If they snapped a photo of you while you were walking down the street, deal with it because that is a public space and anyone could have done that.
The problem here is how people will deal with it: a) The native American who doesn't want their soul stolen. b) The wanna-be fashion diva who claims you didn't get their release, and you are stealing their IP, livelihood, etc. c) Or the guy who just wants to kick your ass because he doesn't want photos around that he didn't consent.
People in general have a reasonable expectation of privacy everywhere they go despite what all of the social media douchebags think. When you click that photo, you best be sure you know how to defend yourself, because you do not know how people are going to react.
And NONE of those have anything to do with facebook. Those are all on the person who took the photo and could still happen had facebook or any other social networking site never been invented.
The majority of downloaders will try your app once and then never use it again
Most the of the "Free App of the Day" applications I download never even get installed because, as far as I can tell, there is no way to see what permissions the app will need before "buying" it. I have a ton of stuff in "my apps" that I downloaded and refused to install when I saw the permission they wanted. Still haven't figured out how to remove something from that section either.
Why do you need a chroot, if you can just set permissions such that the app can only see what it needs to see?
And Android does that already. System partition is by and large off-limits. Each app gets its own directory with full access to itself and no-one else, which is the default storage location. SD card (or whatever is mounted to/sdcard - on phones like Nexus S, it's just a separate partition) is shared between all.
Some applications will not run if they can't have access to the filesystem. I would still like to run these applications. The Chroot jail would allow you to present a fake filesystem to the application that it can change however it wants without breaking anything else. The same thing can be extended to other areas. App refuses to run without seeing your contacts? Here, have a fake address book.
Re:How Good is "Good Enough?"
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 1
At some point, displays have a high enough resolution that the human eye can't tell when the picture is any sharper. We've got to be getting close to that, no?
It's not just the resolution alone. you have to look at resolution and screen size together. Like a computer monitor you can get more "stuff" on the screen at once with a higher resolution, but it will have to be big enough for you eye to make it out. We could have television resolutions of 10,000 x 8,000 and still have them be perfectly useable as long as the screen was large enough.
So where or how does one go about getting this new version? It didn't show up as an update when I started the market application just now. Is this something that has to go through the carrier?
Do you think she might hate Microsoft because she is around her Son who constantly says bad stuff about "Microsoft"? Parents tend to pick of the view of their children, especially if it is in a "magical" area they know nothing about, like computers.
I don't think Apple is "too big to fail", but it isn't going to happen suddenly. There is still a lot of inertia left in their hype machine, and people are still buying them because they are popular fashion accessories.
Isn't the speed of light defined by how fast a photon moves? So no matter how fast the photon is moving it is still moving "the speed of light" isn't it?
Yes, I know the speed of light is defined as a specific number, but the wording of the headline made me laugh.
If Hatta meant the attorneys general who prosecuted the case, then that makes sense to me. This might be a case of malicious prosecution, since they knowingly pursued the case with no real evidence and no real crime. Perhaps to teach them a lesson? But if he meant the judge, the judge did nothing wrong. I assume we are all in agreement and made different assumptions about what is meant by the people who "tried" these men.
I have great memories of being in middle school and going to a "camp" at the highschool computer lab for several days in the summer. We got to play with legos (before mind storms and NXT) hooked up to Apple IIe's, programmed in Logo. That was the best.
Later I got a job at the school and found the kits packed away in boxes in the basement. I got permission to borrow some kits and had a great time reliving the experience.
As far as relative guilt goes, the judge should probably get off with a reminder of those important responsibilities. The DA and police should face more significant sanctions.
Nothing was wrong with the trial. The problem is that it went to trial.
Next time the DA _might_ remember this and decide to drop charges, but it is still hell to put someone innocent through a trial even when the verdict is eventually correct.
Agreed. but the OP said he wants to hold the person who TRIED the case responsible. That's the judge. All I was asking was why he wanted to hold the judge responsible for a bad arrest.
So the only thing wrong with the trial is that there was a trial.
Aagin, that isn't a problem with the trial, it is a problem with the arrest. If the bad arrest hadn't been made it never would have gone to trial. The trial was a direct result of the arrest. When you jump off a 10 story building and get hurt hitting the ground, you don't blame the ground, you blame the jump. The judge did not make the arrest, did not set the charges, and did nothing wrong. He followed proper procedure. The judge (as the one trying the case) was not to blame for any of it.
Based on the OP's statement (with the key word bolded) of "There won't be justice until we can hold the people who arrested and tried these men accountable.". There is NO reason to hold the judge accountable for any wrong doing, as he isn't the one who arrested them, or set the charges, all he did was try the case.
That would have happened before the trial (or separately). The actual trial, in the courtroom, in front of the judge and jury, worked properly. Each person did their job and acted according to their responsibilities and the law. All the problems occurred before the trial started.
Hatta didn't say anything was wrong with the trial. Just like you said, "the arrest is where the problem was" so the next step is to sue the police department for the arrest, and hopefully get compensation for the jail time and legal fees. An acquittal doesn't stop the police from abusing their power the very next time this happens. And the judge should inform the police that they cannot refuse to allow the filming at all, should they choose to do so next time.
Yes he did... "There won't be justice until we can hold the people who arrested and tried these men accountable."
The people abusing their power by claiming he was resisting arrest to load on bad charges on top of bad chargers should be punished for abusing their authority. That's what's wrong with the trial.
All that happened before the trial. The trial isn't where the charges come from. Once the trial actually started everything went correctly.
What this guy needs to do is put out a call for a flash mob to show up - hundreds of people all videotaping at the same time. Let the police try to confiscate every single camera lol. Make sure to videotape the guy videotaping the police, and the police confiscating the camera.
When the police try to turn out in force, scatter to the four winds, then upload the videos to several different places, make offline backups, etc.
They could just throw in a conspiracy charge also if he did that.
"That's the point of software — it's easy to change."
And here I thought it was about letting the user accomplish something they consider useful. I didn't realize the point of software was to allow you to change it. Silly me.
Looks like approximately 5% hair, 95% "plant based bioresin". The artists statement neglects to compare its energy cost to manufacture versus metal or plastic frames.
You say that as if "Going Green" was actually about facts and reality. It may have started that way, but It's currently nothing more than a trendy fashion statement, and mundane marketing ploy.
Slashdot Mirror
If they snapped a photo of you while you were walking down the street, deal with it because that is a public space and anyone could have done that.
The problem here is how people will deal with it:
a) The native American who doesn't want their soul stolen.
b) The wanna-be fashion diva who claims you didn't get their release, and you are stealing their IP, livelihood, etc.
c) Or the guy who just wants to kick your ass because he doesn't want photos around that he didn't consent.
People in general have a reasonable expectation of privacy everywhere they go despite what all of the social media douchebags think. When you click that photo, you best be sure you know how to defend yourself, because you do not know how people are going to react.
And NONE of those have anything to do with facebook. Those are all on the person who took the photo and could still happen had facebook or any other social networking site never been invented.
The majority of downloaders will try your app once and then never use it again
Most the of the "Free App of the Day" applications I download never even get installed because, as far as I can tell, there is no way to see what permissions the app will need before "buying" it. I have a ton of stuff in "my apps" that I downloaded and refused to install when I saw the permission they wanted. Still haven't figured out how to remove something from that section either.
Why do you need a chroot, if you can just set permissions such that the app can only see what it needs to see?
And Android does that already. System partition is by and large off-limits. Each app gets its own directory with full access to itself and no-one else, which is the default storage location. SD card (or whatever is mounted to /sdcard - on phones like Nexus S, it's just a separate partition) is shared between all.
Some applications will not run if they can't have access to the filesystem. I would still like to run these applications. The Chroot jail would allow you to present a fake filesystem to the application that it can change however it wants without breaking anything else. The same thing can be extended to other areas. App refuses to run without seeing your contacts? Here, have a fake address book.
At some point, displays have a high enough resolution that the human eye can't tell when the picture is any sharper. We've got to be getting close to that, no?
It's not just the resolution alone. you have to look at resolution and screen size together. Like a computer monitor you can get more "stuff" on the screen at once with a higher resolution, but it will have to be big enough for you eye to make it out. We could have television resolutions of 10,000 x 8,000 and still have them be perfectly useable as long as the screen was large enough.
It's all about the DPI.
Or if you don't want to wait, download the apk from XDA:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1166152
Thanks for the link, works perfectly.
So where or how does one go about getting this new version? It didn't show up as an update when I started the market application just now. Is this something that has to go through the carrier?
I present this story as evidence: http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/07/26/1440246/35-Consumers-Want-iPhone-5-Sight-Unseen
So what if 2 groups hold opposing ideas at the same time, and each one has 10% mind share? The "Always" part of this prediction bothers me.
Even my Mom hates Microsoft.
Do you think she might hate Microsoft because she is around her Son who constantly says bad stuff about "Microsoft"? Parents tend to pick of the view of their children, especially if it is in a "magical" area they know nothing about, like computers.
I don't think Apple is "too big to fail", but it isn't going to happen suddenly. There is still a lot of inertia left in their hype machine, and people are still buying them because they are popular fashion accessories.
And, people are going to remember how Apple treated people back when..
No they won't. The will yell "oooo SHINY!", and buy it with out a second thought.
What good is a dollar that isn't eventually spent?
From what I've read it gets you more replies on the dating websites.
Isn't the speed of light defined by how fast a photon moves? So no matter how fast the photon is moving it is still moving "the speed of light" isn't it?
Yes, I know the speed of light is defined as a specific number, but the wording of the headline made me laugh.
I see, I think this is a misunderstanding.
If Hatta meant the attorneys general who prosecuted the case, then that makes sense to me. This might be a case of malicious prosecution, since they knowingly pursued the case with no real evidence and no real crime. Perhaps to teach them a lesson? But if he meant the judge, the judge did nothing wrong. I assume we are all in agreement and made different assumptions about what is meant by the people who "tried" these men.
Sorry about that.
Agreed.
I have great memories of being in middle school and going to a "camp" at the highschool computer lab for several days in the summer. We got to play with legos (before mind storms and NXT) hooked up to Apple IIe's, programmed in Logo. That was the best.
Later I got a job at the school and found the kits packed away in boxes in the basement. I got permission to borrow some kits and had a great time reliving the experience.
As far as relative guilt goes, the judge should probably get off with a reminder of those important responsibilities. The DA and police should face more significant sanctions.
Ok, I think I can agree with that.
Nothing was wrong with the trial. The problem is that it went to trial.
Next time the DA _might_ remember this and decide to drop charges, but it is still hell to put someone innocent through a trial even when the verdict is eventually correct.
Agreed. but the OP said he wants to hold the person who TRIED the case responsible. That's the judge. All I was asking was why he wanted to hold the judge responsible for a bad arrest.
So the only thing wrong with the trial is that there was a trial.
Aagin, that isn't a problem with the trial, it is a problem with the arrest. If the bad arrest hadn't been made it never would have gone to trial. The trial was a direct result of the arrest. When you jump off a 10 story building and get hurt hitting the ground, you don't blame the ground, you blame the jump. The judge did not make the arrest, did not set the charges, and did nothing wrong. He followed proper procedure. The judge (as the one trying the case) was not to blame for any of it.
Based on the OP's statement (with the key word bolded) of "There won't be justice until we can hold the people who arrested and tried these men accountable.". There is NO reason to hold the judge accountable for any wrong doing, as he isn't the one who arrested them, or set the charges, all he did was try the case.
The DA should have dropped these charges.
That would have happened before the trial (or separately). The actual trial, in the courtroom, in front of the judge and jury, worked properly. Each person did their job and acted according to their responsibilities and the law. All the problems occurred before the trial started.
Hatta didn't say anything was wrong with the trial. Just like you said, "the arrest is where the problem was" so the next step is to sue the police department for the arrest, and hopefully get compensation for the jail time and legal fees. An acquittal doesn't stop the police from abusing their power the very next time this happens. And the judge should inform the police that they cannot refuse to allow the filming at all, should they choose to do so next time.
Yes he did... "There won't be justice until we can hold the people who arrested and tried these men accountable."
The people abusing their power by claiming he was resisting arrest to load on bad charges on top of bad chargers should be punished for abusing their authority. That's what's wrong with the trial.
All that happened before the trial. The trial isn't where the charges come from. Once the trial actually started everything went correctly.
There won't be justice until we can hold the people who arrested and tried these men accountable.
What was wrong with the trial? It seems that part of the process worked correctly. The arrest is where the problem was.
2 Failures out of 135 launches makes it an unreliable death trap?
If your car exploded once a month while driving to or from work, what would you call it?
NASA would laugh at SpaceX if they were offering a 'man-rated' transport to ISS which would kill the crew one time in sixty flights.
Talk to me when the car is being launched in to orbit or doing re-entry, THEN we will compare notes.
What this guy needs to do is put out a call for a flash mob to show up - hundreds of people all videotaping at the same time. Let the police try to confiscate every single camera lol. Make sure to videotape the guy videotaping the police, and the police confiscating the camera.
When the police try to turn out in force, scatter to the four winds, then upload the videos to several different places, make offline backups, etc.
They could just throw in a conspiracy charge also if he did that.
And here I thought it was about letting the user accomplish something they consider useful. I didn't realize the point of software was to allow you to change it. Silly me.
Looks like approximately 5% hair, 95% "plant based bioresin". The artists statement neglects to compare its energy cost to manufacture versus metal or plastic frames.
You say that as if "Going Green" was actually about facts and reality. It may have started that way, but It's currently nothing more than a trendy fashion statement, and mundane marketing ploy.