Slashdot Mirror

Just post your FLAC audio here:
http://www.google.com/speech-a...

Now you have transcribed audio. It might not be perfect, but it can get you a dataset.

Here's an example:
Google+ Account suspended so now they can't use Youtube (really an unrelated service).

https://productforums.google.c...

The more services tied to your google+ account, the greater the risk of it being suspended.

https://productforums.google.c...

My Google Wallet account was suspended today. Google Support tells me that my account won't be reinstated, due to violations of terms of service. They won't tell me specifically what I violated, and refuse to acknowledge my questions. I've used GMAIL for over 10 years. 2004 I signed up for the BETA for my first Google account. Today I'm suspended. I don't even care about the Wallet honestly, I just care about the Play Store. I can no longer purchase applications from the Play Store. With Wallet suspended, how can I even use my Android device now? This is insane.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
From a Google VP.. while google+ suspensions only effect services requiring a google+ account, he goes on to say "Of course there are other Google-wide policies (e.g. egregious spamming, illegal activity, etc) that do apply to all Google products, and violations of these policies could in fact lead to a Google-wide suspension."

That's a big 'etc."

Here's an example:
Google+ Account suspended so now they can't use Youtube (really an unrelated service).

https://productforums.google.c...

The more services tied to your google+ account, the greater the risk of it being suspended.

https://productforums.google.c...

My Google Wallet account was suspended today. Google Support tells me that my account won't be reinstated, due to violations of terms of service. They won't tell me specifically what I violated, and refuse to acknowledge my questions. I've used GMAIL for over 10 years. 2004 I signed up for the BETA for my first Google account. Today I'm suspended. I don't even care about the Wallet honestly, I just care about the Play Store. I can no longer purchase applications from the Play Store. With Wallet suspended, how can I even use my Android device now? This is insane.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
From a Google VP.. while google+ suspensions only effect services requiring a google+ account, he goes on to say "Of course there are other Google-wide policies (e.g. egregious spamming, illegal activity, etc) that do apply to all Google products, and violations of these policies could in fact lead to a Google-wide suspension."

That's a big 'etc."

How well does Linux run applications from 1996?

The Linux kernel it still runs binaries from 1992. The Linux kernel team is obsessive about backwards compatibility, and more than one of Linus' rants was at someone who broke it.

Some of the higher-level libraries don't have the same commitment, but you can still run things written for Motif.

The only purpose I could see for wanting FF on iOS that has to use WebKit and doesn't support native content blockers would be syncing bookmarks. You can sync bookmarks from FF or Chrome for Windows by using Apple's iCloud extension for Chrome and FF.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

https://chrome.google.com/webs...

My bookmarks are synced between FF and Chrome for Windows, Safari for iOS and Chrome for iOS.

There are plenty of tools that automate the process. I recently did a fresh install to clean out my system and used ShutUp10 but it's far from the only one.

OSX is not within a "walled garden", but I suppose there's no need to let facts like that get in the way of a good story.

OSX beats windows. Apple hardware lacks upgradeability. I can't see how either position can be argued against, unless you've really got a thing about minesweeper.

Oh. Wait.

That title definitely makes this book sound like it takes a balanced and objective viewpoint of the situation, with both sides of the argument covered.

There seems to be a cultural shift in recent decades where you can't make a clear argument any more.

This starts with journalism, where "balanced reporting" initially meant that news organizations couldn't show only one side of a controversial issue (abortion, roughly 50% of Americans on one side or the other), and has progressed to where "balanced" journalism includes giving equal air time to climate change deniers (less than 3% of scientists), ESP and paranormal believers, and other completely fringe views.

To be completely fair, about 40% of Americans believe in Creationism, so it's probably OK that this gets equal billing. The point isn't about the beliefs per-se, it's about journalists unwilling to choose a side. Equal billing tends to prop up failing modes of thought.

I've read numerous books and papers that posit a claim and then cite evidence to support that claim... I *thought* that's how science debate worked. For example, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind does precisely this: establish a point, then bolster it with reams and reams (well, one ream - 512 pages) of evidence.

Why does someone with a position to argue need to lay out both sides of an argument?

That's not how human perception works. We rely on experts to sort through the information we don't have time or expertise to deal with.

What's wrong with making a clear point in a book tagline?

That title definitely makes this book sound like it takes a balanced and objective viewpoint of the situation, with both sides of the argument covered.

There seems to be a cultural shift in recent decades where you can't make a clear argument any more.

This starts with journalism, where "balanced reporting" initially meant that news organizations couldn't show only one side of a controversial issue (abortion, roughly 50% of Americans on one side or the other), and has progressed to where "balanced" journalism includes giving equal air time to climate change deniers (less than 3% of scientists), ESP and paranormal believers, and other completely fringe views.

To be completely fair, about 40% of Americans believe in Creationism, so it's probably OK that this gets equal billing. The point isn't about the beliefs per-se, it's about journalists unwilling to choose a side. Equal billing tends to prop up failing modes of thought.

I've read numerous books and papers that posit a claim and then cite evidence to support that claim... I *thought* that's how science debate worked. For example, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind does precisely this: establish a point, then bolster it with reams and reams (well, one ream - 512 pages) of evidence.

Why does someone with a position to argue need to lay out both sides of an argument?

That's not how human perception works. We rely on experts to sort through the information we don't have time or expertise to deal with.

What's wrong with making a clear point in a book tagline?

If you want a chrome rendering engine for an android app, why not use WebView? It's included in Android so you don't need to distribute it.

So you would prefer a humanity where it is the norm to hack each other with swords to the point of serious injury and even death.

That would be the humanity that currently exists, so yes, I prefer the reality to some non-existent fantasy.

I have at least half a dozen sword scars. All over the world people are being hacked to death every day. In Africa and Asia, machetes are popular.

Well I have news for you sunshine: there's a lot of people out there who are of a slightly less Hobbesian bent.

I guess if you're living the ivory tower life, you can ignore all the people scrabbling to survive that actually provide your gadgets and candy, and call your ignorance philosophy.

A favorite band of mine was in a similar situation.

They ended up releasing the song just as they were about to break up, and the publishing company also went out of business about the same time.

The end result was like yours but in reverse: impossible to track down anyone to sue.

And even supposing you did get permission from the legal rights holder, that does not indemnify you from lawsuits.

https://news.google.com/newspa...

Basically, make the cluster-fuck of copyright law work for you.

have you seen the price of eel? I'm all in favor of a hovercraft full of 'em.

From Google:

abuse
verb
1. use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse. "the judge abused his power by imposing the fines"
synonyms: misuse, misapply, misemploy
exploit, take advantage of "the judge abused his power"
make excessive and habitual use of (alcohol or drugs, especially illegal ones).
2. treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly. "riders who abuse their horses should be prosecuted"
synonyms: mistreat, maltreat, ill-treat, treat badly

You're abusing the word "abuse". You should try this word instead:

use
verb
1. take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result; employ. "she used her key to open the front door"
synonyms: utilize, make use of, avail oneself of, employ, work, operate, wield, ply, apply, maneuver, manipulate, put to use, put/press into service

People who are told that something is unlimited should be able to use their service without artificial limits placed on it by the service provider. Naturally, there are always technical limits, but that's not what was understood to be "unlimited". Only the provider-enforced limits were understood to be under that "unlimited" banner.

The providers are 100% in the wrong here. No question. And if you agree with them, you're wrong too.

From Google:

abuse
verb
1. use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse. "the judge abused his power by imposing the fines"
synonyms: misuse, misapply, misemploy
exploit, take advantage of "the judge abused his power"
make excessive and habitual use of (alcohol or drugs, especially illegal ones).
2. treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly. "riders who abuse their horses should be prosecuted"
synonyms: mistreat, maltreat, ill-treat, treat badly

You're abusing the word "abuse". You should try this word instead:

use
verb
1. take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result; employ. "she used her key to open the front door"
synonyms: utilize, make use of, avail oneself of, employ, work, operate, wield, ply, apply, maneuver, manipulate, put to use, put/press into service

People who are told that something is unlimited should be able to use their service without artificial limits placed on it by the service provider. Naturally, there are always technical limits, but that's not what was understood to be "unlimited". Only the provider-enforced limits were understood to be under that "unlimited" banner.

The providers are 100% in the wrong here. No question. And if you agree with them, you're wrong too.

Thanks for the compliment, AC. Perhaps I can do the same for you some day.

But let's analyze the case (if any) for power satellites. Electricity is a commodity; like all commodities you have to be competitive on price if you want a significant market share. That means you want to undercut electricity from coal at around 4 cents per kWh. If you set 75% of coal (3 cents per kWh) as the target, then you can back calculate how much you can spend for a levelized cost of electricity of three cents. For generally accepted life and discount rates that's about $2400/kW.

The mass for ground based solar power is around 500 kg/kW. This article, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/i..., make a case for 6.5 kg/kW. Not having to support the collectors against gravity and wind, plus the near 24 hr sunlight cuts the mass to about 1%. Parts and the rectenna are currently estimated at around $1100/kW, leaving $1300/kW for transport cost. If we can't get the mass lower than 6.5 kg/kW, then the cost of lifting the power sats to GEO can't exceed $200/kg. At high flight rates, Reaction Engines thinks the cost will get to $120/kg. Electric propulsion from GEO to LEO powered by 25 GHz microwave beams in the hundreds of MW, looks like it will cost under $80/kg.

This article goes into the transport cost analysis. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl...

It was peer reviewed.

If you don't have easy library access, there is a preprint here:

https://drive.google.com/file/...

AC, if you would like to be anything but a blowhard, go through the documents and see if you can find fault with them.

Global warming pause Is now such a widely understood concept that even the IPCC talks about it.

If you want to really understand things, you have to stop being a closed minded denier of data.

Well, since numerous sources have indicated that they think you are malware, perhaps you should release the source code to demonstrate your trustworthiness, unless you really do distribute malware, in which case, feel free to not publish the source code.

http://www.spywaredb.com/remov...

https://www.google.com/search?...

Here are numerous experts marking a piece of your software as malware, prove them wrong.

That does pretty adequately define the word denial: "the action of declaring something to be untrue."

I wouldn't be surprised if you aren't even lying, you could be plausible deniability bait.

That would imply there's someone else behind the scenes, hidden from me and subverting my work. But there's simply no room for that to be true.

Which still wouldn't imply that I or many others believe you.

Sure, you can just believe that I'm lying. But that's only possible because you don't know me.

I mean, why wouldn't Google do this? Seems this design is coming out about the same time as more people are becoming savvy to the invasion of trackers, and maladware and are installing software to get around the practice.

There are many, many reasons why Google wouldn't want to. Included among them is the fact that both the founders and a large percentage of the employees would rebel for both moral and business reasons (though, honestly, the moral reasons are more important). Google has never been particularly comfortable with advertising. Larry and Sergey refused to do it for the first portion of Google's history, until they hit on the idea of using small, text-only ads that were relevant to the search terms and therefore might actually be of use to users.

Any group I was involved in, especially the one who is the biggest player in monetizing users internet habits, would want to preserve their cash cow, and work at ways to defeat the tracking

So how do you square that view of Google with the fact that the company provides users with tools to opt out of analytics and targeted advertising, and makes no attempt to defeat ad blockers, or even remove them from the Google-provided stores? Tracking users is useless if you can't show them ads (and don't sell user information to others, which Google doesn't do).

Seriously, Google does not want to track you without your permission. Google does want to offer you services that are so compelling that you think giving that permission is a good trade. But if you don't want to make that trade, you should be able to opt out, because tricking, coercing or screwing your customers is bad business. So Google will not only let you, but help you opt out, if that's what you want -- while still allowing you to use Google's services!

And "ethics" doesn't cut it as an excuse.

To decent people ethics is a reason, not an excuse. Which doesn't mean the company never does anything wrong; it's a big company these days, and people do screw up sometimes (e.g. StreetView Wifi, Safari settings workaround, Buzz auto-friending... and that's pretty much it.). But Google has learned from those screwups and is considerably more careful these days.

Oh, that reminds me of one really clear reason that Google wouldn't do this: The 20-year consent decree that Google signed with the Federal Trade Commission that includes regular external audits of Google's privacy practices, with big, sharp teeth via both direct fines and punishments and negative PR should Google ever fail.

I wouldn't be surprised if you aren't even lying, you could be plausible deniability bait.

That would imply there's someone else behind the scenes, hidden from me and subverting my work. But there's simply no room for that to be true.

Which still wouldn't imply that I or many others believe you.

Sure, you can just believe that I'm lying. But that's only possible because you don't know me.

I mean, why wouldn't Google do this? Seems this design is coming out about the same time as more people are becoming savvy to the invasion of trackers, and maladware and are installing software to get around the practice.

There are many, many reasons why Google wouldn't want to. Included among them is the fact that both the founders and a large percentage of the employees would rebel for both moral and business reasons (though, honestly, the moral reasons are more important). Google has never been particularly comfortable with advertising. Larry and Sergey refused to do it for the first portion of Google's history, until they hit on the idea of using small, text-only ads that were relevant to the search terms and therefore might actually be of use to users.

Any group I was involved in, especially the one who is the biggest player in monetizing users internet habits, would want to preserve their cash cow, and work at ways to defeat the tracking

So how do you square that view of Google with the fact that the company provides users with tools to opt out of analytics and targeted advertising, and makes no attempt to defeat ad blockers, or even remove them from the Google-provided stores? Tracking users is useless if you can't show them ads (and don't sell user information to others, which Google doesn't do).

Seriously, Google does not want to track you without your permission. Google does want to offer you services that are so compelling that you think giving that permission is a good trade. But if you don't want to make that trade, you should be able to opt out, because tricking, coercing or screwing your customers is bad business. So Google will not only let you, but help you opt out, if that's what you want -- while still allowing you to use Google's services!

And "ethics" doesn't cut it as an excuse.

To decent people ethics is a reason, not an excuse. Which doesn't mean the company never does anything wrong; it's a big company these days, and people do screw up sometimes (e.g. StreetView Wifi, Safari settings workaround, Buzz auto-friending... and that's pretty much it.). But Google has learned from those screwups and is considerably more careful these days.

Oh, that reminds me of one really clear reason that Google wouldn't do this: The 20-year consent decree that Google signed with the Federal Trade Commission that includes regular external audits of Google's privacy practices, with big, sharp teeth via both direct fines and punishments and negative PR should Google ever fail.

I wouldn't be surprised if you aren't even lying, you could be plausible deniability bait.

That would imply there's someone else behind the scenes, hidden from me and subverting my work. But there's simply no room for that to be true.

Which still wouldn't imply that I or many others believe you.

Sure, you can just believe that I'm lying. But that's only possible because you don't know me.

I mean, why wouldn't Google do this? Seems this design is coming out about the same time as more people are becoming savvy to the invasion of trackers, and maladware and are installing software to get around the practice.

There are many, many reasons why Google wouldn't want to. Included among them is the fact that both the founders and a large percentage of the employees would rebel for both moral and business reasons (though, honestly, the moral reasons are more important). Google has never been particularly comfortable with advertising. Larry and Sergey refused to do it for the first portion of Google's history, until they hit on the idea of using small, text-only ads that were relevant to the search terms and therefore might actually be of use to users.

Any group I was involved in, especially the one who is the biggest player in monetizing users internet habits, would want to preserve their cash cow, and work at ways to defeat the tracking

So how do you square that view of Google with the fact that the company provides users with tools to opt out of analytics and targeted advertising, and makes no attempt to defeat ad blockers, or even remove them from the Google-provided stores? Tracking users is useless if you can't show them ads (and don't sell user information to others, which Google doesn't do).

Seriously, Google does not want to track you without your permission. Google does want to offer you services that are so compelling that you think giving that permission is a good trade. But if you don't want to make that trade, you should be able to opt out, because tricking, coercing or screwing your customers is bad business. So Google will not only let you, but help you opt out, if that's what you want -- while still allowing you to use Google's services!

And "ethics" doesn't cut it as an excuse.

To decent people ethics is a reason, not an excuse. Which doesn't mean the company never does anything wrong; it's a big company these days, and people do screw up sometimes (e.g. StreetView Wifi, Safari settings workaround, Buzz auto-friending... and that's pretty much it.). But Google has learned from those screwups and is considerably more careful these days.

Oh, that reminds me of one really clear reason that Google wouldn't do this: The 20-year consent decree that Google signed with the Federal Trade Commission that includes regular external audits of Google's privacy practices, with big, sharp teeth via both direct fines and punishments and negative PR should Google ever fail.

I wouldn't be surprised if you aren't even lying, you could be plausible deniability bait.

That would imply there's someone else behind the scenes, hidden from me and subverting my work. But there's simply no room for that to be true.

Which still wouldn't imply that I or many others believe you.

Sure, you can just believe that I'm lying. But that's only possible because you don't know me.

I mean, why wouldn't Google do this? Seems this design is coming out about the same time as more people are becoming savvy to the invasion of trackers, and maladware and are installing software to get around the practice.

There are many, many reasons why Google wouldn't want to. Included among them is the fact that both the founders and a large percentage of the employees would rebel for both moral and business reasons (though, honestly, the moral reasons are more important). Google has never been particularly comfortable with advertising. Larry and Sergey refused to do it for the first portion of Google's history, until they hit on the idea of using small, text-only ads that were relevant to the search terms and therefore might actually be of use to users.

Any group I was involved in, especially the one who is the biggest player in monetizing users internet habits, would want to preserve their cash cow, and work at ways to defeat the tracking

So how do you square that view of Google with the fact that the company provides users with tools to opt out of analytics and targeted advertising, and makes no attempt to defeat ad blockers, or even remove them from the Google-provided stores? Tracking users is useless if you can't show them ads (and don't sell user information to others, which Google doesn't do).

Seriously, Google does not want to track you without your permission. Google does want to offer you services that are so compelling that you think giving that permission is a good trade. But if you don't want to make that trade, you should be able to opt out, because tricking, coercing or screwing your customers is bad business. So Google will not only let you, but help you opt out, if that's what you want -- while still allowing you to use Google's services!

And "ethics" doesn't cut it as an excuse.

To decent people ethics is a reason, not an excuse. Which doesn't mean the company never does anything wrong; it's a big company these days, and people do screw up sometimes (e.g. StreetView Wifi, Safari settings workaround, Buzz auto-friending... and that's pretty much it.). But Google has learned from those screwups and is considerably more careful these days.

Oh, that reminds me of one really clear reason that Google wouldn't do this: The 20-year consent decree that Google signed with the Federal Trade Commission that includes regular external audits of Google's privacy practices, with big, sharp teeth via both direct fines and punishments and negative PR should Google ever fail.

Diesel trucks are not designed to carry people, they are designed to carry freight, so this is not a fair comparison. You should either compare the Prius to a bus if you are looking at the efficiency per person carried, or compare the weight of the Prius to the truck:

A roughly 75,000 pound semi truck will achieve over 6mpg cruising at highway speeds, while a 3,000 lb toyota prius will achieve around 50mpg doing the same. So the semi can move 25 Priuses worth of weight one mile on 1/6th of a gallon of diesel, while 25 Priuses need 1/2 a gallon to move themselves one mile(1/50th a gallon each times 25 = 25/50th = 1/2 total)...the Prius burns 3 times as much fuel per pound, and of course most personal vehicles are far less efficient than a prius.

Diesel trucks are not designed to carry people, they are designed to carry freight, so this is not a fair comparison. You should either compare the Prius to a bus if you are looking at the efficiency per person carried, or compare the weight of the Prius to the truck:

A roughly 75,000 pound semi truck will achieve over 6mpg cruising at highway speeds, while a 3,000 lb toyota prius will achieve around 50mpg doing the same. So the semi can move 25 Priuses worth of weight one mile on 1/6th of a gallon of diesel, while 25 Priuses need 1/2 a gallon to move themselves one mile(1/50th a gallon each times 25 = 25/50th = 1/2 total)...the Prius burns 3 times as much fuel per pound, and of course most personal vehicles are far less efficient than a prius.

The core problem isn't that OSS is incomparable with "business", it is only incomparable with the business of "selling software".

...

Umm, Red Hat has a market cap of $14.81 BILLION dollars.

But don't let reality get in the way of your rants.

They're hilarious.

Do you think they got there just selling software?

Do you realize the timing they had with linux? The number of people who bought RedHat as a CD set at versions 5 or 6 and branded linux itself as RedHat?

The core problem isn't that OSS is incomparable with "business", it is only incomparable with the business of "selling software".

...

Umm, Red Hat has a market cap of $14.81 BILLION dollars.

But don't let reality get in the way of your rants.

They're hilarious.

Use this.

https://code.google.com/p/line...

emoji that are specific to Japan that got through Unicode's standardization process (*cough*U+1F5FF*cough*)

Uhh... The Moai statues are from Easter Island. Easter Island is off the coast of Chile, and is approximately 8400 miles (13,500 km) from Japan.

Google Maps has your late-blooming education, right here. You can even right-click that pin mark at Easter Island and use the Measure Distance tool to find out exact distances to various parts of Japan.

See subject: I am going to have a FIELD DAY on you, "signature boy"... lol (you did it to yourself).

APK

P.S.=> Want to play games with me behind my back punk (since I can't see signatures)? Fine... I can too - check these out, only 2 days worth of my efforts to put your ass away:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...

https://www.google.com/search?...

They'll only get more of results of those efforts of mine as I keep it up, & you keep up your 'signatures' punk + shooting your DIMWIT NO MIND KNOW NEARLY ZERO limited menial level of computing know how posts... lol!

(Funniest part is, your big mouth does it brain damage boy, keep posting & shooting off your piehole - I can demonstrate malicious intent out of YOU easily, as I've bookmarked every SINGLE time you've given me guff)... apk

I know pumpkins come in a lot of different shapes, but I've never seen one that was shaped like that.

Looks more like a spaghetti squash to me.

See subject - OR didn't you say:

"Maybe I should change my signature again just to rile him up some more." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @10:07AM (#50855451) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

behind my back (I can't see sigs) & KGIII noted it:

"In an earlier thread, I saw that APK quoted your signature" - by KGIII (973947) on Monday November 02, 2015 @10:22PM (#50852845) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Which I SHUT DOWN due to your lies about me on AD + DNS (GPO too from my security guides I see you've read, that are geared to single stand alone machines NOT networked ones but I advise vs. using external DNS with AD there too, here) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

---

WANT TO PLAY THOSE GAMES WITH ME @ MY EXPENSE BEHIND MY BACK SCUMBAG?

This is the price of them... see my p.s. below!

APK

P.S.=> Check the topmost links on BOTH Google & Bing (my telling the TRUTH of you is showing up in only 2 days time of my efforts):

http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...

&

https://www.google.com/search?...

Now you're out of "downmod" points from your sockpuppets & other scumbags around here that've trolled me for ages are too - no more effete 'bullets' for you to shoot @ me, but I can keep this up FOREVER (& it's not lies on my end, since your own words prove it's truth)... keep it up, I will fuck you over to NO end for trying it on me & you CAN'T STOP IT (nor can a 1,000 bullshit artist scumbags around here LIKE you) - I always win, no matter what... & you KNOW it... apk

See subject - OR didn't you say:

"Maybe I should change my signature again just to rile him up some more." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @10:07AM (#50855451) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

behind my back (I can't see sigs) & KGIII noted it:

"In an earlier thread, I saw that APK quoted your signature" - by KGIII (973947) on Monday November 02, 2015 @10:22PM (#50852845) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Which I SHUT DOWN due to your lies about me on AD + DNS (GPO too from my security guides I see you've read, that are geared to single stand alone machines NOT networked ones but I advise vs. using external DNS with AD there too, here) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

---

WANT TO PLAY THOSE GAMES WITH ME @ MY EXPENSE BEHIND MY BACK SCUMBAG?

This is the price of them... see my p.s. below!

APK

P.S.=> Check the topmost links on BOTH Google & Bing (my telling the TRUTH of you is showing up in only 2 days time of my efforts):

http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...

&

https://www.google.com/search?...

Now you're out of "downmod" points from your sockpuppets & other scumbags around here that've trolled me for ages are too - no more effete 'bullets' for you to shoot @ me, but I can keep this up FOREVER (& it's not lies on my end, since your own words prove it's truth)... keep it up, I will fuck you over to NO end for trying it on me & you CAN'T STOP IT (nor can a 1,000 bullshit artist scumbags around here LIKE you) - I always win, no matter what... & you KNOW it... apk

I actually bought a slide rule last week

But there's an app for that.
https://play.google.com/store/...

Yep, you knew it had to be true: iPhone and Android.

The link has nothing to do with what the parent implied or did not imply ... did he mean "user root" or root less as in X-Windows integration into the Mac OS X GUI? Both actually has nothing to do with the topic ... so my bet is the parent only was shuffling words ;

If by "the parent" you mean the comment where I asked "Can you turn off rootless mode on OS X 10.11 with this tool?", then I can assure you with 100% certainty that he meant "the System Integrity Protection feature of OS X El Capitan, often referred to as "rootless mode", as he is me. The "root" in there refers to the user root; "rootless" mode disables even the root account from making some changes.

The question was asked because the only way a trojan will be able to modify the files protected by System Integrity Protection would be if it could 1) turn System Integrity Protection off or otherwise disable it or 2) somehow evade its protections.

Or you can just buy a brand name that you know certifies and tests their products instead of going generic. Kind of the point of the brand name.

• Google store version
• Apple store version

I mentioned them in a comment to this post yesterday:

Benson Leung Yesterday 8:27 AM
I have it on good authority that Monoprice's cables and accessories are compliant. I need to write a review though, maybe in a few days.

This isn't really a new concept. Just has an expensive Areon-ish shell. https://www.google.com/search?...

"Most browsers 64 bit? No, I don't think so."

What browsers don't have a 64-bit version? If a bug in a 32-bit application running on a 64-bit system leads to a security violation, that's a defect in the underlying 32-bit emulator. I don't know what you mean by 'the default version of Chrome', Chrome doesn't come with Windows, you have to install it yourself, the end user decides what version to use, the choice is up to you. Here's the link for the 64-bit Windows version.

I assume that if you run a native 64 bit web browser, it will avoid this vulnerability. For chrome, on https://www.google.com/chrome/... you can select "Download Chrome for another platform" to get the 64 bit version.

'All the same, let's be clear that all the "Microsoft Loves Linux" hype I saw at SUSECon yesterday and at other events earlier this year is just not true. Microsoft Azure loves Linux, there is no doubt; it is a basic requirement for them to become relevant on a cloud market dominated by AWS and Linux.' ref

I saw a comic recently comparing Fantasy Football with D&D, there really isn't much difference.

http://www.myneworleans.com/Bl...

https://www.google.com/search?...

Apple was the only one so far to beat the telcos and get direct access to update their devices.

That's not true. You can get factory system images for Nexus devices directly from Google. In my experience the OTAs for carrier-agnostic devices may precede their presence there, but only briefly. Granted, there are other problems with Nexus devices, and I went Moto with my last phone instead...

Google Chrome at least has a built-in click to play feature which blocks autoplay for flash.

But it doesn't block for HTML5 (coincidentally? used by Youtube).

https://code.google.com/p/chro...

-_-

There's no proof, and the "Global Competitiveness" crap in TFA is irrelevant to the millions of Japanese SMEs, because they are not competing globally.

Japan is on the edge of a demographics crisis. 25% of their population is over 65, compared with 59% that work. Having only ~2.36 people paying into public healthcare and social insurance for each person drawing out is not a good ratio, and with their notoriously low birth rates, is only going to worsen as time goes on.

In the meanwhile, Japan's racking up shittons of debt, and has to import nearly all of their energy.

So, what does this mean? It means productivity is really fucking important. If your aging population has fewer than 2 workers to cover each retiree, those workers better be really fucking productive or those healthcare costs are going to be an incredible burden. If you need to import 94% of your energy at great expense, you better put that energy to really fucking good use--i.e., be productive--or otherwise you're spending everything on coal and petrodollars instead of your own people. If your government debt is skyrocketing, but has fewer and fewer taxpayers to pay it down, those people better be really fucking productive or you're not going to have a government.

That latter point is especially important. Japan can get away with its debt load because of Japan's famously high savings rate--lots of people (or banks using people's savings) buying savings bonds means you can issue those bonds really cheaply. But, when people retire, they by necessity stop saving and start drawing on their savings instead. The government has double their yearly income in what's essentially an adjustable-rate mortgage, and the interest rates are going to skyrocket right as fewer people are there to pay it down.

I searched for it and, I have no idea if this link will work, but it's in my address bar!

http://graphemica.com/

I have no idea if that will work so the link from this Google search should help - it's the fourth one down on my screen. The one that is, obviously, graphemica.

According to Climate Action Tracker, Bhutan is leading the way. Also, China, India, the EU and Mexico are all doing a better job at emission reduction than the United States.

According to NY Times: China Burns Much More Coal Than Reported, Complicating Climate Talks, China is increasing emissions, not reducing them.

Which fails to speak to my original point, which is that as goes California, so the rest of the U.S., and California isn't going anywhere, despite talking a good game. So you are basically agreeing with me (but disagreeing with me and the NY Times on the slope of China's vector relative to the slope of the U.S.'s vector).

Try this.

Boy, was THAT hard. Took longer to prune the URL of it's unnecessary tracking bullshit than to do the search.

..

https://groups.google.com/foru...