They carry disease, eat infrastructure, chew holes in your house, shit and pee on your stuff, chew holes in your stuff, eat and contaminate your food, and many more things I can't fit into the margin of this book.
I think this falls under... "If you don't want the whole world including your mom and your pastor to see it, don't take pics and put it on the internet".
Sometimes you really do need to think things through before you act cause sometimes "oops" just doesn't cut it.
kids today... the internet generation seem to think that when they're in communication with some person or group, that it constitutes some sort of private house party, and "what happens in vegas stays in vegas"
A "free pass"!? They started putting her words on t-shirts, dude. For one mistake. For all the people screaming about accountability in her actions, I'd like to see you have your biggest mistakes become an object of mockery for everyone in the world.
my old motorola phone, the last one i had before smartphones came along, had no earphone jack, and used the (proprietary) power/data connector to connect to the phones as well. slightly annoying for anyone who might want a different phones, or to feed the audio out into an amp or something. before too long, of course, adapters appeared on the market to provide a jack, but there never was any way to power the thing and use the phones simultaneously.
i still have the stupid dedicated earbuds for the thing.
A more perfect barometer was needed to accomplish what exactly? The device can now tell that I've ascended stairs more accurately. This will lead to what? And this change was as valuable as the headphone jack, how? Sure, more waterproof will probably help some people but overall? It just seems like a dick move.
you're not thinking outside the box enough. imagine you were in a vacuum, like space. you wouldn't hear anything, and you'd think the phone was defective! this way the phone knows when you're in a vacuum, and if you try to use it it will tell you.
But they said it's a "barometric vent"; not a barometer. Could it just be a hole to make sure the internal and external pressure are the same?
I remember when the waterproof Yaesu VX-7 radio came out (hand-held amateur radio transceiver), and it had a problem with being too sealed.. The problem with anything that is waterproof and has a speaker and/or a microphone is that the pressure on the inside can be very different from the pressure on the outside. If you change altitude, you will find that the pressure difference inside can press on the speaker diaphragm and/or microphone diaphragm. This limits the diaphragm travel, and will result in distorted audio. When this happened on the VX-7, the users discovered that they could crack open the battery case to "burp" the unit, restoring normal audio (at least until they changed elevation again). The eventual solution from the manufacturer turned out to be (from what I understand) to actually put a hole in the case and cover it with Gore-Tex. Water still stays out, but enough air can get through to equalize the pressure.
Since the iPhone has both speakers and microphones, something like this is needed if you really want to make it waterproof. Since the interior then has the same pressure as the outside, that makes it easy to drop a barometric sensor anywhere there is space on the board.
bingo. the same is true of acoustic suspension speakers; they can't be absolutely airtight, they need some sort of tiny leak.
A barometer is definitely useful. However there are two problems:
1.) It's not a useful as a standard headphone jack
2.) It's not an either/or proposition. No reason you can't have both, except Apple wants to sell you overpriced dongles and wireless headphones.
they do get money from licensing that lightning connector, i believe.
I was skimming the summery and about halfway through I was thinking they were talking about some device that they plug your thumb drive into and it detects weather it contains porn or not, which is dubious enough; but then I suddenly realized that it was a literal dog named URL (in all caps) and suddenly I couldn't decide which of those two things is stupider.
I'm sure the dog is happy, it doesn't know that its job is total bullshit. Ignorance truly is bliss.
the dog watches the video and is trained to bark if it sees kiddy porn. that way there is no real violation of the owner's privacy, and the authorities don't have to see the child porn and get contaminated.
not "you" or "me". But "somebody". That somebody usually isn't "you" or "me", but someday it just might happen that you or me is the poor bastard that that some cop in a bad mood thinks is in need of a "lesson". The sad thing is that this behavior isn't just seen in some corrupt third world countries anymore. Or how would you call that "rough ride" thing that hit news a while ago.
Or to quote "Broken Arrow": I don't know if it's more shocking that it happens or that it is so common that there is an actual name for it.
you guys see that video a month or two ago of the black woman getting stopped by a traffic cop? after the usual license and registration, she says she isn't going to answer any more of his questions. "You are required to answer my questions!" "No I'm not!" "Yes you are!" so he decides to arrest her. And, of course, what is the first thing he says while arresting her? "You have the right to remain silent"
... a police officer decides that he does not like your face and "magically" find a hidden USB drive in your luggage in places where you would never think of putting one? Where I live no one trusts the police (for good reason), and if the possession of something small and easy to plant as a USB stick becomes a crime so will be even more reason for me to avoid the US as one avoids a city infested by ebola.
P.S: No, I not a international terrorist or something like that (only the Dark Lord of Hell, but this is not a crime right?). But I'm not willing to test my chances facing a TSA gorilla and ruin my vacation because he had not liked my face.
uh, any cop or customs inspector or anybody similar anywhere can always plant something on anybody. the health inspector can plant a dead mouse in the restaurant kitchen. the traffic cop can attest to your dangerous driving. for that matter, your boss can always claim you suck at work. you are always at the mercy of the honesty of authority figures.
Not always. Jared Fogle was suspected because the head of his charitable foundation had already been found with child porn and probably turned on Jared. I don't remember the story and too lazy to look it up. Anyway, they already suspected him when they got the valid warrant, and the dog was used to find his SD cards where he kept his stash of kiddy porn. As far as I know Fogle never tried to claim that he was framed or anything like that.
so it's nothing to do with the sandwiches then? ok, maybe i'll go back to subway.
1) . Though this was once true of cash, any bundle of money can now be presumed to be crime-related if the cops deem it profitable to make this declaration.
Although I fundamentally believe it is wrong for a cop to think this way (without any other evidence to back it up), you can understand why cops could jump to the conclusion that wad of cash = crime.
With the exception of older men, few people hold on to large amounts of currency in this day and age. 90% of people with a large wad of cash probably are criminals or engaging in criminal activity...
don't remember what tv show it was, (True Crime?) but last year, they had the cops nab some guy with a suitcase full of money; they count it and the one cop says "damn, it's just under the limit for automatic forfeiture on suspicion of blah blah blah" so the other cop reaches in his pocket, pulls out a twenty and tosses it into the suitcase,, says "You sure? count it again"
People who haven't read 1984, or were forced to read 1984 in high school therefore none of it stuck in their brains, probably shouldn't use it as a metaphor.
1984... that was the reagan administration, right?
I don't think you can get stability and prosperity from a police state under any circumstances. You get told that whatever you have is stability and prosperity, provided by the suppression of enemies internal and external.
The saying "Mussolini made the trains run on time" should be retired and replaced with "Mussolini made it dangerous to notice when the trains were late."
No, in a "benevolent" totalitarianism, you do get stability and prosperity, at the cost of 1) a good chance of being punished for dissent and 2) a smaller chance of being punished randomly with the excuse of dissent. This might overall be a better bargain than instability and chaos; Iraq pre and post "liberation" being the perfect example. In a "bad" totalitarianism, you pay the price without getting the benefit of a secure life, so there's really not much reason not to rebel this is not dissimilar to the frequently analogized situation of the sheep, where the flock is pretty safe at the cost of one of them getting eaten every now and then. Or the lesser known model of a society where everybody is happy and content, at the cost of a single small child who lives in continuous torture.
1) Having a flash card is not a crime
2) Having a flash card concealed is not a crime
3) Having a flash card concealed that contains porn is not a crime
4) Possession of child porn is a crime....."Whether it’s child porn, terrorism intelligence, narcotics or financial crimes information, "...
You make a blind false *blanket* accusation, which you then use to justify a blanket fishing expedition, which you occasionally catch a criminal.
Your dog cannot sniff out child porn, terrorist intelligence, data on narcotics, or data on financial crimes. You just haven't been stopped in your random searches yet, and you hope by marketing this miracle dog the courts won't take action.
Either:
a) You are a liar doing blanket searches and occasionally catching someone.
b) You are hiding parallel construction (i.e. being given evidence illegally obtained by mass surveillance and then using a dog to conceal the source of that evidence to fool the courts).
c) You pick a victim and set the dog on them, this has been done in drugs cases where the dog is used to sniff around cars and signalled to give a bark which is then used as excuse to justify a search you already decided you wanted to make.
A Korean man was stopped at the border, his laptop cloned and searched for evidence while he was detained for hours (missing his flight).. 'on a hunch'. They had a hunch he might have data on illegal sales of exports.... on a hunch.... and lo and behold they found some evidence on that hunch.
The court was not fooled and suppressed the evidence. There was no way an expensive forensic data search was done on a hunch. It was likely parallel construction to conceal a previous illegal hack or search.
"Your honor, the terms of usage clearly state that I do not own this child porn, I merely have a license to use it".
>Um huh, give me the citations of exactly how dogs olfactory organs operate. And thanks, I'm always happy to be edumacated by an expert. Here's the thing. and this is what will happen.
Apparently, what a dog smells is very much determined by if the handler wants to find something there or not.
Is that link scientific enough for you?
having done a tiny bit of tracking training with a dog, it's my somewhat educated impression that, although sometimes it's unmistakable, in many times the skill of the handler is involved, both interpreting the dog and also "working" it. For the tracking, the dog is equipped with a harness, not a collar, and is trained to pull pretty hard when on the scent. In the case of a sudden change of direction and/or a short loss of scent, the dog continues forward but less enthusiastically. It's up to the handler to notice this, try to ascertain whether the dog has lost the scent or it's just weakened, whether there should have been a turn back a few feet, etc. and generally act as a superego to the dog, via the lead. Similarly, in cases which are not clear cut, it's up to the handler to determine whether the search is over and the dog found something, or the dog has not found anything and the search continues, or the search is over and there is nothing to find. I note that the paper mentions "In addition, the experimenter was informed that three handlers admitted to overtly cueing their dogs to alert at the marked locations [!!!], suggesting that handlers would not call alerts unless and until they observe the dogs’ trained responses." (not sure it really suggests that), Also there was this weird time series thing they found, where there were a minimum of alerts on run 3 and a max on alert 6 (out of 8 runs per team). wonder what's up with that.
Is this a voodoo divining rod, or an actually-useful tool? It's hard to tell in the field, with so much electronic stuff everywhere. The smell of electronics would be on everything, and the dog wouldn't be able to sniff out anything useful. There's also a ton of stuff everywhere, so you'd easily find stuff without the dog. Then there's the false-positive rate: if the dog looks somewhere but finds nothing useful, that's probably a thing that's going to happen anyway; if the dog keeps looking random places, because of earlier point, he's going to find a lot of random stuff.
We know drug-sniffing dogs are bullshit.
the combination of solder, plastics, and semen traces is unmistakable.
Slashdot Mirror
They carry disease, eat infrastructure, chew holes in your house, shit and pee on your stuff, chew holes in your stuff, eat and contaminate your food, and many more things I can't fit into the margin of this book.
wait, are we talking about babies now?
I think this falls under... "If you don't want the whole world including your mom and your pastor to see it, don't take pics and put it on the internet".
Sometimes you really do need to think things through before you act cause sometimes "oops" just doesn't cut it.
kids today... the internet generation seem to think that when they're in communication with some person or group, that it constitutes some sort of private house party, and "what happens in vegas stays in vegas"
A "free pass"!? They started putting her words on t-shirts, dude. For one mistake. For all the people screaming about accountability in her actions, I'd like to see you have your biggest mistakes become an object of mockery for everyone in the world.
works good for trump.
my old motorola phone, the last one i had before smartphones came along, had no earphone jack, and used the (proprietary) power/data connector to connect to the phones as well. slightly annoying for anyone who might want a different phones, or to feed the audio out into an amp or something. before too long, of course, adapters appeared on the market to provide a jack, but there never was any way to power the thing and use the phones simultaneously. i still have the stupid dedicated earbuds for the thing.
A more perfect barometer was needed to accomplish what exactly? The device can now tell that I've ascended stairs more accurately. This will lead to what? And this change was as valuable as the headphone jack, how? Sure, more waterproof will probably help some people but overall? It just seems like a dick move.
you're not thinking outside the box enough. imagine you were in a vacuum, like space. you wouldn't hear anything, and you'd think the phone was defective! this way the phone knows when you're in a vacuum, and if you try to use it it will tell you.
I remember when the waterproof Yaesu VX-7 radio came out (hand-held amateur radio transceiver), and it had a problem with being too sealed.. The problem with anything that is waterproof and has a speaker and/or a microphone is that the pressure on the inside can be very different from the pressure on the outside. If you change altitude, you will find that the pressure difference inside can press on the speaker diaphragm and/or microphone diaphragm. This limits the diaphragm travel, and will result in distorted audio. When this happened on the VX-7, the users discovered that they could crack open the battery case to "burp" the unit, restoring normal audio (at least until they changed elevation again). The eventual solution from the manufacturer turned out to be (from what I understand) to actually put a hole in the case and cover it with Gore-Tex. Water still stays out, but enough air can get through to equalize the pressure.
Since the iPhone has both speakers and microphones, something like this is needed if you really want to make it waterproof. Since the interior then has the same pressure as the outside, that makes it easy to drop a barometric sensor anywhere there is space on the board.
bingo. the same is true of acoustic suspension speakers; they can't be absolutely airtight, they need some sort of tiny leak.
But...but... Apple threw the sledgehammer through the big TV!
now you tell me. i thought it was my drunken uncle.
A barometer is definitely useful. However there are two problems:
1.) It's not a useful as a standard headphone jack 2.) It's not an either/or proposition. No reason you can't have both, except Apple wants to sell you overpriced dongles and wireless headphones.
they do get money from licensing that lightning connector, i believe.
Never seen a weather station? Any idea what hey are measuring?
well, i've been told it's not climate
It has both until you use one or the other; when you use one, the other disappears. Because both functions share the same port.
they are working on a headphone which charges the phone using the power generated by oxidizing your earwax.
He never said it didn't have a headphone jack.
i know it has a headphone, and don't call me jack.
it's slashdot. nobody reads the articles, few even read the summary.
most people apparently don't even read what they are posting.
If they're so concerned about cleanliness, why do they wipe the shit off their assess with their bare hands?
because the middle east isn't covered with forests of pine trees asking to be pulped into paper products?
Child porn is certainly illegal, and that's what they use these dogs to look for, with a warrant as well.
the dogs are searching for puppy porn.
Your ass is not man's best friend. Don't be narcissistic.
not so fast. some donkeys are as good as dogs.
I was skimming the summery and about halfway through I was thinking they were talking about some device that they plug your thumb drive into and it detects weather it contains porn or not, which is dubious enough; but then I suddenly realized that it was a literal dog named URL (in all caps) and suddenly I couldn't decide which of those two things is stupider.
I'm sure the dog is happy, it doesn't know that its job is total bullshit. Ignorance truly is bliss.
the dog watches the video and is trained to bark if it sees kiddy porn. that way there is no real violation of the owner's privacy, and the authorities don't have to see the child porn and get contaminated.
not "you" or "me". But "somebody". That somebody usually isn't "you" or "me", but someday it just might happen that you or me is the poor bastard that that some cop in a bad mood thinks is in need of a "lesson". The sad thing is that this behavior isn't just seen in some corrupt third world countries anymore. Or how would you call that "rough ride" thing that hit news a while ago.
Or to quote "Broken Arrow": I don't know if it's more shocking that it happens or that it is so common that there is an actual name for it.
you guys see that video a month or two ago of the black woman getting stopped by a traffic cop? after the usual license and registration, she says she isn't going to answer any more of his questions. "You are required to answer my questions!" "No I'm not!" "Yes you are!" so he decides to arrest her. And, of course, what is the first thing he says while arresting her? "You have the right to remain silent"
... a police officer decides that he does not like your face and "magically" find a hidden USB drive in your luggage in places where you would never think of putting one? Where I live no one trusts the police (for good reason), and if the possession of something small and easy to plant as a USB stick becomes a crime so will be even more reason for me to avoid the US as one avoids a city infested by ebola. P.S: No, I not a international terrorist or something like that (only the Dark Lord of Hell, but this is not a crime right?). But I'm not willing to test my chances facing a TSA gorilla and ruin my vacation because he had not liked my face.
uh, any cop or customs inspector or anybody similar anywhere can always plant something on anybody. the health inspector can plant a dead mouse in the restaurant kitchen. the traffic cop can attest to your dangerous driving. for that matter, your boss can always claim you suck at work. you are always at the mercy of the honesty of authority figures.
Not always. Jared Fogle was suspected because the head of his charitable foundation had already been found with child porn and probably turned on Jared. I don't remember the story and too lazy to look it up. Anyway, they already suspected him when they got the valid warrant, and the dog was used to find his SD cards where he kept his stash of kiddy porn. As far as I know Fogle never tried to claim that he was framed or anything like that.
so it's nothing to do with the sandwiches then? ok, maybe i'll go back to subway.
1) . Though this was once true of cash, any bundle of money can now be presumed to be crime-related if the cops deem it profitable to make this declaration.
Although I fundamentally believe it is wrong for a cop to think this way (without any other evidence to back it up), you can understand why cops could jump to the conclusion that wad of cash = crime.
With the exception of older men, few people hold on to large amounts of currency in this day and age. 90% of people with a large wad of cash probably are criminals or engaging in criminal activity...
don't remember what tv show it was, (True Crime?) but last year, they had the cops nab some guy with a suitcase full of money; they count it and the one cop says "damn, it's just under the limit for automatic forfeiture on suspicion of blah blah blah" so the other cop reaches in his pocket, pulls out a twenty and tosses it into the suitcase,, says "You sure? count it again"
People who haven't read 1984, or were forced to read 1984 in high school therefore none of it stuck in their brains, probably shouldn't use it as a metaphor.
1984... that was the reagan administration, right?
I don't think you can get stability and prosperity from a police state under any circumstances. You get told that whatever you have is stability and prosperity, provided by the suppression of enemies internal and external.
The saying "Mussolini made the trains run on time" should be retired and replaced with "Mussolini made it dangerous to notice when the trains were late."
No, in a "benevolent" totalitarianism, you do get stability and prosperity, at the cost of 1) a good chance of being punished for dissent and 2) a smaller chance of being punished randomly with the excuse of dissent. This might overall be a better bargain than instability and chaos; Iraq pre and post "liberation" being the perfect example.
In a "bad" totalitarianism, you pay the price without getting the benefit of a secure life, so there's really not much reason not to rebel
this is not dissimilar to the frequently analogized situation of the sheep, where the flock is pretty safe at the cost of one of them getting eaten every now and then. Or the lesser known model of a society where everybody is happy and content, at the cost of a single small child who lives in continuous torture.
1) Having a flash card is not a crime 2) Having a flash card concealed is not a crime 3) Having a flash card concealed that contains porn is not a crime 4) Possession of child porn is a crime. ...."Whether it’s child porn, terrorism intelligence, narcotics or financial crimes information, "...
You make a blind false *blanket* accusation, which you then use to justify a blanket fishing expedition, which you occasionally catch a criminal. Your dog cannot sniff out child porn, terrorist intelligence, data on narcotics, or data on financial crimes. You just haven't been stopped in your random searches yet, and you hope by marketing this miracle dog the courts won't take action.
Either:
a) You are a liar doing blanket searches and occasionally catching someone. b) You are hiding parallel construction (i.e. being given evidence illegally obtained by mass surveillance and then using a dog to conceal the source of that evidence to fool the courts). c) You pick a victim and set the dog on them, this has been done in drugs cases where the dog is used to sniff around cars and signalled to give a bark which is then used as excuse to justify a search you already decided you wanted to make.
I recall this: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru...
A Korean man was stopped at the border, his laptop cloned and searched for evidence while he was detained for hours (missing his flight).. 'on a hunch'. They had a hunch he might have data on illegal sales of exports.... on a hunch.... and lo and behold they found some evidence on that hunch.
The court was not fooled and suppressed the evidence. There was no way an expensive forensic data search was done on a hunch. It was likely parallel construction to conceal a previous illegal hack or search.
"Your honor, the terms of usage clearly state that I do not own this child porn, I merely have a license to use it".
>Um huh, give me the citations of exactly how dogs olfactory organs operate. And thanks, I'm always happy to be edumacated by an expert. Here's the thing. and this is what will happen.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-010-0373-2/fulltext.html
Apparently, what a dog smells is very much determined by if the handler wants to find something there or not.
Is that link scientific enough for you?
having done a tiny bit of tracking training with a dog, it's my somewhat educated impression that, although sometimes it's unmistakable, in many times the skill of the handler is involved, both interpreting the dog and also "working" it. For the tracking, the dog is equipped with a harness, not a collar, and is trained to pull pretty hard when on the scent. In the case of a sudden change of direction and/or a short loss of scent, the dog continues forward but less enthusiastically. It's up to the handler to notice this, try to ascertain whether the dog has lost the scent or it's just weakened, whether there should have been a turn back a few feet, etc. and generally act as a superego to the dog, via the lead. Similarly, in cases which are not clear cut, it's up to the handler to determine whether the search is over and the dog found something, or the dog has not found anything and the search continues, or the search is over and there is nothing to find.
I note that the paper mentions "In addition, the experimenter was informed that three handlers admitted to overtly cueing their dogs to alert at the marked locations [!!!], suggesting that handlers would not call alerts unless and until they observe the dogs’ trained responses." (not sure it really suggests that), Also there was this weird time series thing they found, where there were a minimum of alerts on run 3 and a max on alert 6 (out of 8 runs per team). wonder what's up with that.
Is this a voodoo divining rod, or an actually-useful tool? It's hard to tell in the field, with so much electronic stuff everywhere. The smell of electronics would be on everything, and the dog wouldn't be able to sniff out anything useful. There's also a ton of stuff everywhere, so you'd easily find stuff without the dog. Then there's the false-positive rate: if the dog looks somewhere but finds nothing useful, that's probably a thing that's going to happen anyway; if the dog keeps looking random places, because of earlier point, he's going to find a lot of random stuff.
We know drug-sniffing dogs are bullshit.
the combination of solder, plastics, and semen traces is unmistakable.