Slashdot Mirror

It's not just iOS6. The iPhone5 is seriously substandard. Purple photos, Apple Maps, iPhone5's inability to handle LTE and data concurrently, easily scratched paint, and the new docking port with $30 adaptor makes iPhone5 a real lemon...

Nevermind the actual specs. iPhone5 is slower than Samsung Galaxy S3 despite the fact that the S3 is three months older. iPhone5 doesn't have NFC. iPhone5 still has a tiny screen. iOS market share has been sliding for a while, but after a few million get burned with this device, I think iPhone6 will be a very tough sell.

story here http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/nyregion/30bigcity.html?_r=0

That's not really it. It depends on where your generating capacity is coming from. If it's coming from coal plants, you shouldn't buy an electric car—gas is cleaner. If it's coming from wind, you should definitely buy an electric car if it makes economic sense to you personally. The Chevy Volt is a nice compromise if you have a sub-30-mile commute. It would be nice if generation source information were readily available, but of course nobody has any incentive to publish it—electric car manufacturers want you to buy the car, and power companies want you to buy the power. I suppose oil companies would want you to not buy the electric car, but their incentive exists regardless of what the local generating capacity comes from. Government could do it, but they're busy being drowned in a bathtub at the moment.

The NY Times did a pretty good map of the carbon impact of electrical generation sources back in April, but I don't think they're maintaining it.

To my knowledge, none of Apple's patents are in Job's name.

Thanks for letting us know the limited scope of your knowledge, then. We can use this as a metric for determining whether you know what the fuck you're talking about in other areas where you make baseless assertions. Three hundred and thirteen (313) Apple patents credit Steve Jobs as part of the team inventing the claims.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/technology/apple-patents-show-steve-jobss-attention-to-design.html?_r=0

So... wanna try again?

1) okay. You still could take large quantities of the stuff according to the EPA, an adult should be able to take ~100ml of the stuff. Whereas 1 nanogram of Claviceps_purpurea is a surefire death sentence, and that amount of course, is very easy to miss. It's also guaranteed not to be on grain, except of course, organic grain.
2) "and most grain is tested for this sort of thing" true. Guess which grain is not, in fact, tested. Granted, the situation is improving. If you go "true" organic, buying at the farm or farmer's market, of course you're buying untested grain.
3) chickens are environmental disasters, and goats are environmental catastrophies. Large animals are not bad for the environment, but require large farmlands and labor.

Actually, Dow Chemical owns UCC since 2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Chemical_Company#Bhopal_disaster but thank you for the correction, I misremembered the acquisition of UCC, whose subsidiary UCIL ran the Bhopal plant.

Monsanto, however, is a global company with 21,000 employees in 404 facilities in 66 countries, not a US one; here is a list of worldwide facilities from their web site: http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/pages/our-locations.aspx

Likewise, Caterpillar does it's manufacturing close to its customers in various countries: http://www.caterpillar.com/company/global-footprint

Case tractors are also manufactured outside the US in many instances: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_IH#Factory_locations ; most of the engines used in the US models are manufactured in Brazil.

General Electric, which manufactures most of the train locomotives used in the US, makes nearly 2/3rds of its money outside the US, and has reduced their US workforce by 1/5 from 2002 to 2011: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?scp=2&sq=ge&st=cse

I'll point out that most steel beams used in large construction are manufactured in China and shipped over for use in the US, since the US no longer has the facilities to manufacture them; for example, most of the recent San Francisco Bay Bridge superstructure is from China: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-11/sf-bay-bridge-gets-5-300-ton-delivery-from-china.html

The other stuff is transient local infrastructure (why bring in concrete from another country, unless you are talking pre-stressed concrete girders, which, again, tend to get shipped from China).

So tell me again how the US is doing?

News of the insert was posted on September 23, so this news is hitting slashdot kinda late to actually find one. Word is that they were just in NY and LA.

And robots in the Netherlands to build the same shavers.

Verizon has been targeted many times. They would steal network equipment, then call Cisco to get an advance replacement RMA, which would take their stolen equipment and double it. Then they would sell the gear on the 'Grey Market' for Cisco hardware. They focused primarily on Cisco 12000 line cards, where an individual card sells for $100k+ and are installed in a redundant fashion.

Then they started just getting serial numbers for equipment and starting RMA's for that, and selling it on the Grey market. When Cisco called to get the status on the return... Verizon would reply with "what return".

I helped track one of these cats back in early 2000's - once he found we were hot on his trail, he abandoned his Bentley, and his Mansion and fled back home to Russia - where he lives currently. Interestingly, this same type of scam popped up in eastern Europe shortly after his relocation.

Our suspect had a friend who worked in security at one of the Verizon data centers. He would grant 'back-door' access to a facility, and permit the theft of the hardware. Stories abound of this guy being too poor to buy gas one day, borrowing $50 from friends in order to make to to the airport to fly out to New York then from New York to California, then California back home - pulling a massive roll of C notes from his pocket and repaying the $50 loan + a couple of C-notes to show his gratitude.

Perhaps the reason we hear about this happening with Verizon was that they became aware of the scam early, then kept tracking the perps until they were finally able to catch them. Kudos to Verizon Security for being able to close the loop on this one. These cases are extremely hard to track and crack.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/nyregion/27theft.html?_r=2&ex=1152936000&en=28ee4e10417b8e50&ei=5070&oref=login

http://www.zdnet.com/level-3-falls-victim-to-data-centre-robbery-3039284520/

All you nay-sayers in the comments should read about the phenomenon of decision fatigue.

I do the same thing as Obama and Steve Jobs -- I keep the "routine" parts of my life as routine and predictable as possible, so I don't have to waste any energy on them. I've been doing this instinctively for at least ten years, but I only found out about decision fatigue a few months ago. It makes perfect sense; I have to make decisions all day long to do my day job as a programmer, and the quality of those decisions definitely starts to decline after 4 or 6 hours of work effort. And any effort spent on pointless decisions (what color shirt to wear to work, what restaurant to go to at lunch) just saps your energy that you need for making actual decisions that matter. Somehow my subconscious discovered that it had to protect this limited resource and started pushing me to stop caring about all the little shit.

This is incorrect.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison Nuclear Reactor was one of six NRC-designated Research and Test Reactors to use highly-enriched uranium. Wisconsin's was enriched to 70%, and some research reactors use U-235 enriched to 90%.

[...] since 1978, out of concern that the uranium might be turned into bomb fuel, the Department of Energy has spent millions of dollars to develop lower-grade fuel and convert scores of reactors to run on it. As of July 30, according to the Government Accountability Office (formerly the General Accounting Office), 39 of 105 research reactors worldwide had converted or were in the process. But the six campus reactors in this country are not among them.

[...]

Power reactors in this country use uranium fuel in which the proportion of U-235 has been raised to 3 to 5 percent, which is low-enriched fuel. Anything over 20 percent is considered highly enriched. Bombs are generally over 90 percent. Some research reactors run on fuel enriched to over 90 percent; Wisconsin's is 70 percent, and the quantity is probably a little less than is needed for a bomb.

Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/15/us/uranium-reactors-on-campus-raise-security-concerns.html?pagewanted=all

You can still see the characteristic and beautiful Cherenkov radiation at the research reactor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I've seen it a number of times.

Up until recently, it contained 1400 pounds of highly-enriched (weapons grade) U-235 in 58-pound bundles. It is in a building across from a 7-level parking ramp and an 80,000-person football stadium.

There are a number of such "Research and Test Reactors" around the US.

A 2005 ABC News report found:

- "No guards. No metal detectors. Bags were brought into the reactor room. Doors to the building are open during the day, and no IDs are required for entry."

- "The building was undergoing major renovation, and construction workers, large trucks and building materials surrounded the rear exterior."

- "The university Web site includes a 'virtual tour' and detailed photos, descriptions and diagrams of the reactor, the fuel elements and the control room. The reactor manager informed the Fellows that tours had to be scheduled three weeks in advance and that a locked door with a window view of the reactor was the closest they could get. But a friendly professor told the Fellows about a basement entry to the reactor room, where a reactor operator opened the door and let the Fellows photograph the reactor from the doorway. Two other operators allowed the Fellows to come inside carrying their tote bags, and briefly take photographs about 15 feet from the reactor's base. No campus security ever approached the Fellows."

An 2004 New York Times report found:

- "[UWNR's] fuel is weapons-grade uranium. If it were stolen, experts say, it could give terrorists or criminals a major head start on an atomic bomb."

- "[...] out of concern that the uranium might be turned into bomb fuel, the Department of Energy has spent millions of dollars to develop lower-grade fuel and convert scores of reactors to run on it. [...] But the six campus reactors in this country are not among them."

- "Campus reactors have far less security than places where the government keeps bomb-grade uranium, and they may have foreign students of unknown political sympathies."

- "[...] the fuel now in the campus reactors is dangerously radioactive, making it hard to handle. [...] however, that highly enriched uranium was an easier fuel from which to build a bomb than is plutonium."

- "The reactor operators are paid $10.50 an hour. They recently got a raise to that level [...] because someone discovered that campus file clerks were paid more than the reactor operators.

- "[...] the current fuel load will last about 108 years at current rates of use."

"The truck is the real threat. You want to make sure the truck stays away 250 feet minimum." - Ronald Timm, Former Department of Energy security analyst

Here, the primary entrance to a major parking ramp is about 50 feet away.

Also, it's not like it's really a mystery what he saw at BNL. There have only been so many reactors there in the last 60 years. It's odd, beautiful, and I suppose comparatively rare for a person to see, but it's not a big deal.

The police in Sao Paolo have bigger problems than policing the citizenry:

... more than 70 police officers killed this year in São Paulo, Brazil’s largest and most powerful state. The sharp increase in murders of police officers, up almost 40 percent since last year, has raised fears of a resurgence of the First Capital Command, a criminal organization that carried out a harrowing four-day uprising here in 2006 during which almost 200 people were killed.

Alarm Grows in São Paulo as More Police Officers Are Murdered

The best analogy is probably with avalanches. If you let the snow pack build up naturally, it results in a huge avalanche when it gives way naturally. One of the options to prevent that is to fire artillery at it. The concussion loosens the snowpack and causes a small avalanche, dispersing the potential energy that's been built up while it's still small, before it can build up into a huge devastating avalanche.

Same thing is going on with fracking. The fracking itself isn't creating the earthquakes. It injects nowhere near enough energy to actually create an earthquake (indeed if it were injecting that much energy, it would defeat the whole purpose of fracking since they're trying to extract energy in the form of oil and gas). The earthquake energy is coming from natural tectonic forces within the earth. The fracking just triggers an already-pending earthquake while it's still small.

So the earthquakes clustered around fracking sites is actually a good thing. We should be doing more fracking - especially in earthquake-prone areas like the U.S. West coast. It's only considered bad due to our perverted legal culture where people are penalized for blame, but not rewarded for prevention. If you leave everything alone and there's a huge earthquake/avalanche, it's a natural event and nobody is to blame. But if someone tries to mitigate the earthquake/avalanche by deliberately triggering it before it can become massive, they are to blame and legally liable for all resulting damage.

The same problem (legal liability for earthquakes) killed deep well geothermal, which was probably our best bet for 100% renewable and 100% clean energy. It angered me at first, but I decided if we as a species are not mature enough to see why there shouldn't be legal liability for these earthquakes, then we as a species do not deserve 100% renewable and clean energy. We deserve to breathe in, eat, and die in the crap we produce from other energy sources.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/using-a-social-media-rating-to-help-people-not-judge-them/
http://parislemon.com/post/29563509395/under-the-influence-of-klout
http://uncrunched.com/2012/08/16/why-i-changed-my-mind-on-klout-and-invested/

Yes? Then ignore and move on.

Last year the journal Nature reported an alarming increase in the number of retractions of scientific papers — a tenfold rise in the previous decade, to more than 300 a year across the scientific literature.

Last year the journal Nature reported an alarming increase in the number of retractions of scientific papers — a tenfold rise in the previous decade, to more than 300 a year across the scientific literature.

Other studies have suggested that most of these retractions resulted from honest errors. But a deeper analysis of retractions, being published this week, challenges that comforting

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/automobiles/autoreviews/one-big-step-for-tesla-one-giant-leap-for-evs.html?hp

Hey, just incidentally the New York Times reviewed the Tesla Model S today. There seems to be a lot of electric vehicle haterz on Slashdot lately, I don't get why, but if you're legitimately interested in the tech, rather than just Detroit astroturf, the NYTimes review is certainly worth a read.

"Put simply, the automobile has not undergone a fundamental change in design or use since Henry Ford rolled out the Model T more than a century ago. At least that’s what I thought until I spent a week with the Tesla Model S."

1) Think about this for a second. If you want to commit a felony, would you rather commit the felony in person where you can be caught, or would you rather commit it anonymously via absentee ballot?

For example, the special election of Bill Stinson in 1993 in PA was overturned because the election was stolen...with absentee ballots.

2a) You know that "free" ID you were supposed to get? Take PA, where the law was passed in the past seven months (March 2012). That "free" photo ID did not exist until late August! Up until then, they were requiring everyone to get the standard photo ID - the one that costs money and requires a higher burden of proof. Imagine your surprise when you go to PennDOT and try to get your "free" photo ID, after you manage to get a ride there (did you know that something like six counties in PA have no PennDOT facility, and another 13-ish counties have one facility open one day a week?)...only to discover that you actually do need to pay for your ID.

2b) What you need an ID for in modern society is a red herring when it comes to voting. Almost 20% of the registered voters in Philadelphia do not have a state-issued ID! Regardless of this fact, how do you define a "significant" amount of people without ID? If this law ends up preventing more legitimate votes than preventing fraudulent votes, is that significant enough for you?

3) I think you're mistaken when you think "no one" is trying to prevent real people from voting. You know that firm that the Republicans are disowning lately, Strategic Allied Consulting? The owner back in 2004 was caught throwing away registrations from voters who registered Democrat. The GOP knows that in-person voter ID is practically nonexistent, and that elections are really stolen with absentee ballots or just by manipulating the voting machines, like these eight people in Clay County, Kentucky, including a judge.

Voter fraud is real, but in-person voter fraud is very rare (see 1 for why). So if the GOP is really interested in honest elections, why are they focusing on the rarest form of fraud? None of these ID laws would stop any of the documented instances of voter fraud that I have mentioned in this post - at least one of which resulted in an actual stolen election.

but looks to me like the modern US Army and other armed forces go to an unbelievable and completely unprecedented amount of effort to avoid collateral damage compared to every other military force that has ever existed.

If the US Government was serious about avoiding collateral damage, they'd end the drone campaign and put boots on the ground.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all

"It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."

Redefining what a civilian casualty is != unprecedented amount of effort to avoid collateral damage

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/magazine/job-creation-campaign-promises.html?pagewanted=all

Good zinger, really! I chuckled.

But the Prez can do very little to create jobs, realistically. Obama may have an easier time creating the Unicorn we all seem to want. Add in a obstructionist, insane House, and the Euro wanting to implode the European Union?

Good zinger though, really...

Attribution.

Disclaimer: I am a Navy Information Warfare Officer.

First, it's important to note that the White House didn't confirm the suspected source. It was anonymous officials who said this appeared to originate "from China" -- take that as you will.

As you point out, an attack may appear to come from a particular (set of) IP address(es), network(s), or source(s). An attack may have a certain profile, or share a profile with other attacks. An attack may have an assumed motivation based on its target. The attacker(s) may even wish to make it appear that the attack is originating elsewhere.

Even if the "source" is established, is it a nation-state? Hacktivists? Nationalist hackers acting on behalf of government or at the government's explicit or implicit direction? Transnational actors? None of the above?

No one wants to "start a war" with China, but the error in balancing the cyber threat against the "hype" is assuming that all threats are bogus, or must be the result of hawks looking for neverending war, excuses to begin/escalate the next "Cold War", and similar. The threat from China is very real, long-established, and well-understood for anyone who cares to look. It has been discussed thoroughly, even for the Chinese, in their own strategic literature, and there are very public examples of China's offensive cyber capabilities. China's investment in offensive cyber capabilities comes because of the understanding that dominance of the information realm will essentially allow China to skip large chunks of military modernization and still be highly effective in any conflict with the United States.

Think of it this way: it's now assumed that the Stuxnet/Duqu/Flame family were created by the US and/or Israel. (Keep in mind that even overt admissions prove nothing, and can be self-serving...) Even before the books and articles about OLYMPIC GAMES, attribution was assumed because of the target and because of snippets of clues in the code. In general, why is that assumption any more or less valid than this? Is it because some are more inclined to believe that of course the US engages in cyber warfare; but any cyber attacks against us are suspect.

Of course, there are those who will assume that indications of any cyber attack will always be a "false flag" and/or used by those with ulterior motives who want war. It can't possibly be that there are aggressors who indeed want to attack the US, and who greatly benefit from the odd proclivity of those in free societies to see the enemy as their own government, while overlooking the actual adversary. Sun Tzu would be beaming.

Background:

Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html?_r=1

"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst. China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country."

China is on track to exceed US military spending in real dollars by 2025
http://www.economist.com/node/21542155

China’s military rise
http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

The dragon’s new teeth: A rare look inside the world’s biggest military expansion
http://www.economist.com/node/21552193

Essential

This is why content delivery systems need to be licensed by governments. This wouldn't have happened if Twitter were prohibited because it's unlicensed.

It's a safety issue. Just like the license you need before you can drive your own car. Just like the license you need to be a barber. Or the permit that those kids should have gotten before the cops shut down their lemonade stand. Or the license that that guy in North Carolina needs to publish dietary advice on his blog. Or the law license that Elizabeth Warren doesn't need because she's one of the special people.

Leo Traynor should be ashamed for having an unlicensed conversation with his Troll. Is he a certified criminal counselor? He should have gotten the authorities involved, because they should always be involved. In everything.

"obfuscant" is right

a nation's budget doesn't work like a household's budget

here, start with an education:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/opinion/krugman-europes-austerity-madness.html

So... there's no actual sugar in it, just a carbon/sodium anode. So why call it a sugar battery?

So everyone can have a good laugh when New York City bans them.

Lots? Who the hell do you hang out with?

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of jackasses who will pull a fire alarm just for the hell of it.

Back then if someone shouted fire, you'd have been well advised to get the hell out as soon as possible - very much more so than if a fire alarm rang today.

I'm going to out on a limb, and argue that by the time someone yelled "fire!" there is generally already some corroborating evidence... people shouting in general; smell of smoke, roaring/sucking/crashing/popping sounds etc.

People don't generally panic and trample eachother to death unless there is more clear and present evidence danger than someone yelling "fire!"

I've been in 3 buildings that have actually caught fire; twice at night; where the powers gone out, and the lights are gone; and you can hear the fire trucks pulling up outside... and the exit was still highly orderly. In one case one could even smell smoke. The crowds were a bit nervous, excited even.

I'll grant you that 100 years ago, that things were different, but I'm skeptical that it was EVER the case that crowds just started trampling people to death merely because someone falsely yelled "fire".

I know there have been a few cases of false alarms leading to deaths; but there are usually extenuating circumstances...

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F10A12F9355E13738DDDAA0894DA405B838DF1D3

Here's one from 1913. 2 people died. Except it wasn't strictly speaking a false alarm -- there was a sound like a gunshot, smoke, and even flames as the projector did briefly catch fire while changing reels before the projectionist extinguished it. So when someone yelled fire... well... there was a fire.

The building was also WAY over lawful capacity (which was evidently very common in those days; according to the police's own statements).

The upshot though is that to say yelling "Fire!" is what caused the deaths is over simplifying a much more complicated situation.

But even that sidesteps my point; I'm not really asserting that yelling fire! can't be dangerous, it was more to point out that mocking mohammed to provoke a response was not really different. In the right circumstances, sure its dangerous. Just as showing up at a hockey game dressed up like a flaccid penis and mocking the losing home team to the drunkest group super-fans you can find ... its reckless and stupid.

Its deliberately provoking a violent response. And there is nothing wrong with recognizing that to be the case. Whether you are yelling fire, mocking drunk hockey fans, or provoking muslim extremists...

First, regarding the so-called sugar battery;
It's really a sodium-ion battery.
They claim a 20% increase in power storage over a lithium-ion, which probably means a 20% decrease in cost, best case.
Sodium-ion batteries have cycle problems - after about 50 charge/discharges, they typically have 50% of their original capacity. They don't even talk about this, so I'm betting they haven't solved the problem.

Second, about lithium-ion batteries;
Lithium isn't rare - you could extract it from sea water for about 3 times what it costs now. Even at that price it wouldn't mean much to lithium-ion batteries, because despite the name, lithium isn't the primary ingredient, nor is it the most costly.

Envia's breakthrough battery is a lot better at 3 times the energy density and half the cost, and it's a lot closer to market.

the administration is still talking about the stupid irrelevant film instead of the fact that the Libya attack was obviously a planned and successful Al Qaeda operation to assassinate a US ambassador

What? How about this? I for one would like to avoid making foreign policy based on assumptions and hearsay. Or perhaps you're a Mittens man and would rather jump to wild conclusions before any real information is available?

And before you start wailing about how some of those early baseless assumptions turned out to be partly true, I would remind you that a broken clock is right twice a day...

Also, while the attack was clearly a blow to our local Libyan intelligence operation - in addition to the obvious human tragedy - the impact of the movie and its subsequent protests are more troubling because they demonstrate how there is a downside to greater freedom of expression in the region. There is clearly an attempt by extremists (religious and governmental) to hijack that freedom to let everyone know that they are still a potent force. The trick is to respect the protests while not allowing them to be completely one-sided. The counter-protests in Libya are a good example of this.

And the shot down the Veterans jobs bill:
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/2/193

As they have stated, they will completely shut down the government and destroy this country as long as Obama doesn't get a second term.

You can look it up from many sources but for just one example here is the NYT.

Or if you accept blog analysis you can try The Audacious Epigone.

But of course that took 2 seconds of a google search to find so I understand that it was too much effort for some to do their own research.

First of all, there are most assuredly less government employees now than at any point during the Bush Presidency. Citation Here.

So, obviously that additional spending isn't going into an increase in the number of employees.

Second, government employees have not gotten a raise in several years, courtesy Obama, so you don't need to rattle your spear on that front either.

That extra spending is likely going to contracts and subsidies - no politician will touch those because cutting is all well and good "as long as it's not cutting spending in my state". The only Presidential candidate who looked like he was going to do something about that didn't win the Republican primary.

And as far as vilifying government pay raises: let's use judges as an example. You effectively need to be a lawyer to become a judge. If you don't at least *approach* competitive wages, who will we get as judges? People who couldn't hack it as lawyers, people who want the power for their agenda / axe to grind, and people who intend to supplement the paycheck with bribes. So yes, government employees *should* get raises, lest you want the weakest members of our society in the positions to affect real change.

John Paczkowski writes that a disagreement over a key feature - voice-guided turn-by-turn driving directions - led Apple to decide it had no choice but to replace Google Maps with its own poorly received home-brewed replacement. Spoken turn-by-turn navigation has been a free service offered through Google's Android mobile OS for a few years now. but it was never part of the deal that brought Google's Maps to iOS. Requiring iPhone users to look directly at handsets for directions and manually move through each step - while Android users enjoyed native voice-guided instructions - put Apple at a clear disadvantage in the mobile space. Apple pushed Google hard to provide the data it needed to bring voice-guided navigation to iOS but according to people familiar with Google's thinking, the search giant, which had invested massive sums in creating that data and views it as a key feature of Android, wasn't willing to simply hand it over to a competing platform. "There were a number of issues inflaming negotiations, but voice navigation was the biggest," says one source familiar with Apple and Google's negotiations. "Ultimately, it was a deal-breaker." Still Apple is not the only company to be bruised by this rough transition. Google suffered a blow when Apple ended the pair's deal and is scrambling to roll out a standalone mapping application for iOS. Google Maps were used by a large portion of iPhone owners, especially in the US and to abruptly lose that user base, particularly one on a rival mobile platform, is a blow. As one geolocation executive observed, "A hundred million devices upgraded is a big body drop" for Google.

He doesn't come from Massachusetts. He comes from Detroit, Michigan. An "aide said had been a resident of Belmont, Mass., for 30 years", but you have only Romney's and his aide's word to go on.

If only there were some official record of that somewhere that could back up or disprove that assertion.

I guess now we know why he doesn't like people looking at his tax filings. He saw a political opportunity in Massachusetts while he claimed on his tax returns that he was a resident of Utah, and ran for governor there.

> Details that were materially damaging to the war effort - names of informants, etc - were carefully excised before the documents were leaked.

Not all of these names were redacted.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/taliban-study-wikileaks-to-hunt-informants/

For Mr Manning this is very bad indeed.

Mitt Romney personally brought up the "47% don't pay income taxes" canard two years after it was widely debunked.

Um... hate to bust your bubble here, but the article you use for reference, clearly states that 47% of the population of the USA doesn't pay federal income tax. It goes on to say is that there are other taxes that people pay that equate to a smaller number. For instance, when you include payroll taxes, then only 10% of the population pay no taxes.

Now if you had said that Romny was missleading, I might agree with you, but he was factually true. Nice try though.

Its cute how you think you pay your own payroll tax. Thats actually paid by the evil rich man who pays you, your payroll tax, and another tax in case you screw around and get fired and he has to pay your unemployment. Are you blissful in your ignorance? I guess the good news is after all the businesses that decide to pay the penalty thats cheaper than health care so they can drop your insurance, and your left without coverage you can pay obama $750 dollars when you file taxes bc you don't have insurance and you need to be penalized for not buying any. Bc thats exactly what his healthcare plan did, but I suppose you can save up 24,000 dollars a year and buy your own.

That hardly matters. They were too busy working on the invasion plan for Iraq to worry about one little PDB. Or three other warnings before that...

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

- Kurt Eichenwald, NYTimes Op-Ed.

lmgtfy
lmgtfy
lmgtfy

ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/dnc-apologizes-for-showing-russian-warships-in-tribute-to-us-veterans/

CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57511365-503544/dems-apologize-for-russian-ship-imagery-at-convention/

New York Times: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/democrats-apologize-for-image-of-russian-ships-at-convention/

Mitt Romney personally brought up the "47% don't pay income taxes" canard two years after it was widely debunked.

Um... hate to bust your bubble here, but the article you use for reference, clearly states that 47% of the population of the USA doesn't pay federal income tax. It goes on to say is that there are other taxes that people pay that equate to a smaller number. For instance, when you include payroll taxes, then only 10% of the population pay no taxes.

Now if you had said that Romny was missleading, I might agree with you, but he was factually true. Nice try though.

Krugman, Paul

For Krugman, the area in question is satire, a problem exhibited by many of the moon-bats around here.

You are so full of shit. Here's the story on CNN. And here it is in the NY Times.

Not that it even fucking matters. This is the most trivial little "flaw" you could possibly imagine. Some intern putting together a glorified powerpoint went to Google Image Search, typed in "battleships" and picked the coolest looking picture.

As for the embassy hit, fuck you for trying to politicize that. They reacted quickly, based on what appeared to be the case, and then revised their understanding when more details came to light, just like any sane person would do. If they refused to issue an initial statement, you'd criticize them for that. If they refused to change their statement when new facts came to light, you'd (justifiably) criticize them for that too.

As for ACTUAL screwups, how about their mistaken belief that they could keep unemployment under 8% with the stimulus? Are you gonna claim that the media hasn't covered that?

But if the Republicans did it, the talking heads here on /. would be bringing it up for the next 6 months.

In politics everybody beats dead horses.
Mitt Romney personally brought up the "47% don't pay income taxes" canard two years after it was widely debunked.

Hell, the US will arrest foreign nationals in foreign countries who have no presence in the US whatsoever. Not to mention the assassinations of US citizens without any due process. There are vanishingly few circumstances where the US government can claim any sort of moral high ground.

I cited a scientific article, not anecdotes.
It's clear that you are not a doctor and don't have the training necessary to research this topic and understand the results. That is fine. There are people who have spent many years studying medicine. We call them scientific experts. Medicine is complicated. I don't have time to explain years of medical training in a few words on slashdot.
You may find more understandable information oriented to lay people here:
http://www.drgreene.com/whiteout
And here is an interesting related article which popped up today:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/bittman-is-alzheimers-type-3-diabetes/#more-134495

The New York times wrote about it back in 2002 http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20020321thursday.html

and multiple companies advertise hardware to do this: IdentiBar Drivers License Scanning solutions for Nightclubs and Bars.

Some liquor stores and grocery stores also scan when you're purchasing alcohol. While it's supposed to be illegal, at least in Illinois to use this to acquire and retain address information (cite according to Illinois legal aid, companies sell marketing solutions where they explicitly claim that they can and will retain and market this data.

Have you ever seen someone obviously well over drinking age also getting scanned ahead of you and they say it is only just policy. That's probably the clear sign that they're collecting data to sell it, rather than just to check age on possible underage drinkers.

It's enough to make you paranoid. :>)

I love the obsession with "socialism" in the US. Forget about commies and pinkos, here come muslims and socialists. Oooh, next Hollywood nightmare scenario: Socialist Muslims! That would scare the pants off you.

You know, Switzerland and other "socialist" European countries have strict belief in private property. If you Yanks would be able to handle the thing called nuance, you'd realize there are shades of gray.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model#Overview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhenish_model

Also remember that what the Obama administration means when it says "militant", is a man or a boy killed by a drone. It will revert that to civilian if it is conclusively proven after the fact the person was innocent by some mystical secret standard. In other words, a great many of the "militants" really weren't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=4&_r=2
from page 4

"It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants," the official said. "They count the corpses and they're not really sure who they are."

Up to 12 times a day.

When the guy who helped us find Bin Laden is stuck in jail, why would anyone want to help us out and be on 'our' side? There is no reason at all to support America, because they will not support you back when things get rough.

Also, if some foreign country had drones flying over my country blowing stuff up, I'd have a bit of trouble thinking kindly of them.

Well, Taliban and Al Qaeda are using Pakistan as a base of operations in a shooting war in Afghanistan.

Either Pakistan WON'T stop that, which is an act of war, or Pakistan CAN'T stop that, which is a de facto loss of sovereign control over their territory.

Since the Taliban were and are Pakistani proxies, the truth is probably a lot closer to the "won't stop it".

Does that make Pakistan an enemy of the US? Not really - Pakistan is acting in what they think is THEIR best interest, being squeezed between China, India, and Iran.

Who was it that said nations don't have allies, they have interests?

So to change Pakistani behavior, you have to change there calculation regarding what's in their interests.

How to change Pakistan's interests? Work with India. Give the Pakistanis a list of Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders - a BIG list. For every week someone that list is alive and free, 1,000 more Indian troops arrive in Afghanistan. And they'll stay until India decides to bring them home.

In other words - tell Pakistan that if they want to keep playing with Islamist nutcases, they'll lose control of Afghanistan to the nearest and utterly hated rival. Permanently. And to stop that, the Pakistanis have to sell out and betray their proxies - to their death.

When the guy who helped us find Bin Laden is stuck in jail, why would anyone want to help us out and be on 'our' side? There is no reason at all to support America, because they will not support you back when things get rough.

Also, if some foreign country had drones flying over my country blowing stuff up, I'd have a bit of trouble thinking kindly of them.

When the guy who helped us find Bin Laden is stuck in jail, why would anyone want to help us out and be on 'our' side? There is no reason at all to support America, because they will not support you back when things get rough.

And actually, according to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/technology/data-centers-in-rural-washington-state-gobble-power.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

That's the same argument Microsoft made. The utility company tried to call their bluff, Microsoft wasn't bluffing so they started their heaters, and the utility company folded.