fond of the NUCs, they're not the cheapest things in the world for the size, but you do have quite a bit more flexibility since it's a full-on PC at that point and not a SBC.
"Trying", no. But Twitter is (and has been for a while) The Great Internet Outrage Machine, so I think someone with any level of Twitter chops at all would realize that any public shaming (especially on a hot button topic) would likely result in someone kicking off a witch hunt just because.
I don't think she was trying to start the fire, but she /did/ bring the matches.
edit: and just for clarification, I don't necessarily think her public shaming was wrong, but I do thing the resultant witch hunt was.
Some applications are a little picky about seeing timestamps in ascending order, and when the leap second actually occurs, you have a one-second period where a timestamp can be older than a previous one, because system clocks will show the 23:59:59 second twice. At the millisecond level, you can have a timestamp of 23:59:59.100 that actuall occurs after, say, 23:59:59.900 if it occurs in the leap second.
In general, the leap second in and of itself isn't a huge deal, it's more that systems don't cope with it well because it's a rare event and not well tested.