That's one of the issues in this case. A Stingray is not discriminating and could impact other cellular devices. The FBI also claims they "throw away" all data that is not pertinent to their investigation, meaning there is no way to determine what they did or did not see regarding other people's communications. (Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.)
From what I've read on the issue, the stringray only works if the targeted phone's PRL has been modified to accept the stingray as a "friendly" tower. On or off, unmodified phones aren't going to connect to the stingray, seeing it as a rogue device.
I'm not saying there isn't anything to be concerned about here, just saying that you're focusing on the wrong (and incorrect from what I'm reading) issue. In these circumstances, the stingray appears useless without the service provider's complicity in both tracing location of the target, and uploading modified firmware to the target's phone.
Bioware and especially EA have made some hit and miss games,
EA made Dead space, Mirror's edge, burnout, Timesplitters future perfect, rock band, Dragon age, walking dead, and Alice Madness Returns, all of which I enjoyed.
Quite wrong. Bioware makes games. EA publishes games. EA may at times purchase development houses, but viewing EA as anything more then a publisher with a heavy hand for deadlines and DRM is giving them way too much credit. Some of Bioware's best games were either released or largely finished before EA got involved.
EA is a festering boil on the video game industry, and it's destruction would be followed by an ewok party an Endor moon.
Sadly, my awareness of the proper acronym did not kick into my self-editor. I *knew* something was wrong with the post, but couldn't narrow it down and just posted as is. Thanks for scratching the itch though =D
They should take into account volume as well. Next time I'm taking a crap load of helium balloons!
How would you personally consuming more volume effect the amount of jet fuel burned, given that the volume of the plane remains the same?
Depending on the volume of the passengers, the pilot may be inclined to fly the plane faster so he can get rid of the passengers. Just to shut them up.
I'm part owner of a DeHavilland DHC-1 Beaver - just a bit bigger than a 172. It's used in a bush airline in Alaska. They have had weight based pricing for years, albeit in fairly rough steps - above 110 kg passenger plus luggage, you get an extra charge. In small planes like these, one obese person (or someone trying to take everything they own on a trip) makes the difference between one run and two.
On a couple of occasions, I've embarrassed myself by dragging along too much gear and having to switch from the 172 (the airline's other plane) to the Beaver. Those damned telephoto lenses (and the 12 V battery and the dog) add up.
I'm sorry, you've exceeded your/. innuendo limit for the day. Please shut off your computer, and try again tomorrow...
This would the reason I'd want some visibility and input into this data, the same we have (now) with credit bureau informatino.
This puts the burden on the wrong party, just like we have now with credit bureau information. The burden for accuracy should be on the data broker, and they should be liable if they sell incorrect data.
It would seem that in most states (California included), the data broker could be brought up on libel/defamatory charges.
Wikipedia's article on this points out that some statements are "defamatory per se", noteably:
Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
It goes on to add that if a statement is "defamatory per se", "damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven."
Faith has meaning in English. A related word in Hebrew in next to useless to help us understand the English sense, since these things change vastly over relatively short timeframes.
When I hear or use the word faith, the closest definition I'd use is "belief in the absence of evidence". This understanding of the word faith is echoed by many people.
So faith would apply to the existence of a god, but not of air.
This makes more sense, since we need different words in order to differentiate meanings. If faith simply means belief, then using one rather than the other makes no distinction.
With that last statement, you show your lack of understanding of the English language =D There is an annoying amount of duplication of words without distinction. By your "distinction" logic, you make my "blind faith" statement more relevant. Also, the meaning of the word translated from the original Greek (not Hebrew) was a long standing definition even in the English language. I know, it's hard to remember things from before the internet =D
Because the first thing - the very first thing I try to do with the kinect everytime is use a closed fist or rotating hand action to try and control something, and then get frustrated when I can't.
So belief in Time, Gravity, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy is faith then?
Regarding time and gravity: In the original meaning, yes. However not in the hysterical religious connotation (AKA the one currently found on the internet).
Regarding Dark Matter and Dark Energy: Not sure, I'm not familiar enough with the subjects to say for sure. Both Wikipedia articles claim evidence that goes well over my head, and I'm not afraid to admit that. If I were to claim that belief in these subjects was faith, it would be blind faith on my part. However, to someone who understands and agrees with the evidence, it would appear that belief in the existence of these is faith (in the original sense of the word).
The original definitions of faith aren't inherently separate from reasoned out science. Science covers the deeper examination and testing out of the subjects that one has faith in (where possible). Sadly, I think it's the promotion of "blind faith" (typically with hypocrisy) by the leaders of religion at large that have corrupted the original meaning of the term.
I recognize that the quotable definitions found on the internet now supplant the definition of faith with what used to be it's "blind" definition, but please note that I was responding to hawkinspeter's question: "Since when is faith based on evidence?" While the current popular definition of "faith" seems to exclude evidence, this was not always the case.
Since a looong time ago. The biblical hebrews 11:1, perhaps the oldest definition of the term we render as "faith", defines it as the evidence of things not seen. The quick easy example would be "air", something unseen but we have evidence that it exists. However the "definitions" of faith have been muddied over time. In english, the kind of faith that has no evidence has it's own term: blind faith. It's what you see a lot of in religion today. Also a good reason for Ghandi's quote as posted by DroolTwist.
Because when it blows up, it's going to rip your face apart. When it fails, it's going to fail and take your hand/cheek/eyes.
Yet these same arguments don't keep some people from ruining their bodies with cocaine, meth etc. Threats of long prison terms don't dissuade them either. The type of people to be worried about are the type unconcerned with "future consequences", and sadly they are they type most likely to gravitate towards untraceable firearms.
The wooosh is from the point of his argument sailing well over your head. Apparently you woooshed on the wooosh as well. His argument wasn't specifically about Firefox. It was about Apple excluding browser makers from bringing their own competing engine by means of locking out access to hardware acceleration, which not only has a basis in reality, it's known fact. Firefox's absence from the app store is EXACTLY what makes it a good example, and whether Firefox is on the app store or not, Apple's restriction of web-browser engines speaks to it's anti-competitiveness. Heck, it took them quite awhile before they even approved any additional web browsers at all.
It's like some of the racing organizations, they limit the engine sizes and technologies that are allowed to make the cars all equal. While that may be acceptable in a racing organization, in business, it can be viewed as anti-competitive. If you're judged to be a monopoly in the legal sense, anti-competitive behavior can be punished. While this isn't a mirror image of what happened with M$, there are parallels to be observed there as well.
That said either you missed the point completely, woooshed it if you will, or you understood the point, and tried to put up a straw-man argument with the "firefox is not on the app-store, factually inaccurate" garbage.
Dodo: A flightless bird that went extinct very recently because it had evolved on an island, had no fear of people, and had it's "lek" (breeding ground) located right where the military built an airbase during a World War. Big as a domestic turkey but allegedly much more tasty,not prone to panic so easy to handle.
Which world war? The were extinct before the Seven Year's War (aka French And Indian War, in the USA), in fact probably before Queen Anne's War (best guess in supposedly in the 1690s, according to Wikipedia), well before the first airbase, even according to Jane's.
Dodo: A flightless bird with an extinction date that is often guessed upon by humans who easily qualify to wear the bird's name.
That still isn't a knock against Walmart. It is a knock against our collective inability to accept that at some point, we just don't have enough legitimate work for everyone.
While there are people working and collecting double-overtime and working 7-day work weeks, the "not enough legitimate work" statement doesn't hold up. It may be true, but while workplaces either hold worker hours down (to avoid paying additional benefits like health care) or up (to avoid paying benefits like health care on an additional body), it will be difficult to get a clear picture on actual available work.
PC games can't be returned if they're opened and the only way to realize you might have been fucked by a game is to install and start playing it.
Not the point I was arguing against, but I'll bite anyway. This again depends on the manager and style of the company. You can tout "company policy" all you want, but if the customer is loud and persistent enough, they will more often then not get a refund. The whole "squeaky wheel gets the oil" concept. You may have also missed that Amazon was reportedly allowing returns of SimCity, open box or not. First link I found, but there are others.
It appears that Simcity has been a special case, and instead of risking the ire of it's customers for selling what was worthless garbage at the time, Amazon bent the rules, as you will find many retailers will do to "keep the customer". Why you may ask? Here's my guess: EA doesn't care about keeping the customer because their next large game release won't be for many months, and the customer will likely have forgotten by then. Amazon (or your local retailer) is counting on you still wanting to buy things tomorrow or next week. Pissing off customers is often a surefire way to send them (and their money) to another retailer.
So you just keep spinning up further and further oversubscribed VMs? Someone's gotta buy hardware and bandwidth.
If you were some small organization with a lack of focus on IT and IS, I could agree with your sentiment. However, this is Maxis and EA. There is a wealth of experience, and per their leadership there is an explicit focus in having an online presence in each and every game they ship. Even at the smallish organization I work for, we don't deploy new large installations when we're near or at capacity. We add capacity (hardware AND bandwidth) and THEN deploy. If a smallish organization can have the foresight to plan appropriately with what comparatively little experience that we have, there's no excuse for the disaster that Simcity's launch was.
If they go into a GameStop and walk up to the counter with a copy of the game, there's a good chance the guy behind the counter might warn them away from it.
Wait. You're seriously suggesting that a retail employee would say stuff that drives revenue away from the store? That's the fastest way to get shitcanned in retail.
Depends on your manager and the style of the company. Returns may impact your Manager's pay. When I used to work retail (about a decade ago) I was valued because I'd steer customers away from crap that was constantly returned. Even if I sold them something with a lower profit margin.
Yes, because that little kiddie script is so effective.
If their servers can't (or can barely) handle the load of their existing client base, it wouldn't take much to push them over the edge. Even a "kiddie script" would be up to the task.
Slashdot Mirror
That's one of the issues in this case. A Stingray is not discriminating and could impact other cellular devices. The FBI also claims they "throw away" all data that is not pertinent to their investigation, meaning there is no way to determine what they did or did not see regarding other people's communications. (Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.)
From what I've read on the issue, the stringray only works if the targeted phone's PRL has been modified to accept the stingray as a "friendly" tower. On or off, unmodified phones aren't going to connect to the stingray, seeing it as a rogue device.
I'm not saying there isn't anything to be concerned about here, just saying that you're focusing on the wrong (and incorrect from what I'm reading) issue. In these circumstances, the stingray appears useless without the service provider's complicity in both tracing location of the target, and uploading modified firmware to the target's phone.
Bioware and EA both make good games
Bioware and especially EA have made some hit and miss games,
EA made Dead space, Mirror's edge, burnout, Timesplitters future perfect, rock band, Dragon age, walking dead, and Alice Madness Returns, all of which I enjoyed.
Quite wrong.
Bioware makes games. EA publishes games. EA may at times purchase development houses, but viewing EA as anything more then a publisher with a heavy hand for deadlines and DRM is giving them way too much credit. Some of Bioware's best games were either released or largely finished before EA got involved.
EA is a festering boil on the video game industry, and it's destruction would be followed by an ewok party an Endor moon.
Can I switch to direct antagonism in the interim?
This is slashdot, you don't switch to direct antagonism, you resume it.
Sadly, my awareness of the proper acronym did not kick into my self-editor. I *knew* something was wrong with the post, but couldn't narrow it down and just posted as is. Thanks for scratching the itch though =D
They should take into account volume as well. Next time I'm taking a crap load of helium balloons!
How would you personally consuming more volume effect the amount of jet fuel burned, given that the volume of the plane remains the same?
Depending on the volume of the passengers, the pilot may be inclined to fly the plane faster so he can get rid of the passengers. Just to shut them up.
I'm part owner of a DeHavilland DHC-1 Beaver - just a bit bigger than a 172. It's used in a bush airline in Alaska. They have had weight based pricing for years, albeit in fairly rough steps - above 110 kg passenger plus luggage, you get an extra charge. In small planes like these, one obese person (or someone trying to take everything they own on a trip) makes the difference between one run and two.
On a couple of occasions, I've embarrassed myself by dragging along too much gear and having to switch from the 172 (the airline's other plane) to the Beaver. Those damned telephoto lenses (and the 12 V battery and the dog) add up.
I'm sorry, you've exceeded your /. innuendo limit for the day. Please shut off your computer, and try again tomorrow...
This would the reason I'd want some visibility and input into this data, the same we have (now) with credit bureau informatino.
This puts the burden on the wrong party, just like we have now with credit bureau information. The burden for accuracy should be on the data broker, and they should be liable if they sell incorrect data.
It would seem that in most states (California included), the data broker could be brought up on libel/defamatory charges. Wikipedia's article on this points out that some statements are "defamatory per se", noteably:
Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
It goes on to add that if a statement is "defamatory per se", "damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven."
Also, IMNAL.
Faith has meaning in English. A related word in Hebrew in next to useless to help us understand the English sense, since these things change vastly over relatively short timeframes.
When I hear or use the word faith, the closest definition I'd use is "belief in the absence of evidence". This understanding of the word faith is echoed by many people. So faith would apply to the existence of a god, but not of air.
This makes more sense, since we need different words in order to differentiate meanings. If faith simply means belief, then using one rather than the other makes no distinction.
With that last statement, you show your lack of understanding of the English language =D There is an annoying amount of duplication of words without distinction. By your "distinction" logic, you make my "blind faith" statement more relevant. Also, the meaning of the word translated from the original Greek (not Hebrew) was a long standing definition even in the English language. I know, it's hard to remember things from before the internet =D
Wait they did? Seriously?
Because the first thing - the very first thing I try to do with the kinect everytime is use a closed fist or rotating hand action to try and control something, and then get frustrated when I can't.
We've all been there dude. =D
So belief in Time, Gravity, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy is faith then?
Regarding time and gravity: In the original meaning, yes. However not in the hysterical religious connotation (AKA the one currently found on the internet).
Regarding Dark Matter and Dark Energy: Not sure, I'm not familiar enough with the subjects to say for sure. Both Wikipedia articles claim evidence that goes well over my head, and I'm not afraid to admit that. If I were to claim that belief in these subjects was faith, it would be blind faith on my part. However, to someone who understands and agrees with the evidence, it would appear that belief in the existence of these is faith (in the original sense of the word).
The original definitions of faith aren't inherently separate from reasoned out science. Science covers the deeper examination and testing out of the subjects that one has faith in (where possible). Sadly, I think it's the promotion of "blind faith" (typically with hypocrisy) by the leaders of religion at large that have corrupted the original meaning of the term.
I recognize that the quotable definitions found on the internet now supplant the definition of faith with what used to be it's "blind" definition, but please note that I was responding to hawkinspeter's question: "Since when is faith based on evidence?" While the current popular definition of "faith" seems to exclude evidence, this was not always the case.
As well if the word "Islam" has a greater or lesser effect than "Atheist".
I think I'll start shipping Jihad shoes. I can only hope that my orders exploded...
Since when is faith based on evidence?
Since a looong time ago. The biblical hebrews 11:1, perhaps the oldest definition of the term we render as "faith", defines it as the evidence of things not seen. The quick easy example would be "air", something unseen but we have evidence that it exists. However the "definitions" of faith have been muddied over time. In english, the kind of faith that has no evidence has it's own term: blind faith. It's what you see a lot of in religion today. Also a good reason for Ghandi's quote as posted by DroolTwist.
*I've lived in rural Oklahoma for nearly seven years and I have never met more maladjusted, sexually-closeted weirdos in my entire life...
You should get out more =D
Because when it blows up, it's going to rip your face apart. When it fails, it's going to fail and take your hand/cheek/eyes.
Yet these same arguments don't keep some people from ruining their bodies with cocaine, meth etc. Threats of long prison terms don't dissuade them either. The type of people to be worried about are the type unconcerned with "future consequences", and sadly they are they type most likely to gravitate towards untraceable firearms.
The wooosh is from the point of his argument sailing well over your head. Apparently you woooshed on the wooosh as well. His argument wasn't specifically about Firefox. It was about Apple excluding browser makers from bringing their own competing engine by means of locking out access to hardware acceleration, which not only has a basis in reality, it's known fact. Firefox's absence from the app store is EXACTLY what makes it a good example, and whether Firefox is on the app store or not, Apple's restriction of web-browser engines speaks to it's anti-competitiveness. Heck, it took them quite awhile before they even approved any additional web browsers at all.
It's like some of the racing organizations, they limit the engine sizes and technologies that are allowed to make the cars all equal. While that may be acceptable in a racing organization, in business, it can be viewed as anti-competitive. If you're judged to be a monopoly in the legal sense, anti-competitive behavior can be punished. While this isn't a mirror image of what happened with M$, there are parallels to be observed there as well.
That said either you missed the point completely, woooshed it if you will, or you understood the point, and tried to put up a straw-man argument with the "firefox is not on the app-store, factually inaccurate" garbage.
Apple prevents non-webkit browsers accessing hardware accelaration. This slows down Firefox. Just one example.
Firefox is not on the app store.
Sorry, your example must have a basis in reality to be taken seriously.
Wooosh.
Dodo: A flightless bird that went extinct very recently because it had evolved on an island, had no fear of people, and had it's "lek" (breeding ground) located right where the military built an airbase during a World War. Big as a domestic turkey but allegedly much more tasty,not prone to panic so easy to handle.
Which world war? The were extinct before the Seven Year's War (aka French And Indian War, in the USA), in fact probably before Queen Anne's War (best guess in supposedly in the 1690s, according to Wikipedia), well before the first airbase, even according to Jane's.
Dodo: A flightless bird with an extinction date that is often guessed upon by humans who easily qualify to wear the bird's name.
That still isn't a knock against Walmart. It is a knock against our collective inability to accept that at some point, we just don't have enough legitimate work for everyone.
While there are people working and collecting double-overtime and working 7-day work weeks, the "not enough legitimate work" statement doesn't hold up. It may be true, but while workplaces either hold worker hours down (to avoid paying additional benefits like health care) or up (to avoid paying benefits like health care on an additional body), it will be difficult to get a clear picture on actual available work.
Saber-tooth cats (incorrectly referred to as tigers) are on the list. http://longnow.org/revive/candidates/
As long as their higher on the list than sabre-wielding-cats, which for the record, scare the bajeezus out of me!
Have YOU ever tasted a "stale" Twinkie? How could you tell?
Stale Twinkies taste better. That and they bounce.
No problem. What're they going to do, lame you to death?
No, they'll repopulate, and bury the planet in their droppings...
PC games can't be returned if they're opened and the only way to realize you might have been fucked by a game is to install and start playing it.
Not the point I was arguing against, but I'll bite anyway. This again depends on the manager and style of the company. You can tout "company policy" all you want, but if the customer is loud and persistent enough, they will more often then not get a refund. The whole "squeaky wheel gets the oil" concept. You may have also missed that Amazon was reportedly allowing returns of SimCity, open box or not.
First link I found, but there are others.
It appears that Simcity has been a special case, and instead of risking the ire of it's customers for selling what was worthless garbage at the time, Amazon bent the rules, as you will find many retailers will do to "keep the customer". Why you may ask? Here's my guess: EA doesn't care about keeping the customer because their next large game release won't be for many months, and the customer will likely have forgotten by then. Amazon (or your local retailer) is counting on you still wanting to buy things tomorrow or next week. Pissing off customers is often a surefire way to send them (and their money) to another retailer.
So you just keep spinning up further and further oversubscribed VMs? Someone's gotta buy hardware and bandwidth.
If you were some small organization with a lack of focus on IT and IS, I could agree with your sentiment. However, this is Maxis and EA. There is a wealth of experience, and per their leadership there is an explicit focus in having an online presence in each and every game they ship. Even at the smallish organization I work for, we don't deploy new large installations when we're near or at capacity. We add capacity (hardware AND bandwidth) and THEN deploy. If a smallish organization can have the foresight to plan appropriately with what comparatively little experience that we have, there's no excuse for the disaster that Simcity's launch was.
If they go into a GameStop and walk up to the counter with a copy of the game, there's a good chance the guy behind the counter might warn them away from it.
Wait. You're seriously suggesting that a retail employee would say stuff that drives revenue away from the store? That's the fastest way to get shitcanned in retail.
Depends on your manager and the style of the company. Returns may impact your Manager's pay. When I used to work retail (about a decade ago) I was valued because I'd steer customers away from crap that was constantly returned. Even if I sold them something with a lower profit margin.
Yes, because that little kiddie script is so effective.
If their servers can't (or can barely) handle the load of their existing client base, it wouldn't take much to push them over the edge. Even a "kiddie script" would be up to the task.
Grow up.
*rolls eyes*