Slashdot Mirror

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Android Market have the same authority. They can remote kill an app just as easily, no?

http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/06/exercising-our-remote-application.html

Not only that, but it can remotely delete apps you've purchased off your device, too. Apple's rejected apps, removed apps, etc., but they've never used that power to delete or stop apps from running that you've already bought. Even if you bought an app that was later deleted, iTunes doesn't stop you from reinstalling that app on any iDevice you own. Hell, even iDOS is back in the App Store (with the warning to "not update" for those who purchased it before).

But it's OK when Google does it, and not when Apple says they can do it but hasn't (yet). Just like it's evil when Amazon does it.

Heck, we don't even know if iOS can even do remote deletions. The only capability that comes close is CoreLocation's ability to disable apps, but that only works for apps that use CoreLocation to begin with. Then again, maybe all it does is the app's ability to get anything other than fake GPS data...

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Android Market have the same authority. They can remote kill an app just as easily, no?

http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/06/exercising-our-remote-application.html

seo
Online Film zle
Seo Turkiye
ahin K Günah Keçisi
Black Hat Seo Teknikleri

seo
Online Film zle
Seo Turkiye
ahin K Günah Keçisi
Black Hat Seo Teknikleri

seo
Online Film zle
Seo Turkiye
ahin K Günah Keçisi
Black Hat Seo Teknikleri

seo
Online Film zle
Seo Turkiye
ahin K Günah Keçisi
Black Hat Seo Teknikleri

Here is a link that explains the whole discovery process much better:

http://esciencecommons.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-theories-reveal-nature-of-numbers.html

Mutt Cutts?

That said, the stupidest thing of all would be for Google to continue to rely solely on Java for Android while C++ is significantly more efficient and significantly less of a patent minefield. Of course there are stupid people at Google, or more accurately, people who consistently do stupid things for whatever reason (as far as I'm concerned, a stupid person) and it comes down to, who calls the shots and how stupid is he?

IMO, using Java and Linux was a brilliant strategy to get Android off the ground quickly and to have a critical mass of experienced developers from the start. However, now that it's established, Google can begin damping down the significance of Java and allow it to be more language neutral.

Movement away from total reliance on Java (or the Dalvik JVM) is already underway. It is (as of 2.3 - Gingerbread) possible to implement apps completely in C/C++ without writing any Java. http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2011/01/gingerbread-ndk-awesomeness.html

We are also beginning to see ports of Python, Ruby and other languages to the Android platform. Since Android is open, all of this is possible which is a major distinguishing factor from iOS.

1) Don't think you've escaped DOC. OOXML has binary blobs in it. And "corner cases" is way understating the semantics problem; in many cases it is defined to "do what Word XXX does". Um, right.

2) HTML and CSS are tiny, elegant and well defined standards compared to the towering crapheap that is OOXML.

But what if borrowing leads to more growth that pays off the debt? What if cutting spending in a depression lowers economic activity and therefore tax revenues? What if interest rates are low enough to make it non-sensical to pay more than the bare minimum?

"If." What makes you think the current US government action falls in that category? As I see it, they've spent some amount over three trillion dollars (fed's "quantitative easing" plus TARP/ARRA plus whatever else that's been done over the past couple of years). There hasn't been any obvious economic boost from that. Instead, we see a much slower recovery than usual for a recession and high, prolonged unemployment much like the early 90s "jobless recovery".

Your model may work for a household, but not a government.

Why? I think this is a fundamental political issue in the US today. In particular, it seems a key assumption of the Tea Party movement that government interactions with its citizens should be like personal interactions. That is, there should be things like fiscal discipline, voluntary contracts (that is, government shouldn't be forcing you to do stuff), and of course, taxation with representation (you should have a say in what you pay for).

Against this, we have balanced the argument that government can't be treated this way, using Keynesian-like arguments. As I hint above, I don't see your argument having weight since the outcome hasn't been impressive. Sure, the US financial system hasn't fallen apart. But neither has it recovered. And a lot of the US government actions have run counter to recovery. For example, Obamacare (for example, extending employer-paid health benefits for recently laid off workers to 18 months from 6 months or the overall rise in health insurance costs as a consequence of the new law) or the attempts to halt off-shore drilling.

One wonders what would have happened, if the Fed hadn't continued to double down on its loan purchases from weak banks (will reach almost $3 trillion by the middle of the Summer!) and Bernanke had said something like:

During a boom, waste and inefficiency creep in naturally. It's hard not to believe that recession does a lot of business a lot of good.

When uploading to photo sharing sites - beware!
I just finished moving my photo collection OUT of the cloud and I have to say, getting my 33,000+ photos BACK from Flickr (which is relatively open, as cloud photo services go) was not an easy task.
Cloud photo storage is plagued by compression and data loss (picasa), by warrantless unrecoverable deletion (Flickr - of a paid account! and obviously - Facebook) and other reliability/survivability problems.

Personally, as an avid photographer, I can't sleep soundly unless my photos are backed up in at least three places, one of the offsite. I accomplish this using a local mirrored drive, and the great cloud backup service - crashplan.
A mirrored drive would be tricky in your case, but you could use a USB hard drive connected to a family member/friends always-on computer. Back up to that using either the crashplan client (which is free for such uses, and works great) or rsync, syncback or any other homebrew solution. Pair that with a cloud backup service, and you should be fine.

Most importantly, never relay on the cloud as your single backup strategy - the internet is full of horror stories of people who THOUGHT they had everything backed up in the cloud... a USB drive sitting at a friends place is much easier to verify.

There are more economical ways to travel than by private jet that still offer privacy.

Ignoring that, how about his multiple large houses and their enormous electricity bills?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/05/03/stunning-pictures-al-gores-new-9-million-mansion-media-totally-ignore
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/photos-al-goree-new-8875_n_579286.html#s91230&title=undefined
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/05/exclusive-estimate-carbon-footprint-of.html

Do we want him spending half is day rubbing shoulders with the public because of the negligible carbon footprint difference from his plane ride?

I don't know about you, but people who say "do as I say, not as I do" can get bent IMHO.

I see a lot of ad hominem in your post and zero worthwhile discussion.

Here, I'll give you some more to think about in return:

Larry Sanger on Wikipedia's anti-expert bias and culture via Kuro5hin.

Confession of a former wikipedia gamer (via Archive.org because his website no longer exists).

Journal of a former wikipedia admin - great stuff here documenting how "gaming the system" by non-admins and admins alike works, including how organized groups work very hard to ensure that they pick off or drive off those of differing opinions "one by one" to ensure that "consensus" can never change (see the "Lie #2: Nobody new ever comes to Wikipedia" section).

Cites and Insights carries a long history of articles on the subject.

The underlying flaw with Wikipedia is exactly as Jason Scott posited, your ungrounded ad hominem attacks notwithstanding. It is comprised primarily of, and run by, people who have created an alternate language, an alternate political scheme, and an insular and closed circle into which "breaking in" is a matter of proving that you can waste hours upon hours upon hours of time chasing "edit count", learning to speak the acronym-code, sucking up to the most abusive of people when they do something that anyone else objects to and calling for the objectors to be banned.

Once upon a time, Wikipedia had a bunch of "guilds." Most of them have been cleansed, but ancillary "subpages" remain and are still indexed. Shi'a Guild, Sunni Guild, Israeli Guild, Muslim Guild, Deletionist Guild, Preservationist Guild, Guild of Copy Editors, and on and on. You'll notice most of them have vanished, along with membership pages.

Do you think they actually vanished? No. But as per "WP:CANVAS", which forbids "organized" editing, they vanished from Wikipedia. Which is to say, nothing changed except that they now organize in private e-mail lists and IRC channels rather than out in the open. You can still see the same behavior to this day; hit an article one of them is "protecting", and you'll have the rest of the "guild" swarming you in minutes.

The same's true for Wikipedia admins - the more corrupt, the worse. The old Durova hit list affair hasn't slowed them down, because there are at least a dozen (probably more than 25) email lists just like it where administrators "coordinate" their actions behind the scenes. Page 2 of the article does a great job analyzing the paranoid-delusional aspects of a "committed" wikipedia-admin's personality and actions.

Plenty of former wikipedia admins have seen the light.

Second, you mentioned the “0.3C per decade” prediction from emission Scenario A, but you’ve repeatedly ignored Scenario B which Hansen himself called “more plausible” in 1988. [Dumb Scientist]

That’s great, but I’m not talking about Hansen88, but AR1, which focuses on Scenario A. It’s possible this was done to scare politicians into action, but when one reads it, the +0.3C increase appears to be the best guess. [ShakaUVM]

No, what you and Michaels are doing isn't "great" in any sense of the word. Again, by "summarizing" the IPCC AR1 WG1 report as though it only gave one scenario, you pulled a "Pat Michaels".

As I've explained ad nauseum, the dynamical nature of climate models means that evaluating a GCM ensemble requires comparing projected forcings to the actual forcings. In other words, each scenario is an "if-then" statement: "If greenhouse gas concentrations rise at rate X, then temperatures will rise at rate Y." You and Michaels not only chopped off the first part of that sentence, you both presented it as the only scenario... which "coincidentally" makes it seem like scientists are discrediting themselves by making bad predictions.

The correct approach is to open the AR1 to the Annex on page 333, and examine the rates of CO2 rise given in the top-left of figure A.3. Scenario "A" (BaU in that plot) only applies if CO2 levels exceed 400ppm by 2010, which hasn't happened. The top right graph also shows that methane rises to over 2000ppm in that scenario by 2010, and once again that hasn't happened either.

Just like in Hansen88, AR1's scenario B is the closest match to the actual forcings. That's not really surprising, considering that Hansen was a contributing author for sections 6 and 8, table 2.2 on p52 repeatedly references Hansen88's radiative forcings and corrects a typo on p9360 of Hansen88, and chapter 3 repeatedly references Hansen88. Unsurprisingly, the emissions scenarios used in both studies seem very similar.

I thought you'd be able to learn something from the eerie parallels between your mistake and Michaels's, but apparently I was wrong. Again.

Unlike many other scientists, I don't think Michaels is lying because his "rebuttal" seems to indicate that he's trying to draw conclusions based entirely on each scenario's legend, and that he doesn't understand the difference between dynamical and empirical models. If he thinks that climate models are empirical, it makes sense that he wouldn't understand the reason for making three different projections. In that case

Second, you mentioned the “0.3C per decade” prediction from emission Scenario A, but you’ve repeatedly ignored Scenario B which Hansen himself called “more plausible” in 1988. [Dumb Scientist]

That’s great, but I’m not talking about Hansen88, but AR1, which focuses on Scenario A. It’s possible this was done to scare politicians into action, but when one reads it, the +0.3C increase appears to be the best guess. [ShakaUVM]

No, what you and Michaels are doing isn't "great" in any sense of the word. Again, by "summarizing" the IPCC AR1 WG1 report as though it only gave one scenario, you pulled a "Pat Michaels".

As I've explained ad nauseum, the dynamical nature of climate models means that evaluating a GCM ensemble requires comparing projected forcings to the actual forcings. In other words, each scenario is an "if-then" statement: "If greenhouse gas concentrations rise at rate X, then temperatures will rise at rate Y." You and Michaels not only chopped off the first part of that sentence, you both presented it as the only scenario... which "coincidentally" makes it seem like scientists are discrediting themselves by making bad predictions.

The correct approach is to open the AR1 to the Annex on page 333, and examine the rates of CO2 rise given in the top-left of figure A.3. Scenario "A" (BaU in that plot) only applies if CO2 levels exceed 400ppm by 2010, which hasn't happened. The top right graph also shows that methane rises to over 2000ppm in that scenario by 2010, and once again that hasn't happened either.

Just like in Hansen88, AR1's scenario B is the closest match to the actual forcings. That's not really surprising, considering that Hansen was a contributing author for sections 6 and 8, table 2.2 on p52 repeatedly references Hansen88's radiative forcings and corrects a typo on p9360 of Hansen88, and chapter 3 repeatedly references Hansen88. Unsurprisingly, the emissions scenarios used in both studies seem very similar.

I thought you'd be able to learn something from the eerie parallels between your mistake and Michaels's, but apparently I was wrong. Again.

Unlike many other scientists, I don't think Michaels is lying because his "rebuttal" seems to indicate that he's trying to draw conclusions based entirely on each scenario's legend, and that he doesn't understand the difference between dynamical and empirical models. If he thinks that climate models are empirical, it makes sense that he wouldn't understand the reason for making three different projections. In that case

Second, you mentioned the “0.3C per decade” prediction from emission Scenario A, but you’ve repeatedly ignored Scenario B which Hansen himself called “more plausible” in 1988. [Dumb Scientist]

That’s great, but I’m not talking about Hansen88, but AR1, which focuses on Scenario A. It’s possible this was done to scare politicians into action, but when one reads it, the +0.3C increase appears to be the best guess. [ShakaUVM]

No, what you and Michaels are doing isn't "great" in any sense of the word. Again, by "summarizing" the IPCC AR1 WG1 report as though it only gave one scenario, you pulled a "Pat Michaels".

As I've explained ad nauseum, the dynamical nature of climate models means that evaluating a GCM ensemble requires comparing projected forcings to the actual forcings. In other words, each scenario is an "if-then" statement: "If greenhouse gas concentrations rise at rate X, then temperatures will rise at rate Y." You and Michaels not only chopped off the first part of that sentence, you both presented it as the only scenario... which "coincidentally" makes it seem like scientists are discrediting themselves by making bad predictions.

The correct approach is to open the AR1 to the Annex on page 333, and examine the rates of CO2 rise given in the top-left of figure A.3. Scenario "A" (BaU in that plot) only applies if CO2 levels exceed 400ppm by 2010, which hasn't happened. The top right graph also shows that methane rises to over 2000ppm in that scenario by 2010, and once again that hasn't happened either.

Just like in Hansen88, AR1's scenario B is the closest match to the actual forcings. That's not really surprising, considering that Hansen was a contributing author for sections 6 and 8, table 2.2 on p52 repeatedly references Hansen88's radiative forcings and corrects a typo on p9360 of Hansen88, and chapter 3 repeatedly references Hansen88. Unsurprisingly, the emissions scenarios used in both studies seem very similar.

I thought you'd be able to learn something from the eerie parallels between your mistake and Michaels's, but apparently I was wrong. Again.

Unlike many other scientists, I don't think Michaels is lying because his "rebuttal" seems to indicate that he's trying to draw conclusions based entirely on each scenario's legend, and that he doesn't understand the difference between dynamical and empirical models. If he thinks that climate models are empirical, it makes sense that he wouldn't understand the reason for making three different projections. In that case

... Depending on how puckish I’m feeling, climatology could or could not be a “science”. Science is defined by empirical observations, hypothesis generation, testing, and hypothesis confirmation or falsification. Climatology doesn’t meet up to this full set of requirements to be science, so it, like a lot of other fields, fall somewhere in the middle of the science divide. ... [ShakaUVM]

The last time you brought up this subject, I linked this similar exchange:

... Take the Big Bang. That takes a lot of faith to believe in a theory that has yet to actually be attempted - have we managed to run another big bang? ... [Brontosaurus]

That's not the way science works. In science, observations are compared to predictions, which are then used to modify the theory to make new predictions. There's no fundamental distinction between science performed in a lab like chemistry and science performed through telescopes like cosmology. (Or any other discipline like paleontology, forensic science or paleoclimatology, for that matter.) [Dumb Scientist]

But I actually like coby's version better:

In my experience, this claim is supported by the notion that wrt to earth's climate you can not run any controlled experiments and thereby falsify any hypotheses. No complete ocean-atmosphere system in the lab = impossibility of scientific experimentation = not a science. I think the only effective and direct rebuttal of that is listing all the other sciences that whomever is making this argument would have to likewise reject. Cosmology, astonomy, geology, evolutionary biology to get started, I'm sure the list would be very long. It is unlikely that you are arguing with a serious philosopher so they are not likely to like the direction their own argument logically takes them. [coby]

What's the root cause of this confusion?

Unique events can and do all the time (it's a consequence of the probabilistic nature of the universe). A unique event is simply one that we haven't observed before or since. Science can't deal with unique events, which are often the most interesting things to us. All scientific studies are uncertain to different degrees; as you stated, studies in physics are probably pretty reliable. ... [ShakaUVM]

Singular events. Science can't handle singular events very well, or not at all. ... It is fundamentally useless for knowledge about anything which cannot be reproduced ... The scientific method certainly doesn't deserve the religion-like attitude of worship Popper and many people on here seem to give it. [ShakaUVM]

Here's a good example of coby's point: despite the fact that cosmic inflation was a unique, singular event, your comments suggest that you aren't applying your definition of

* At sunlight, the Sun is the lighting's focus problem when there are mirrors reflecting surfaces that we wanna to see it. Consider it as a fake anomaly in the surfaces exposing unwanted sun-fucked images or pictures.

* At tonight, without moon, the HDR camera should grab ALL!!!

* At tonight, with moon, it's the same problem as the former (the Sun).

By ecologicyborg

http://ecologicyborg.blogspot.com/2010/10/los-futuros-computadores-ecologicos.html

1) Failed, http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-creates-640329-jobs-at-cost-of.html
2) Great
3) Failed, unconstitutional
4) Failed
5) Good, maybe http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/12/AR2011011205565.html
6) Failed
7) Failed
8) Failed
9) Good
10) Good
11) How about the biggest part of the US government, the banks? Failed
12) Failed

Believe is something you do before the fact. Since we're past all that, now we can judge. Please be more objective.

Chrome it up: an MSI installer and Group Policy support out of the box.

Seriously, I've lived in Australia all my life, and I can tell ya', there's always been sharks swimming in the streets!

Blimey, if I had a 2 dollar coin for every time I've seen a shark swimming in the streets, I'd be a billionaire! (1 billion AUD ~ 23,540 USD)

We got it all down here, land sharks, flying snakes, drop bears, bunyips, flys that bite, the worlds most poisonous spiders. Basically, if it's an animal that can kill you, we've got it. Crikey, we even import dangerous animals from other countries, just to make sure we've got 'em!

Land sharks? Phft! Nobodies ever died from a land shark!

Now drop bears, that's a lethal animal. I lost my father to a drop bear, came out of no where. R.I.P. Dad.

Neither HDR image or HDR video is silver bullet.

Photographers know very well the problem of the lighting focuses and the uncontrolled defocusing that will affect to the resulting images.

If this same problem is bad for 2D, it will be worst for 3D.

http://ecologicyborg.blogspot.com/2010/10/los-futuros-computadores-ecologicos.html

The "new guy being paid much more then the current veteran" is a well known phenomenon called "salary compression". Starting salary growth just outpaces yearly raise rates; so the longer you stay at one job the less you make vs a new hire.

http://hrfundablog.blogspot.com/2008/08/salary-compression-hr-nightmare.html

http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/compensation-salary/846727-1.html

Now when will we get Fake Larry Ellison? That guy is just a comedy goldmine. The often attributed, arrogance of Jobs, greedy, self-serving, with a sense of self-denial and a twinge of bat-shit insane.

We had him a few years ago: http://fakelarryellison.blogspot.com/

http://fakelarryellison.blogspot.com/

That is a very small chance. But there are other things that might happen with worse results. Other, more likely results are things like the Moon does have liquid core. What happens if you hit a magma vein in the Moon? Possibly something like Saturns moon Enceladus which spews out what appears to be something like water. But in the our Moons case your looking more at a volcano that could spew magma and that is unknown when it will stop since there is such low gravity. This could cause things like ash to blow over the Earth, possibly enter the atmosphere or other negative side effects (like lava rocks hitting satellites). As well as the fact the a volcano on the Moon might cause it to shift orbit due to the gravity (like a jet engine, depending on the pressure and size of the volcano), if the Moon shifts orbit this can cause many major issues here on Earth. Another fact is that the Moon appears to possess light elements like sulphur and oxygen, which are both flammable. Hit a pocket of the two under the surface and your looking at issues similar to a gas pocket when oil drilling except without gravity the typical solutions might not work causing unknown effects.

http://gdblather.blogspot.com/2010/05/us-debt-and-us-presidents.html

Sorry. Old argument. Next.

with these new tools, applications targeted at Gingerbread or later can be implemented entirely in C++; you can now build an entire Android application without writing a single line of Java.

http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2011/01/gingerbread-ndk-awesomeness.html

This feat is even more amazing than we first thought considering
all
Chinese
people
look
alike.

Definitely not one of the biggest, but after I used photos of a Lego Technic model to demonstrate the functioning of the Falkirk Wheel's caissons, some wank at the BBC got the idea that Lego was used in the design of the Wheel. They reported this in a retrospective on Lego sometime after the original model/description was removed from the Falkirk Wheel page, and this BBC story was then cited to claim that Lego had been used in the design of the wheel!

Most of it is gone from the Wikipedia page, but I go over the various edits in a blog post.

- RG>

Now there is spin that Andy killed kin to put all the wood behind Windows Phone 7. Er, the guy was in charge for two years of Kin development. He could have made this decision far earlier.

Similarly Windows Phone 7 has two years of development under his watch. Based on his past performance, 99% chance this is also going to be a total catastrophe. It further doesn't help that much of the Windows Phone 7 leadership team was kicked out of Windows when they screwed up Vista.

It sounds to me that Kin and Windows Phone 7 were completely separate products from different groups.

You mean like when I added print server functionality to my existing Cisco/Linksys NAS 200 by installing CUPS and usblp on it instead of buying a separate print server?

Yeah, you're right. ;)

alot of money?

IT World needs to sanitize their comments. The only comment on the page currently refreshes the page to http://swift-cars-insurance.blogspot.com/. It looks like it's a harmless enough advertizement, though I'm on Google Chrome on Linux, so I'm not sure if it's hosting malware. The comment section source code on IT World is as such:

<div class="comment content_item">
<h3>(No subject)</h3>
<META http-equiv="refresh" content="2;URL=http://swift-cars-insurance.blogspot.com/">
<div class="content_item_info">
<span class="byline">
by Anonymous (not verified) on 1/16/11 at 7:13 am </span>
<span class="separator">|</span>
<a href="/comment/reply/133630/76642">reply</a> <span class="separator">|</span> <a href="/forward/133630">Email this page</a> <span class="separator">|</span> <a href="/print/133630">Printer-friendly version</a>
</div>
</div>

I might try reporting the comment to It World and the blog to Blogspot.

Wikipedia has the nofollow attribute on all of its external links *, so the Google's pagerank would not be affected. **

Really? Americans sold them fully automatic AKs and hand grenades?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mmBw3uzPnJI/TDL6TdwOQuI/AAAAAAABaVU/B1QMkH2PuQw/s1600/weapons_of_mexican_drug_cartel_17.jpg
http://www.deseretnews.com/photos/midres/874557.jpg

Those RPG's came from the US?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mmBw3uzPnJI/TDL5zWaiA5I/AAAAAAABaT0/cpJghwohg9c/s1600/weapons_of_mexican_drug_cartel_29.jpg
http://ppjg.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/picture5.jpg

That M60 was probably made in the US, but sure as fuck didn't come to cartel hands thru Texas!
http://stylemens.typepad.com/details__details/images/2008/11/17/power10.jpg

M1919 wow!
http://img.breitbart.com/images/2009/4/14/ap-p/9d90422f-c905-457a-8e1a-3f3d9f401f9f.jpg

The argument that all those firearms comes from the US is a red herring from Mexico to place blame on the US, which anti-gunners, the media, and power-hungry politicians latched onto like rabid dogs.

On one hand you have South America which has been at the center of cold-war proxy wars for decades with all kinds of ordanance.... on the other hand, maybe cartels prefer semi-auto rifles and revolvers for twice the price?

Think critically some time.

Besides, where the hell do you get something like THIS in the US?
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Mexican-Drug-Lord-Guns-Diamonds-5.jpg

Really? Americans sold them fully automatic AKs and hand grenades?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mmBw3uzPnJI/TDL6TdwOQuI/AAAAAAABaVU/B1QMkH2PuQw/s1600/weapons_of_mexican_drug_cartel_17.jpg
http://www.deseretnews.com/photos/midres/874557.jpg

Those RPG's came from the US?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mmBw3uzPnJI/TDL5zWaiA5I/AAAAAAABaT0/cpJghwohg9c/s1600/weapons_of_mexican_drug_cartel_29.jpg
http://ppjg.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/picture5.jpg

That M60 was probably made in the US, but sure as fuck didn't come to cartel hands thru Texas!
http://stylemens.typepad.com/details__details/images/2008/11/17/power10.jpg

M1919 wow!
http://img.breitbart.com/images/2009/4/14/ap-p/9d90422f-c905-457a-8e1a-3f3d9f401f9f.jpg

The argument that all those firearms comes from the US is a red herring from Mexico to place blame on the US, which anti-gunners, the media, and power-hungry politicians latched onto like rabid dogs.

On one hand you have South America which has been at the center of cold-war proxy wars for decades with all kinds of ordanance.... on the other hand, maybe cartels prefer semi-auto rifles and revolvers for twice the price?

Think critically some time.

Besides, where the hell do you get something like THIS in the US?
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Mexican-Drug-Lord-Guns-Diamonds-5.jpg

Surely you mean a gelatin treet.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XU9x8G7khv0/SiAMzyk0yWI/AAAAAAAAEfY/01fomZ26eRk/s400/treet_l.jpg

probably dead.

"I am Bulgarian... I read his self-proclaimed security researches and I find nothing interesting in them." - by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 14, @10:44PM (#34886754)

Then you didn't read them closely, or you didn't know HOW to apply the material he was putting out!

E.G.-> His articles on malware or malscripted sites were EXTREMELY USEFUL to myself & others!

For myself, his articles' material was great for my populating a custom HOSTS file with blocked off entries vs. known bad sites/servers his articles put data out for, & I used it, for fortifying my systems' HOSTS file vs. said known bad sites &/or servers his articles listed for 3++ yrs. online here:

http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/

I.E.-> It was so good, that I even listed that for others to use in a security guide I did for users of Microsoft's Windows Operating systems, here:

http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/thread-3511888-8.php

In my last post there (& on the 15 other forums that SAME guide for securing Windows I wrote is featured on)...

APK

P.S.=>

"First of all I had a long history working with Bulgarian ISPs and Bulgarian authorities and I have never heard of him." - by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 14, @10:44PM (#34886754)

Then you must not have been working with them from a SECURITY PERSPECTIVE then, because Mr. Danchev's site was a good source for data on various botnets, &/or known bad host/domain names, which is useful not only in HOSTS files as I used said data for, but also for DNS Block Lists &/or Firewall rules tables!

Additionally/lastly - Sure, there are other sites like it, & I use 8 more in total for my purposes (I can list them IF you wish, I have here on /. before), but his data was different usually from theirs, so I used it also... apk

"He's been researching cyber jihadists for 3 years. Those guys don't normally disappear their enemies, bombs are more their style" - by kiore (734594) on Friday January 14, @08:29PM (#34886096) Homepage

Per my subject-line above: I used his page @ ZDNet for that ENTIRE 3 yrs. in populating a custom HOSTS file here vs. known bad sites/servers:

http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/

As proof of that statement, I even cited that page as one of my MAIN sources for that type of data, here:

http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/thread-3511888-8.php

In my last post of a security guide I did years ago for PC users of Microsoft Windows Operating Systems, which was about how & why to use custom HOSTS files for defense against malware etc..

One day, the article series was no longer updating & I figured:

"Ok, the guy has done this for the last 3 yrs. now, & either his contract is up, or he's onto other things... too bad - was a great article series & VERY informative!"

Was all, from MY end of things as one of the readers of his articles' series on malware. I guess that's not all there was to that... "mystery solved" from MY end @ least - but not on his end...

In any event - He did a 1st class job of an article series on malware making sites/sites that "bushwhack" users, & what you could do about them (one was is my method of placing the article data on hosts/domain names of known bad sites/servers into a custom HOSTS file (to wall off known bad sites &/or servers from infecting you)).

APK

P.S.=> I just truly hope the guy's ok... apk

Perhaps they feel, as I do, that the punishment is out of proportion with the crime.

Remember the "Disproportionate Response" episode of The West Wing?

Bartlet: But they know we are going to do that, they know we are going to do that. Those areas have been abandoned for days. We know that from the satellites. We have the intelligence. They did that, so we do this. It's the cost of doing business, it's been factored in, right? Am I right or am I missing something here?
Fitzwallace: No sir, you're right sir.
Bartlet: Then I ask again, what is the virtue of a proportional response?
Fitzwallace: It isn't virtuous Mr. President, it's all there is sir.
Bartlet: It is not all there is.
Fitzwallace: Pardon me, Mr. President, just what else is there?
Bartlet: A disproportionate response. Let the word ring forth from this time and this place, you kill an American, any American, we don't come back with a proportional response, we come back with total disaster!
Unnamed General: Are you suggesting we carpet bomb Damascus?
Bartlet: General, I am suggesting that you and Admiral Fitzwallace and Secretary Hutchinson and the rest of the national security team take the next sixty minutes and put together a U.S. response scenario that doesn't make me think we are just docking somebody's damn allowance.

(Dialogue lifted from http://intelcarpet.blogspot.com/2008/12/disproportionate-response.html)

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2009/05/antony-watts-and-surface-stations-wait.html

However per http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66K6BX20100721 [reuters.com]
(Reuters) - A municipal manager in California who makes nearly $800,000 a year working for a small, poor city could draw pension payments exceeding $30 million in retirement, according to an activist who has been calling for an overhaul of the state's public pension system.

So there's a news article that claims that someone with an overt bias and incentive to distort claims, without any identified basis, that a particular thing is possible without identifying the frequency with which it occurs or even any concrete examples.

I'm less than impressed. There is no reason provided to believe that the claim is accurate, and no basis for assigning any particular significance to it even if one assumes it is exactly accurate as written (that is, it is under some combination of duration of employment, age, and lifespan after retirement factors possible for someone working at that salary to attain such a total retirement benefit.)

[In fact, since CalPERS pensions are usually annuity, if you assume a long enough lifespan, anyone drawing even the most minimal retirement can, in theory, attain any arbitrarily large total of retirement benefits.]

Per here:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/10/california-pension-promises-exceed-550.html [blogspot.com]
In 2009, the pension liability came out to $3,000 per working-age adult in the state. By 2014, it will triple to over $10,000 per working-age Californian.

And...so? Its not an unfunded liability -- most pensions in the systems are funded out of funds already deposited on behalf of the employee (the employee and employer share varies between public employers, and between bargaining units and other groupsing within those employers, that participate in CalPERS.)

The comparison made in that blog of total pension liability to number of current taxpayers (or to current tax receipts) is completely irrelevant. Total pension liabilities to the total assets in the retirement funds would be a more relevant comparison.

(Though, really, to do policy, you need to assess the health of the particular funds within the retirement systems, since even the main systems, CalPERS, has a large number of defined benefit and defined contribution retirement funds which are separate funds with separate policies set in law -- e.g., most of the independent funds are paid out of prior contributions, but, e.g., the Judicial Retirement Fund [the older of two defined-benefit judicial pension plans, and one that is not open to new members] is done on a pay-as-you-go basis out of current contributions and State General Fund augmentation.)

For some reason I can't find a simple 2010 total pension payments.

CalPERS -- like the rest of the State of California -- runs on a July-June fiscal year. The reports for each fiscal year are dated mid-December following the end of the year following. They are actually released online somewhat later than that.

But, with a 500 BILLION dollar deficit, I'm betting the pensions do not add up to 1.4billion your figures suggest.

There is no $500 billion dollar deficit. Even if you assume the entire population of the State is working age, and use the $10,000 per working age Californian figure your source suggests total pension liabilities will grow to in 2014, the total pension liability (not a deficit) of 41 million (California's projected 2014 population) times $10,000 -- or 410 billion. Obviously, that overstates even what that source claims (since the working age population will be significantly smaller than the total population), but its enough to demonstrate that your own sources projection of the total liabil

now that is awesome, thanks for the heads-up.

http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2011/01/gingerbread-ndk-awesomeness.html

Assuming only 100,000 even, that 2% is 91 million dollars.

Using your numbers, the other 98% consume 1,335,4756,800 (1.3 billion).

So even as a tiny 2% and artificially limited to $100,000 , they take about 7% of the total benefits. they probably get more like 10% of the benefits.

However per http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66K6BX20100721
(Reuters) - A municipal manager in California who makes nearly $800,000 a year working for a small, poor city could draw pension payments exceeding $30 million in retirement, according to an activist who has been calling for an overhaul of the state's public pension system.

Per here:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/10/california-pension-promises-exceed-550.html
In 2009, the pension liability came out to $3,000 per working-age adult in the state. By 2014, it will triple to over $10,000 per working-age Californian.

For some reason I can't find a simple 2010 total pension payments. Anyone???
But, with a 500 BILLION dollar deficit, I'm betting the pensions do not add up to 1.4billion your figures suggest.

I'm all for limiting the top pensions to $50,000. That would probably instantly preserve the pension system.

People are going to move rather than face $10,000 per worker taxes to support the current pension obligations.

Plug-ins make it possible to do other things. Consider something like "chatzilla" which extends firefox's capabilities to that of a functioning IRC client. As a matter of fact, a friend of mine uses firefox solely for its chatzilla functionality because she turned to the "faster" Chrome browser for day-to-day web surfing

Though that is anecdotal evidence, but a little digging of this same survey data (by Firefox 4 beta testers) suggests that a surprisingly large fraction of non-Firefox users who are beta testing Firefox 4 are Chrome users.

why did the BMJ pay Brian Deer to attack Wakefield

Points out that this is nothing new (true, but not widely known which is a good reason for a popularising item). And states "I strongly suspect that if there was enough evidence to make the fraud accusations stick that it would have been brought up at the GMC hearing" -- but as far as I can see that wasn't the subject of the GMC hearing, which was about Wakefield's unauthorised medical experimentation on infants..

Who funded Brian Deer

Doesn't seem to understand how freelancers can get paid if they are not on the staff.

Brian Deer’s Conflict of Interests

Claims that Deer had a conflict of interest and tha the BMJ didn't do proper checking of that, but doesn't say what the conflict of interest was or point to any evidence.

Dr Wakefield's Submission to the UK Press Complaints Commission

Wakefield's complain to the Press Complaints Commision, which the PCC suspended pending the GMC hearing and which Wakefield did not pursue after the GMC struck him off the medical register.

Andrew, is that you?

why did the BMJ pay Brian Deer to attack Wakefield

Who funded Brian Deer

Brian Deer’s Conflict of Interests

Dr Wakefield's Submission to the UK Press Complaints Commission