Verizon uses CDMA which doesn't support SIM cards. There's a spec for using SIM-like cards with CDMA which has been around for a while (it started off with the R-UIM, and was superseded by the CSIM, both of which are even compatible with GSM SIMs) but I don't know of any US carriers or manufacturers that have implemented this. Which is unfortunate for the customer, but is obviously a "good thing" for the carriers: vendor lock-in and all that.
A very, very bad idea. Google has enough power over content as it is. I'd hate to see them gain even more. Google already controls the most popular search engine and the most popular video hosting site (at least in the US. I'm not sure about the rest of the world.) Imagine if you could only find, say, music videos as youtube "rentals," or had to use a Google TV box for streaming internet radio. Sure, a lot of those technologies are open right now, and Google's motto is "do no evil," but do you really believe that Google wouldn't be able to lock their content down in an instant if their shareholders demanded it?
A lot of people have the opinion that the ACLU is only about shutting down the speech of Christians/Whites/Men/*insert majority group here.* I think this case proves that not to be the case, and demonstrates the good that the ACLU actually does: Protecting personal privacy, freedom of expression, etc.
This is a very important case, one that could potentially set a very bad precedent. It's good that there's at least one somewhat powerful organization on the side of personal privacy in this case. I hope groups like the EFF get involved as well.
Except the state isn't trying to force any kind of morality on them, they're trying to let gay couples have the same rights everybody else has. This doesn't mean that every church will then need to marry gays, or even that people will need to accept gays (any more than they already do, of course; attacking/harassing them would still be off limits.) Gay rights really do have no effect on the people that don't like them; in my experience, the only reason they oppose it is because they believe they're in possession of some sort of "universal moral code" which proclaims that being gay is wrong.
I'd assume this isn't about deploying unmanned drones over US, but rather allowing them to deploy from the US. Some UAVs, such as the Global Hawk, have very long flight ranges, enough to deploy from US bases and fly to their destination overseas. It would also be useful to be able to ferry the planes from test bases and manufacturing facilities to the operation bases without having to disassemble them and load them into a cargo plane. The FAA probably wants to know how they perform in order to accomplish this, not for some hypothetical secret surveillance program.
It sounds like you both want the Notion Ink Adam. IMO, it's the most impressive tablet concept I've seen yet; a Tegra 2 based Android tablet with all the features listed above, and a PixelQi display. Unfortunately, it looks like the PixelQi version will be pretty pricey, and the launch is being delayed because they're trying to get Flash working properly on it. I just hope it comes to market and doesn't flop.
Air Force pilots are typically better at air combat than the Navy pilots because, while the Navy pilot will have more flight hours, the AF pilot will typically have more air combat training. That's because the Navy spends a much larger percentage of their time practicing for carrier landings, while the Air Force spends almost of their time practicing air combat. Also, since the retirement of the F-14, and especially since the introduction of the F-22, the Air Force will typically have better equipment. There aren't many forces I can think of that can match the USAF in an air war.
So, you're offering to set up an open VPN and post the connection details on the internet? Have fun talking to the FBI after the chans discover it and use your connection to download gigs of kiddie porn. Or, alternatively, when some hacker uses it to own a bunch of boxes.
Seriously, handing out VPN connections to strangers is a really bad idea.
In response to 2, I'd like to state that being poor was not usually enough to qualify one for medicaid before this bill passed (and, indeed, still is not the only requirement until the provisions come into effect.) You typically have to be poor and have special needs in some way, such as being a child, a parent of young children, blind or disabled, or elderly. This varies depending on state, but I'm sure it's pretty standard.
You couldn't commute with it, even if you were within range. This thing is an ultralight aircraft, and the FAA prohibits ultralights from overflying populated areas, or from operating between dusk and dawn. Ultralights are recreational vehicles, plain and simple.
The "jet" in "jet-boat" comes from the fact that it is propelled by a pump-jet, otherwise known as a water-jet, rather than a screw. Of course, the pump-jet is powered by a maritime gasoline engine in most cases, but that's irrelevant.
On the other hand, the term "jet pack" is general parlance for any type of "wearable" aircraft. In fact, the most well known "jet pack," the bell rocket-belt is, as implied by the name, a rocket pack.
No. Both of these are registered as ultralight aircraft, which are prohibited from flying over populated areas. In other words, ultralight aircraft are the airborne equivalent of an ATV or a snowmobile, only really useful for recreational purposes.
You have to watch out for "Lifetime Warranties," however. The definition of "lifetime warranty" is typically the "lifetime of the product on shelves," and many tech manufacturers switch SKUs every two years or so. That's still better than the one-year warranty you'll get with a laptop you buy at Best Buy, but not nearly as good as the term "lifetime warranty" would imply.
The US has had ASAT capability for a while now, and has "shot down" way more than a single satellite. Our earliest ASAT systems actually detonated nukes in or near space. The first US hit-to-kill interceptor was in 1985, and was launched from a fighter jet. I think that test still holds the record for the only fighter jet to have shot down a satellite.
In my opinion, the recent test was there to show that our standard weapons are capable of intercepting ICBM warheads. That test was strange, in that it took place at a relatively low altitude as far as satellites are concerned. The SM-3 missile can't reach a high enough altitude to knock down orbiting satellites, but it's good enough to nail vehicles reentering the atmosphere, and the test demonstrated that it can handle orbital velocities. So, basically, it wasn't an effective test of an anti-satellite weapon, but it was an effective test of an anti-ICBM weapon.
Not really; thanks to RADAR, modern anti-aircraft weapons are just as effective at night as they are during the day. The only aircraft that benefit from a night attack would be stealth craft, and only if they're flying low enough to be spotted visually.
You claim that's "Moral Relativism?" That statement was made from a Utilitarian standpoint, which states that the "action that would result in the greatest good" is the best action to take. The embryos being used for stem-cell research are mostly leftovers from IVF, so when it comes to choosing between simply discarding the embryo or using it for medicine, the better choice is obvious.
There would also be the inevitable backups, caches, and the like that contain your personal data. It would be completely unreasonable to require Facebook to hunt through their daily/monthly/yearly backups (many of which would be off-site,) and delete the data of every user that decides to remove their account. In that context, the TOS change was merely a protective measure.
People that do their own mixing are a very small percentage of total computer users. If it means getting a larger slice of the digital media pie, I'm sure Microsoft would gladly give up that market.
Besides, if big-name movies and music were only available through Microsoft's media distribution software, which is only available on Windows Seven, most people would have at least one Windows Seven computer. Even the people that do their own mixing; they'd probably have an audio workstation running Linux (because Mac OS seems to be cramming DRM in as well,) and a media-center running Windows.
And before people start arguing that it would be hard for Microsoft to compete with iTunes: Remember that the record labels want Apple to increase the DRM restrictions. I'm sure they'd jump ship fast if another company offered a product with the same capabilities and market penetration (a player that comes pre-installed on Windows computers would meet this part,) and more of the DRM that they want so badly.
Here's my analysis of the situation: Microsoft isn't putting these features in at the demand of the RIAA/MPAA. They're putting them in to try to get a leg up on the competition. Media is increasingly becoming digital; music/movie download sites, streaming content, etc. Microsoft realizes this. So they decided to build the most appealing (to the RIAA/MPAA) content distribution platorm. This meant locking everything down at the OS level, so that users "cannot under any circumstances" copy the content.
Of course, this isn't going to stop the hard-core pirates, who will always find a way around it. The only way to stop the copying of music and movies is to fully plug the analog hole, which is absolutely impossible without some sort of brain-computer interface that streams the content directly into the viewer's skull.
I'd assume that both of the subs were using passive sonar, probably towed-arrays. You typically don't go active unless you're already in a shooting fight and need the best possible firing solution against a threat that's running silent. I don't know if Boomers have passive sonar as good as that of an attack submarine, but it's probably pretty close. All this incident proves is that the engineers did their jobs well and made the sub nearly undetectable by passive means.
Slashdot Mirror
Verizon uses CDMA which doesn't support SIM cards. There's a spec for using SIM-like cards with CDMA which has been around for a while (it started off with the R-UIM, and was superseded by the CSIM, both of which are even compatible with GSM SIMs) but I don't know of any US carriers or manufacturers that have implemented this. Which is unfortunate for the customer, but is obviously a "good thing" for the carriers: vendor lock-in and all that.
A very, very bad idea. Google has enough power over content as it is. I'd hate to see them gain even more. Google already controls the most popular search engine and the most popular video hosting site (at least in the US. I'm not sure about the rest of the world.) Imagine if you could only find, say, music videos as youtube "rentals," or had to use a Google TV box for streaming internet radio. Sure, a lot of those technologies are open right now, and Google's motto is "do no evil," but do you really believe that Google wouldn't be able to lock their content down in an instant if their shareholders demanded it?
A lot of people have the opinion that the ACLU is only about shutting down the speech of Christians/Whites/Men/*insert majority group here.* I think this case proves that not to be the case, and demonstrates the good that the ACLU actually does: Protecting personal privacy, freedom of expression, etc. This is a very important case, one that could potentially set a very bad precedent. It's good that there's at least one somewhat powerful organization on the side of personal privacy in this case. I hope groups like the EFF get involved as well.
Except the state isn't trying to force any kind of morality on them, they're trying to let gay couples have the same rights everybody else has. This doesn't mean that every church will then need to marry gays, or even that people will need to accept gays (any more than they already do, of course; attacking/harassing them would still be off limits.) Gay rights really do have no effect on the people that don't like them; in my experience, the only reason they oppose it is because they believe they're in possession of some sort of "universal moral code" which proclaims that being gay is wrong.
I'd assume this isn't about deploying unmanned drones over US, but rather allowing them to deploy from the US. Some UAVs, such as the Global Hawk, have very long flight ranges, enough to deploy from US bases and fly to their destination overseas. It would also be useful to be able to ferry the planes from test bases and manufacturing facilities to the operation bases without having to disassemble them and load them into a cargo plane. The FAA probably wants to know how they perform in order to accomplish this, not for some hypothetical secret surveillance program.
It sounds like you both want the Notion Ink Adam. IMO, it's the most impressive tablet concept I've seen yet; a Tegra 2 based Android tablet with all the features listed above, and a PixelQi display. Unfortunately, it looks like the PixelQi version will be pretty pricey, and the launch is being delayed because they're trying to get Flash working properly on it. I just hope it comes to market and doesn't flop.
Air Force pilots are typically better at air combat than the Navy pilots because, while the Navy pilot will have more flight hours, the AF pilot will typically have more air combat training. That's because the Navy spends a much larger percentage of their time practicing for carrier landings, while the Air Force spends almost of their time practicing air combat. Also, since the retirement of the F-14, and especially since the introduction of the F-22, the Air Force will typically have better equipment. There aren't many forces I can think of that can match the USAF in an air war.
So, you're offering to set up an open VPN and post the connection details on the internet? Have fun talking to the FBI after the chans discover it and use your connection to download gigs of kiddie porn. Or, alternatively, when some hacker uses it to own a bunch of boxes. Seriously, handing out VPN connections to strangers is a really bad idea.
Yeah. "If this goes well, you'll be a hero. If it doesn't, it's your fault and you'll never work in the industry again."
The above is most definitely a troll. However, if you don't know what fchan is by now, you deserve the horror that lies on the other end of that link.
Microsoft just wishes that they had thought of it first.
The big problem with Google is privacy. Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do?
This is Microsoft we're talking about. If you believe they'll ever do that, I've got a bridge to sell you.
In response to 2, I'd like to state that being poor was not usually enough to qualify one for medicaid before this bill passed (and, indeed, still is not the only requirement until the provisions come into effect.) You typically have to be poor and have special needs in some way, such as being a child, a parent of young children, blind or disabled, or elderly. This varies depending on state, but I'm sure it's pretty standard.
You couldn't commute with it, even if you were within range. This thing is an ultralight aircraft, and the FAA prohibits ultralights from overflying populated areas, or from operating between dusk and dawn. Ultralights are recreational vehicles, plain and simple.
The "jet" in "jet-boat" comes from the fact that it is propelled by a pump-jet, otherwise known as a water-jet, rather than a screw. Of course, the pump-jet is powered by a maritime gasoline engine in most cases, but that's irrelevant. On the other hand, the term "jet pack" is general parlance for any type of "wearable" aircraft. In fact, the most well known "jet pack," the bell rocket-belt is, as implied by the name, a rocket pack.
No. Both of these are registered as ultralight aircraft, which are prohibited from flying over populated areas. In other words, ultralight aircraft are the airborne equivalent of an ATV or a snowmobile, only really useful for recreational purposes.
You have to watch out for "Lifetime Warranties," however. The definition of "lifetime warranty" is typically the "lifetime of the product on shelves," and many tech manufacturers switch SKUs every two years or so. That's still better than the one-year warranty you'll get with a laptop you buy at Best Buy, but not nearly as good as the term "lifetime warranty" would imply.
The US has had ASAT capability for a while now, and has "shot down" way more than a single satellite. Our earliest ASAT systems actually detonated nukes in or near space. The first US hit-to-kill interceptor was in 1985, and was launched from a fighter jet. I think that test still holds the record for the only fighter jet to have shot down a satellite. In my opinion, the recent test was there to show that our standard weapons are capable of intercepting ICBM warheads. That test was strange, in that it took place at a relatively low altitude as far as satellites are concerned. The SM-3 missile can't reach a high enough altitude to knock down orbiting satellites, but it's good enough to nail vehicles reentering the atmosphere, and the test demonstrated that it can handle orbital velocities. So, basically, it wasn't an effective test of an anti-satellite weapon, but it was an effective test of an anti-ICBM weapon.
Not really; thanks to RADAR, modern anti-aircraft weapons are just as effective at night as they are during the day. The only aircraft that benefit from a night attack would be stealth craft, and only if they're flying low enough to be spotted visually.
You claim that's "Moral Relativism?" That statement was made from a Utilitarian standpoint, which states that the "action that would result in the greatest good" is the best action to take. The embryos being used for stem-cell research are mostly leftovers from IVF, so when it comes to choosing between simply discarding the embryo or using it for medicine, the better choice is obvious.
Interesting... You're suggesting arguing that there is an implied-in-fact patent license. I could certainly see how that could be the case.
There would also be the inevitable backups, caches, and the like that contain your personal data. It would be completely unreasonable to require Facebook to hunt through their daily/monthly/yearly backups (many of which would be off-site,) and delete the data of every user that decides to remove their account. In that context, the TOS change was merely a protective measure.
People that do their own mixing are a very small percentage of total computer users. If it means getting a larger slice of the digital media pie, I'm sure Microsoft would gladly give up that market.
Besides, if big-name movies and music were only available through Microsoft's media distribution software, which is only available on Windows Seven, most people would have at least one Windows Seven computer. Even the people that do their own mixing; they'd probably have an audio workstation running Linux (because Mac OS seems to be cramming DRM in as well,) and a media-center running Windows.
And before people start arguing that it would be hard for Microsoft to compete with iTunes: Remember that the record labels want Apple to increase the DRM restrictions. I'm sure they'd jump ship fast if another company offered a product with the same capabilities and market penetration (a player that comes pre-installed on Windows computers would meet this part,) and more of the DRM that they want so badly.
Here's my analysis of the situation: Microsoft isn't putting these features in at the demand of the RIAA/MPAA. They're putting them in to try to get a leg up on the competition. Media is increasingly becoming digital; music/movie download sites, streaming content, etc. Microsoft realizes this. So they decided to build the most appealing (to the RIAA/MPAA) content distribution platorm. This meant locking everything down at the OS level, so that users "cannot under any circumstances" copy the content. Of course, this isn't going to stop the hard-core pirates, who will always find a way around it. The only way to stop the copying of music and movies is to fully plug the analog hole, which is absolutely impossible without some sort of brain-computer interface that streams the content directly into the viewer's skull.
I'd assume that both of the subs were using passive sonar, probably towed-arrays. You typically don't go active unless you're already in a shooting fight and need the best possible firing solution against a threat that's running silent. I don't know if Boomers have passive sonar as good as that of an attack submarine, but it's probably pretty close. All this incident proves is that the engineers did their jobs well and made the sub nearly undetectable by passive means.