"To be followed by random Apple bashing, several forms of 'can it run Linux', and a whole lot of people saying the entire concept of a tablet is stupid because they can't figure out why they'd have one."
Seriously: "Can it run Linux" was the first question that popped into my head. I might be interested in the tablet, if the hardware is decent. But I have exactly zero interest in Windows 8.x.
"Ha. Now the libertarians are going to abandon it wholesale.
No fun when the big bad gubmint likes your freedomcoins."
Nonsense. It has nothing to do with what the government likes. It has everything to do with whether, and how, government "regulates" it.
Just watch. Somebody in government will attempt to regulate it in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the mathematics of how Bitcoin works. It's almost inevitable.
Like, just for example: trying to legislate a fixed exchange rate for dollars. (Just an example. I doubt they'd be stupid enough to do that exact thing. But you never know.)
"I think this is emblematic of how they do business and how lowly they think of their "users". I also uninstalled all the google apps from my iPhone after the tracker story from last week."
"... discontinued... after the practice was publicly reported" says everything that needs to be said.
If he got on a plane, the whole situation would change before the plane landed and he would be arrested. Saying that we have not done the paperwork yet does not mean that it would not be done before he arrived.
This smells of politics.
As long as he is out of the country they lose nothing by not formally charging him, and that way they don't risk making fools of themselves in the eyes of the rest of the world.
As you say, if he set foot on American soil, that could change at any time. Don't count on today's U.S. politicians to not make themselves look like fools if they're getting what they want. Hell, they've been doing a lot of that lately.
The "Archeological Chemist" apparently knows next to nothing about food preservation. This "mess after a few hours" thing is bunk.
As the U.S. Army Survival Manual has been saying for at least 4 decades: in a hot, arid desert, you can bury a piece of raw meat the size of your arm under the sand, and it will remain edible (if somewhat dried out) for at least 2 years.
I think Mars, being small, ran out of natural radio-decay heat sources in its crust and core. Not having enough mass, or enough tectonic activity to churn things up and generate heat, the core solidified, the magnetic field went away, and solar radiation finished them off.
Curiousity recently found a (relative) boatload of frozen water all over, in the soil, just under the surface. I forget what the estimate was but it was something like 7 liters per cubic meter of soil... which is quite a lot, really. (Granted, a cubic meter is a lot of soil but 7 liters is nothing to sneeze at either.)
"If the data came from the government I'd say its completely fucking worthless."
Agree with the other person above. This data doesn't come from just the government statistics. Studies have found the same thing. And not just in America. Major crime has been going down in most of the Western world for the last 30 years. Major crimes -- including violent crimes... and including things like mass shootings and school shootings -- are half of what they were just 20 years ago.
Don't take anybody's word for it. Look it up yourself.
The equipment used by police departments has no relationship to the amount of crime.
Except for one single piece of equipment. And it isn't what you think it is.
There is a very strong correlation between higher crime, and the number of policemen in patrol cars (as opposed to walking street beats on foot).
As more and more policemen have been given cars, and have been separated from their ties to particular neighborhoods, crime goes up. This is a solid statistic based on lots of study, over decades.
The police car drives crime up. (Relative to walking a beat.)
I was just trying to dispel the notion that it's illegal to carry in movie theaters and malls. Hospitals and liquor serving establishments are the only pieces of private property I can think of where firearms are banned by statute in a significant number of American jurisdictions, and not even in all American jurisdictions. I can carry in bars here in the blue state of New York, and the nearly-as-blue state of Pennsylvania just to our South. Hospitals are also allowed in NYS, unless they're attached to a University.
Well, I think it's very significant that he passed up 9 closer theaters that did not explicitly prohibit guns, to single out the one that did. Presumably he didn't want anybody shooting back.
That ship as sailed. The first amendment is null and void.
Bullshit. The 1st Amendment is your single best chance of declaring things like gag orders unconstitutional.
I will not accept such a defeatist attitude. If you want to sit on your thumbs and moan in despair about how much you have been wronged, and how useless it is to fight it, go right ahead.
But don't try to tell me to do the same thing. I have too much respect for myself (and the children of the future) to indulge in that kind of whining.
But they can just upstream you, and put their proxy ahead of your servers and adjust the tags. After all, they have been demanding SSL certificates for some time now.
And where would the get the authority to do that??? The government does not have any legal power to put something out there themselves and claim that it's mine. They have no more authority to lie on my behalf than they do to force me to lie.
Do not confuse technical capability with legality. If they were the same, there would be no hackers in prison.
You're taking an awfully American-centric view to assume everyone who disagrees with you has never eaten or seen fish sauce from outside the US.
You're taking an awfully assumption-centric view to assume that's what I was doing. I did not write that, and I did not mean that.
Nonetheless, you are still incorrect, the method of making fish sauce is not rotting, but is specifically fermentation.
I stated that one brand -- a very popular one -- was made the way I described. I also stated, very clearly, that I was aware other kinds are NOT made that way.
Are you talking about the American kind or the most popular brand in the world? 'Cause I watched a whole television show on the most popular brand in the world. I know all about it.
I didn't claim to "know all about it." But I do know enough to have an opinion about it. Don't put words in my mouth. It shows that either you weren't paying attention, or made a moronic assumption, or both.
You soft westerners have too low a squeamishness level. Harden up a bit and enjoy your food rather than worrying that it will kill you when obviously it doesn't.
I'm not "worried that it will kill me". Obviously it isn't killing people. I'll just repeat: I don't like the way it's made. Okay?
Eating dogs won't kill you, but I don't like that practice either. The reasons may be different, but they're MY reasons.
People regularly take advantage of this until legislation is written to patch the loopholes.
There is no way for them to "patch" this "loophole", because the government has no authority to compel speech. At best (even in those cases where it is legal for them to do so), the best they can do is force you to shut up. They have no Constitutional authority to force speech from somebody. (Testimony in court, in some cases, but not public speech.)
So it's exempt from the "don't tell" rule because it's not telling. A "kill switch" is not speaking. It's one thing to force someone to NOT say "we received an NSL". It's quite another thing to force somebody to tell the public "we have not received an NSL", especially if it is a lie.
(I am not a lawyer, but I studied military law.) Judges are not stupid. So if you are served with a gag order and then kill your canary through action or inaction, then you will go to jail, because you have signaled something in contravention of the gag order.
There is still a line that they are not allowed to cross. Forcing someone to "speak in the affirmative", especially if it's a lie, is far different from forcing them to shut up.
There's a way to hack around this by exploiting a Civil War-era constitutional amendment. The company announces in advance, through the canary meta element or another : "If we receive one of several requests, $NAME and $NAME and $NAME will leave the company's employment."
Seems like overkill to me. A "canary tag" might actually be the way to go. While the government seems to feel it can compel your silence, compelling speech is a completely different thing under the law. Coercing a company to keep its "canary tag" alive is a very different matter from compelling them to take it down and shut up.
It's bombarded so aggressively, it's having its surface ripped off it to create that enormous tail, and it's suffering from ever greater gravitational tidal forces - that's about as far as you can get from happening without apparent external infuence.
This is what bugs me about the prediction of closest Earth approach "if it survives".
Now, I'm not sure about this... but it is necessarily on a hyperbolic trajectory. Does the trajectory stay approximately the same if it breaks up and therefore changes mass? I.e., if it's a relatively passive breakup (by no means a given), would all the pieces continue in the same trajectory? Or is it altered?
Fermentation is part of decomposition, but you referred to it previously as rotting. Rotting involves all three decomposition processes, not just the break down of carbohydrates (fermentation), but of the proteins (putrefaction) and fats (rancidification). In salty environments, like that used in making fish sauce, you can stop the breakdown of proteins and fats, and are left with just fermentation.
READ THE COMMENT I WAS REPLYING TO. My statement was perfectly justified, in context.
I referred to it as rotting, because the process of making some brands of fish sauce -- including the most common brand sold in the world -- is not just "fermentation". It involves rotting.
The problem here is that you seem to think I called fermentation "rotting". False. I was making the distinction between fermentation, and what we commonly call rotting.
Yes, fermentation is part of decomposition, but the whole point I was making is that the production of some fish sauce -- and I mean a very common fish sauce in many parts of the world, not just rare, niche varieties -- involves decomposition that no sane person would call "fermentation", unless they were using that word as a euphemism for something quite different.
If you are talking about the kind of fish sauce made in the U.S. and some other "western" countries, then we're talking about two different things.
There is a long list of foods that involve letting them spoil in a specific way, including in Western cultures, but people usually only object to the ones they are not familiar with.
I'm familiar enough. But there are varying degrees, and in the case of Southeast Asian fish sauce, I have seen it done and it is far outside my standards. Fair enough?
As for the kinds made in the U.S.: They are made differently and although they meet my standards of sanity, I still don't like them very much.
I'm not quite sure how you've equated fermentation with decomposition. Fermentation prevents decomposition, as the salt used and acids and alcohol produced by the fermentation inhibit the growth of those bacteria which decompose the food.
I'm not sure where you learned science, but fermentation *IS* decomposition.
Are beer, bread, yoghurt, gherkins, and olives also "left to rot"?
In the sun, for 2 years? Not even. (By the way: there are several kinds of "fermentation", and the kinds that happen with bread and beer do not even remotely apply in this case. Especially bread. If you want to call the metabolism of sugar by yeast "rotting", then you're rotting right now. Yecch.)
"Respect for the animal and frugality. Fermenting to make a sauce is just one good way to use the parts of an animal which are not particularly appetising on their own."
Right. Silk purse from a sow's ear. That works well. I do appreciate the attempt to make something useful out of refuse, but in this case I refuse.
Slashdot Mirror
"To be followed by random Apple bashing, several forms of 'can it run Linux', and a whole lot of people saying the entire concept of a tablet is stupid because they can't figure out why they'd have one."
Seriously: "Can it run Linux" was the first question that popped into my head. I might be interested in the tablet, if the hardware is decent. But I have exactly zero interest in Windows 8.x.
"Ha. Now the libertarians are going to abandon it wholesale.
No fun when the big bad gubmint likes your freedomcoins."
Nonsense. It has nothing to do with what the government likes. It has everything to do with whether, and how, government "regulates" it.
Just watch. Somebody in government will attempt to regulate it in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the mathematics of how Bitcoin works. It's almost inevitable.
Like, just for example: trying to legislate a fixed exchange rate for dollars. (Just an example. I doubt they'd be stupid enough to do that exact thing. But you never know.)
"I think this is emblematic of how they do business and how lowly they think of their "users". I also uninstalled all the google apps from my iPhone after the tracker story from last week."
"... discontinued... after the practice was publicly reported" says everything that needs to be said.
If he got on a plane, the whole situation would change before the plane landed and he would be arrested. Saying that we have not done the paperwork yet does not mean that it would not be done before he arrived.
This smells of politics.
As long as he is out of the country they lose nothing by not formally charging him, and that way they don't risk making fools of themselves in the eyes of the rest of the world.
As you say, if he set foot on American soil, that could change at any time. Don't count on today's U.S. politicians to not make themselves look like fools if they're getting what they want. Hell, they've been doing a lot of that lately.
Really?
The "Archeological Chemist" apparently knows next to nothing about food preservation. This "mess after a few hours" thing is bunk.
As the U.S. Army Survival Manual has been saying for at least 4 decades: in a hot, arid desert, you can bury a piece of raw meat the size of your arm under the sand, and it will remain edible (if somewhat dried out) for at least 2 years.
I think Mars, being small, ran out of natural radio-decay heat sources in its crust and core. Not having enough mass, or enough tectonic activity to churn things up and generate heat, the core solidified, the magnetic field went away, and solar radiation finished them off.
Curiousity recently found a (relative) boatload of frozen water all over, in the soil, just under the surface. I forget what the estimate was but it was something like 7 liters per cubic meter of soil... which is quite a lot, really. (Granted, a cubic meter is a lot of soil but 7 liters is nothing to sneeze at either.)
"If the data came from the government I'd say its completely fucking worthless."
Agree with the other person above. This data doesn't come from just the government statistics. Studies have found the same thing. And not just in America. Major crime has been going down in most of the Western world for the last 30 years. Major crimes -- including violent crimes... and including things like mass shootings and school shootings -- are half of what they were just 20 years ago.
Don't take anybody's word for it. Look it up yourself.
The equipment used by police departments has no relationship to the amount of crime.
Except for one single piece of equipment. And it isn't what you think it is.
There is a very strong correlation between higher crime, and the number of policemen in patrol cars (as opposed to walking street beats on foot).
As more and more policemen have been given cars, and have been separated from their ties to particular neighborhoods, crime goes up. This is a solid statistic based on lots of study, over decades.
The police car drives crime up. (Relative to walking a beat.)
I was just trying to dispel the notion that it's illegal to carry in movie theaters and malls. Hospitals and liquor serving establishments are the only pieces of private property I can think of where firearms are banned by statute in a significant number of American jurisdictions, and not even in all American jurisdictions. I can carry in bars here in the blue state of New York, and the nearly-as-blue state of Pennsylvania just to our South. Hospitals are also allowed in NYS, unless they're attached to a University.
Well, I think it's very significant that he passed up 9 closer theaters that did not explicitly prohibit guns, to single out the one that did. Presumably he didn't want anybody shooting back.
That ship as sailed. The first amendment is null and void.
Bullshit. The 1st Amendment is your single best chance of declaring things like gag orders unconstitutional.
I will not accept such a defeatist attitude. If you want to sit on your thumbs and moan in despair about how much you have been wronged, and how useless it is to fight it, go right ahead.
But don't try to tell me to do the same thing. I have too much respect for myself (and the children of the future) to indulge in that kind of whining.
The centre of mass of the fragments will continue in the same path initially.
Good answer. I should have thought of that.
But they can just upstream you, and put their proxy ahead of your servers and adjust the tags. After all, they have been demanding SSL certificates for some time now.
And where would the get the authority to do that??? The government does not have any legal power to put something out there themselves and claim that it's mine. They have no more authority to lie on my behalf than they do to force me to lie.
Do not confuse technical capability with legality. If they were the same, there would be no hackers in prison.
You're taking an awfully American-centric view to assume everyone who disagrees with you has never eaten or seen fish sauce from outside the US.
You're taking an awfully assumption-centric view to assume that's what I was doing. I did not write that, and I did not mean that.
Nonetheless, you are still incorrect, the method of making fish sauce is not rotting, but is specifically fermentation.
I stated that one brand -- a very popular one -- was made the way I described. I also stated, very clearly, that I was aware other kinds are NOT made that way.
Are you talking about the American kind or the most popular brand in the world? 'Cause I watched a whole television show on the most popular brand in the world. I know all about it.
I didn't claim to "know all about it." But I do know enough to have an opinion about it. Don't put words in my mouth. It shows that either you weren't paying attention, or made a moronic assumption, or both.
You soft westerners have too low a squeamishness level. Harden up a bit and enjoy your food rather than worrying that it will kill you when obviously it doesn't.
I'm not "worried that it will kill me". Obviously it isn't killing people. I'll just repeat: I don't like the way it's made. Okay?
Eating dogs won't kill you, but I don't like that practice either. The reasons may be different, but they're MY reasons.
People regularly take advantage of this until legislation is written to patch the loopholes.
There is no way for them to "patch" this "loophole", because the government has no authority to compel speech. At best (even in those cases where it is legal for them to do so), the best they can do is force you to shut up. They have no Constitutional authority to force speech from somebody. (Testimony in court, in some cases, but not public speech.)
So it's exempt from the "don't tell" rule because it's not telling. A "kill switch" is not speaking. It's one thing to force someone to NOT say "we received an NSL". It's quite another thing to force somebody to tell the public "we have not received an NSL", especially if it is a lie.
(I am not a lawyer, but I studied military law.) Judges are not stupid. So if you are served with a gag order and then kill your canary through action or inaction, then you will go to jail, because you have signaled something in contravention of the gag order.
There is still a line that they are not allowed to cross. Forcing someone to "speak in the affirmative", especially if it's a lie, is far different from forcing them to shut up.
There's a way to hack around this by exploiting a Civil War-era constitutional amendment. The company announces in advance, through the canary meta element or another : "If we receive one of several requests, $NAME and $NAME and $NAME will leave the company's employment."
Seems like overkill to me. A "canary tag" might actually be the way to go. While the government seems to feel it can compel your silence, compelling speech is a completely different thing under the law. Coercing a company to keep its "canary tag" alive is a very different matter from compelling them to take it down and shut up.
That was my question too. Or close to it. Will the trajectory change much (or at all) if it breaks up or loses mass during its swing around the sun?
I admit that I don't know enough about the mechanics to know the answer off-hand.
It's right behind Comet ASDF, which a cousin of Comet ADHD.
It's bombarded so aggressively, it's having its surface ripped off it to create that enormous tail, and it's suffering from ever greater gravitational tidal forces - that's about as far as you can get from happening without apparent external infuence.
This is what bugs me about the prediction of closest Earth approach "if it survives".
Now, I'm not sure about this... but it is necessarily on a hyperbolic trajectory. Does the trajectory stay approximately the same if it breaks up and therefore changes mass? I.e., if it's a relatively passive breakup (by no means a given), would all the pieces continue in the same trajectory? Or is it altered?
Fermentation is part of decomposition, but you referred to it previously as rotting. Rotting involves all three decomposition processes, not just the break down of carbohydrates (fermentation), but of the proteins (putrefaction) and fats (rancidification). In salty environments, like that used in making fish sauce, you can stop the breakdown of proteins and fats, and are left with just fermentation.
READ THE COMMENT I WAS REPLYING TO. My statement was perfectly justified, in context.
I referred to it as rotting, because the process of making some brands of fish sauce -- including the most common brand sold in the world -- is not just "fermentation". It involves rotting.
The problem here is that you seem to think I called fermentation "rotting". False. I was making the distinction between fermentation, and what we commonly call rotting.
Yes, fermentation is part of decomposition, but the whole point I was making is that the production of some fish sauce -- and I mean a very common fish sauce in many parts of the world, not just rare, niche varieties -- involves decomposition that no sane person would call "fermentation", unless they were using that word as a euphemism for something quite different.
If you are talking about the kind of fish sauce made in the U.S. and some other "western" countries, then we're talking about two different things.
There is a long list of foods that involve letting them spoil in a specific way, including in Western cultures, but people usually only object to the ones they are not familiar with.
I'm familiar enough. But there are varying degrees, and in the case of Southeast Asian fish sauce, I have seen it done and it is far outside my standards. Fair enough?
As for the kinds made in the U.S.: They are made differently and although they meet my standards of sanity, I still don't like them very much.
I'm not quite sure how you've equated fermentation with decomposition. Fermentation prevents decomposition, as the salt used and acids and alcohol produced by the fermentation inhibit the growth of those bacteria which decompose the food.
I'm not sure where you learned science, but fermentation *IS* decomposition.
Are beer, bread, yoghurt, gherkins, and olives also "left to rot"?
In the sun, for 2 years? Not even. (By the way: there are several kinds of "fermentation", and the kinds that happen with bread and beer do not even remotely apply in this case. Especially bread. If you want to call the metabolism of sugar by yeast "rotting", then you're rotting right now. Yecch.)
"Respect for the animal and frugality. Fermenting to make a sauce is just one good way to use the parts of an animal which are not particularly appetising on their own."
Right. Silk purse from a sow's ear. That works well. I do appreciate the attempt to make something useful out of refuse, but in this case I refuse.
100% of WHAT?
Did you even read the comment to which you were replying?
--
If I don't like the way you insult me, I may ask you to go back to school.