So consumption of DHMO is only about 93% fatal. That's bad enough, no need to exaggerate the dangers.
The risks should also not be underestimated. Whilst 7 percent of users may not have yet ingested a fatal dose, as it's other name suggests; a noticeable proportion of hydrogen hydroxide disassociates to form hydroxyl molecules which are a single interaction with naturally occuring "gamma particles" to form free radicals. Recent studies suggest that almost every single one of those 7 billion still alive will have sustained genetic damage which, in less than a score of decades will lead to their inevitable death even if the DHMO ingestion its self does not kill them directly.
If only people would abstain completely from hydrogen hydroxide (DHMO) ingestion it is almost certain that genetic damage would cease within a month.
Organic food is not sprayed with synthetic pesticides. They may or may not have pesticide residues, and the synthetic stuff is generally safer.
Firstly you will want to avoid "organic" foods (FDA approved e.g.) and go for organic foods (soil association or at least EU approved). Even that isn't perfect but it's a beginning. You will find that FDA "organic" food may even have been irradiated. No; I don't mean microwaved or something; I mean real, hard ionizing; measurably chemistry and nutritional value changing radiation. You detect that by looking for benzene in the food!!
Having done that I would love to understand your definition of "safer". The "organic pesticides" are generally simple chemicals and/or bio degradable. That makes it unlikely that they will ever build up in your body to a level which will have any measurable influence. Synthetic pesticides not so much. Probably if you took a bath in them, many of the current synthetic chemicals would be more survivable than the broad spectrum ancient "organic" pesticides the FDA allows. For most people; taking a bath in pesticide is not something they plan.
Probably; Those people who for some reason think that scientists are uninfluenced by money in research or belive that research is neutral. Most slashdotters will also be "unsurprised" for the wrong reasons. They haven't actually read up about this but want to act superior to everyone else. All those groups are wrong (especially the bit about being superior).
This is the kind of totally stupid irrelevant research which becomes a "talking point". Without actually giving anything useful. "Organic food" is such a wide category ranging from people producing at home for themselves to massive agribiz producing in a way almost identical to the normal inorganic farmers. At the worst end of this they repeatedly crop the same area without replenishing the soil which means almost certainly worse soil nutriants than even a traditional "all chemicals" farmer who at least has a way of putting something, but not nearly everything, back to make up for what he takes out.
However; there is one key benefit of organic farming; no matter what. The chemicals don't get dumped into the environment; pesticides; basically developed from chemical weapons at low concentration, don't get dumped and don't damage the environment around farms. That directly and indirectly improves health. The people living around the farms stay healthier. The people away from the farms where the pesticides have less reach get a less dispoiled environment which means one which is more likely to survive to keep their descendents alive. Unfortunately this effect won't be measurable directly according to who eats what. Antisocial people in good areas will be healthier. Good people in bad farming areas will be less healthy.
If you want actual health with your food you will want to go and actually meet the people producing it. Check that they grow it till it's really ready to eat; check that you get it fresh; picked the previous day and not "looks like fresh" gas packed and 12 days decayed. Avoid like hell food from the supermarket in general and especially food from the middle of the supermarket (dried corn products etc..); if you have to shop there go for the edge (fresh unpacked). Make sure that you eat a variety of different things from different places. Make sure it's prepared in a traditional way and not according to some wierd health fad. Healthy is good; organic is good; they are just orthogonal.
They allowed journalists to use a product mock up in one given room. None of those jouralists could see inside; none of them could do anything serious with it. You have no idea if it had mobile network hardware or not; it could have just been working over WiFi. You have no idea how long the battery would last (it could be as low as 1 hour). You have no idea how much of it was implemented in the device and how much was actually running on a remote server. The fact that IE crashed is; as you say, a complete irrelevant distractor.
Maybe he lives with the old attitude that; just because someone shows a powerpoint it doesn't mean they have a product. Microsoft very decisively didn't let anyone actually know the specifications or play with the hardware for more than a few minutes. That doesn't count as "having" a product.
Ruby does have some very strange action at a distance type of things which make it very difficult to understand what a given set of characters making up a program mean. In a language like lisp this is counteracted to some extent by regularity. In other languages care and taste seem to limit the side effects of too much cleverness; python is the extreme example where the language is not just simple but also has a culture of trying to make it very clear. With ruby it really doesn't seem that way at all. This kind of stuff has to be counteracted by perfect documentation; very readily available examples and extreme care to make sure everything works consistently. Those things definitely don't seem to be present in Ruby to a person starting up with it.
At some point; long before we start doing object oriented programming in Whitespace; "esoteric" becomes a problem. I'm not sure if Ruby as a programming language is there, however that's the way it seems.
Unless that changes in appeal, Apple is the company being victimized here, not Samsung.
Let me fix that for you.
Unless that changes in appeal, Apple is the company the court has decided is being victimized here, not Samsung.
The truth; the facts; are not things which change with a court judgement. What changes is the legal systems guess at what the truth is. In this case the facts are clear. Apple took Samsung's serious work in developing 3G standards and failed to pay for that despite clearly knowing that they had a duty to do so. Samsung did something close to but not identical to Apple's design patents and more or less reasonably decided it wasn't "substantially similar" enough to be covered by the patent which requires that. Very clearly Samsuing is more of the victim than Apple. The court was wrong.
Now you may argue that you don't know that and the court probably knows better than you. Fine. In that case you should not offer an opinion or just say that "generally I trust the US system of justice so I believe"; make sure that you are clear that it is the court's opinion and not a fact you know. Also don't expect not to be laughed at.
Comments from a jury cannot be used as evidence in either the appeal or a later trial.
They can, have been and will be.
And before anyone asks for citations for this; the crucial comment you want is this one. There is a list of many cases in which improper behavior by the jury has been discovered after the fact and has lead to invalidation of their verdict.
Probably this would have to be brought up first with the original judge, but if she; as seems almost certain; blocks this evidence as she has done with almost all other evidence in Samsung's favor, that can certainly be brought up at appeal.
N.B. This has to be very specific comments which show that the jury breached its instructions or otherwise failed to act as a jury should; For example, if one of the jury brought his outside experience to the rest of the jury and explained things in ways which the judge had explicitly avoided, or if there was testimony which showed that some of the jury had been consulting outside sources such as the Internet. Something like "I could see from the fact that his lips were moving that Bill Gates was lying", on the other hand would just be legitimate opinion.
Normally we could say you Godwined the thread, however for today I'd like to suspend that and actually debate this. The Nazis used to execute their own political prisoners with wire garrotes. They deliberately dropped fire bombs on civilian targets. They used to starve newborn babies to death in controlled experiments in concentration camps. The Nazis did not stop gay people getting married; they sent them to their deaths. In recent US massacres of civilians up to several hundreds of people have been killed and even in the largest battles it seems a maximum of a few thousand combatants were killed. Compare with Leningrad where 1.5 Million people were killed in the city alone including 0.5 Million civilians which should be added to another half million or so who died trying to leave the city. Or Stalingrad with about 1.5 million casualties, of them 600k Russian soldiers and 40k Russian civilians.
Comparing these two just looks silly. I could understand the claim that current changes might take us in that direction, however, we aren't nearly there yet and may never get close.
There is a very clear and reasonable belief, given that leading and powerful American politicians have stated as much, that Assange is subject to political persecution by the US. The UK has a duty to provide assylum in such circumstances and; if passing Assange on to a third party such as Sweden, ensure that they do the same thing. The UK should extradite him; that's a standard European procedure. Before they extradite him they should ask for a simple guarantee that, as a person subject to political persecution from the US he could never be extradited to there. The Swedes should simply state "yes; obviously it would be illegal for us to extradite Assange to the US as long as there is a risk of political persecution". This is simple and would allow the entire rape allegation to be investigated properly.
Well, given that Sweden's government has treaties in place they must honor, they cannot give him a guarantee he won't be extradited to elsewhere.
There is a clear risk of political persecution for Assange in the USA. Furthermore, US law which fails to guarantee fair treatment for those without sufficient funds and which includes illegal punishments such as the death sentence and chain gangs clearly does not qualify as a proper system of law under European law. For these reasons it is perfectly standard for European countries to refuse extraditions to the US (see the recent sex offender case) or to do with conditions imposed on a case by case basis. In fact; the condition against the death penalty is now so standard that it has become a standard agreement.
Sweden not just could give guarantees against political extradition and torture for Assange. It is duty bound under European human rights law to do so. That the Swedes won't just simply stand up and state this is pretty suspicious.
Horrible point, since in many cases it does function.
No no. It just seems to function because you have something to do (press the button) whilst you wait.
After I heard this story first time I actually had to go to my local lift with a stop watch and time the closing of the door repeatedly, pressing or not pressing the button more or less randomly. There was a real difference (4 seconds rather than 7 seconds from the moment that the doors reached maximum open)
There are a whole load of "suddenly technically knowlagable" people dissembling here (I'd hate to say shills; but somewhere someone is feeding in disinformation).
the application sends checksums to Microsoft
those checksums correspond one to one to applications
Microsoft will normally know which application is which
that information will be discoverable by the Police / authorities etc.
the application is no by default and does not ensure the user knows how it functions.
Now let's have a look at some of the language being used in the Ars Technica article.
This would allow the company to make some estimates of which IP addresses were running which software.
"some estimates" implies that there wold be uncertainty; that Microsoft wouldn't be able to say 100% that you were using a piece of software. Maybe it is Tor; maybe it's actually Tornado the game. The implication is a humal level of uncertainty which just doesn't apply.
"which IP addresses" implies that Microsoft would not know who you are. This shows an even greater level of deception. It's even trying to imply that your information may not be linked, if, for example, you change IP addresses. Microsoft has your software registration. Microsoft knows about your usage of Bing. Microsoft has your passport account. If any company other than Google can link your IP address to a particular person; that company is Microsoft.
Compared to this Ars Technica article, Slashdot is a haven of technical superiority and higher journalistic ethics and integrity. Maybe Anonymous Coward could set up a journalism course for the guys at Ars Technica.
Finally let's look at Microsoft's statement in the article (N.B. we don't get told what question this is an answer to; note that it might potentially be Microsoft answering to a question about their web sites in which case Ars Technica is again doing the deception; let's take it at face value however).
We can confirm that we are not building a historical database of program and user IP data. Like all online services, IP addresses are necessary to connect to our service, but we periodically delete them from our logs.
The entire point of this service is to build up a "historical" database of executables. It works by identifying those downloads which are known and safe by how often they are downloaded and builds up a "reputation". Ars Technica describes this as "anonymised" without going into details. If you think that they don't at least have the IP network address then I have a bridge to sell you. Let me explain a simple exploit for you: before releasing your malware, repeatedly download it on each of your computers Microsoft will sign it as as having a good reputation. Microsoft's only possible defence against this is to ensure that it knows, at least to some level, which IP addresses used which software.
All app stores of course record what Despite what the summary implies, this is completely different from what an app store does. With an app store, you navigate to the app store, you download from it and it's obvious to you that the owner of the app store is going to know what you just did. That's only a privacy violation at the point where they sell the data without you having opted into it.
With the Android app store you can opt out of this simply by side loading those applications you don't want Google to know about (and making sure they don't sync up to somewhere of course). With the Apple app store you can legally opt out of this by buying an Android device as well as your iDevice and using Android whenever you want to be free.
With Windows it's automatically opting you in to sending up a list of all the executables you download. It's very easy for a dissident downloading tor to end up accidentally giving this fact away.
He was prevented from flying because he was wearing a shirt joking about bombs and terrorists.
Bullshit; I shall cut down the article to help you read.
The Delta supervisor then told me I would be able to board the plane, but only after [...] changing my shirt. [....] I agreed to the stipulations set forth by the Delta supervisor.
Oh yes, some dipshit has to mention the First Amendment - quote it even - but not understand what it says.....
And here we have another one. The guy bought a ticket. Normally that would be a simple contract; He pays Delta; Delta moves him from place a) to place b) according to their published schedule. Delta fails to deliver on the contract; Delta pays for the consequences. The only reason that they are allowed to even question that contract is because of laws made by congress which give the Pilot power over the passengers. If the law allows the pilot to impinge on first amendment rights for no good reason then it is unconstitutional.
...TSA hassling people....
So many funny people who can't read a two line summary let alone RTFA. It's no wonder you don't understand your own constituation. It wasn't the TSA.
If by "mess" you mean "dominating every other country in the world at the top of the food chain"...
No; actually you got into that position by being nice to French people who made it possible for you to escape from the brits. Oh; and trading with large areas of the rest of the world. Oh; and being able to represent yourselves as "land of the free; home of the brave". In fact; your interventions on the side of other people in WWII, very much late, but still much better than never, together with the massive loans you gave out to European nations in the Marshall Plan were almost entirely what set you up for the dominance you achieved from the 1950s to and beyond the fall of the iron curtain. It's your inability to engage with the rest of the world in a constructive way which is getting China into places like Africa nowadays.
.... stupidly huge 16:9 monitors today that can't even display one page of a PDF without scrolling....
The aspect ratio is actually a symptom of the problem. These monitors are garbage because they have about 900 effective vertical pixels (after your stupid windowing system uses up the top and bottom) which isn't enough. Basically you need about 1000px vertical to have a readable A4 document. Anything more than that you just put into smoother / more beautiful representation. These new resolutions will be great because you will be able to put multiple whole A4 vertical pages beside each other.
"Mark" who said that works for the NFTA, not the TSA. In this case "Mark" is personally a shit, but the TSA comes out of this fine. In fact, why don't we just quote Arijit:
It is worth noting that once TSA was involved and had to question me about the meaning of my shirt, they did treat me with the utmost respect and without any malice. Indeed, the lead TSA agent recognized the absurdity of the situation and even apologized I had to go through all this, saying that he found the entire situation to be ridiculous and that he’d let me fly. The same cannot be same about Delta or NFTA transit police.
so what? Well; again from Arijit; at the end of his blog entry.
Write to Delta, their CEO, to the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Transit Police, and to the feds who are in charge of ensuring that passengers do not have their civil rights violated.
you'll find that Delta gave he and his wife another flight the next day.
To which you should mention that; despite it being standard to provide a hotel for someone who the airline fails to fly, Delta did not do that. He even had to pay for his own hire car. Delta should have taken all of his out of pocket expenses caused by their incompetence but failed to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
So consumption of DHMO is only about 93% fatal. That's bad enough, no need to exaggerate the dangers.
The risks should also not be underestimated. Whilst 7 percent of users may not have yet ingested a fatal dose, as it's other name suggests; a noticeable proportion of hydrogen hydroxide disassociates to form hydroxyl molecules which are a single interaction with naturally occuring "gamma particles" to form free radicals. Recent studies suggest that almost every single one of those 7 billion still alive will have sustained genetic damage which, in less than a score of decades will lead to their inevitable death even if the DHMO ingestion its self does not kill them directly.
If only people would abstain completely from hydrogen hydroxide (DHMO) ingestion it is almost certain that genetic damage would cease within a month.
Organic food is not sprayed with synthetic pesticides. They may or may not have pesticide residues, and the synthetic stuff is generally safer.
Firstly you will want to avoid "organic" foods (FDA approved e.g.) and go for organic foods (soil association or at least EU approved). Even that isn't perfect but it's a beginning. You will find that FDA "organic" food may even have been irradiated. No; I don't mean microwaved or something; I mean real, hard ionizing; measurably chemistry and nutritional value changing radiation. You detect that by looking for benzene in the food!!
Having done that I would love to understand your definition of "safer". The "organic pesticides" are generally simple chemicals and/or bio degradable. That makes it unlikely that they will ever build up in your body to a level which will have any measurable influence. Synthetic pesticides not so much. Probably if you took a bath in them, many of the current synthetic chemicals would be more survivable than the broad spectrum ancient "organic" pesticides the FDA allows. For most people; taking a bath in pesticide is not something they plan.
Is anyone actually surprised by this?
Probably; Those people who for some reason think that scientists are uninfluenced by money in research or belive that research is neutral. Most slashdotters will also be "unsurprised" for the wrong reasons. They haven't actually read up about this but want to act superior to everyone else. All those groups are wrong (especially the bit about being superior).
This is the kind of totally stupid irrelevant research which becomes a "talking point". Without actually giving anything useful. "Organic food" is such a wide category ranging from people producing at home for themselves to massive agribiz producing in a way almost identical to the normal inorganic farmers. At the worst end of this they repeatedly crop the same area without replenishing the soil which means almost certainly worse soil nutriants than even a traditional "all chemicals" farmer who at least has a way of putting something, but not nearly everything, back to make up for what he takes out.
However; there is one key benefit of organic farming; no matter what. The chemicals don't get dumped into the environment; pesticides; basically developed from chemical weapons at low concentration, don't get dumped and don't damage the environment around farms. That directly and indirectly improves health. The people living around the farms stay healthier. The people away from the farms where the pesticides have less reach get a less dispoiled environment which means one which is more likely to survive to keep their descendents alive. Unfortunately this effect won't be measurable directly according to who eats what. Antisocial people in good areas will be healthier. Good people in bad farming areas will be less healthy.
If you want actual health with your food you will want to go and actually meet the people producing it. Check that they grow it till it's really ready to eat; check that you get it fresh; picked the previous day and not "looks like fresh" gas packed and 12 days decayed. Avoid like hell food from the supermarket in general and especially food from the middle of the supermarket (dried corn products etc..); if you have to shop there go for the edge (fresh unpacked). Make sure that you eat a variety of different things from different places. Make sure it's prepared in a traditional way and not according to some wierd health fad. Healthy is good; organic is good; they are just orthogonal.
They demonstrated a working model too.
They allowed journalists to use a product mock up in one given room. None of those jouralists could see inside; none of them could do anything serious with it. You have no idea if it had mobile network hardware or not; it could have just been working over WiFi. You have no idea how long the battery would last (it could be as low as 1 hour). You have no idea how much of it was implemented in the device and how much was actually running on a remote server. The fact that IE crashed is; as you say, a complete irrelevant distractor.
Maybe he lives with the old attitude that; just because someone shows a powerpoint it doesn't mean they have a product. Microsoft very decisively didn't let anyone actually know the specifications or play with the hardware for more than a few minutes. That doesn't count as "having" a product.
Interesting; seems to have died in a dust storm. Did PrOP-M's sacrifice save the later landers from the same fate?
Ruby does have some very strange action at a distance type of things which make it very difficult to understand what a given set of characters making up a program mean. In a language like lisp this is counteracted to some extent by regularity. In other languages care and taste seem to limit the side effects of too much cleverness; python is the extreme example where the language is not just simple but also has a culture of trying to make it very clear. With ruby it really doesn't seem that way at all. This kind of stuff has to be counteracted by perfect documentation; very readily available examples and extreme care to make sure everything works consistently. Those things definitely don't seem to be present in Ruby to a person starting up with it.
At some point; long before we start doing object oriented programming in Whitespace; "esoteric" becomes a problem. I'm not sure if Ruby as a programming language is there, however that's the way it seems.
Unless that changes in appeal, Apple is the company being victimized here, not Samsung.
Let me fix that for you.
Unless that changes in appeal, Apple is the company the court has decided is being victimized here, not Samsung.
The truth; the facts; are not things which change with a court judgement. What changes is the legal systems guess at what the truth is. In this case the facts are clear. Apple took Samsung's serious work in developing 3G standards and failed to pay for that despite clearly knowing that they had a duty to do so. Samsung did something close to but not identical to Apple's design patents and more or less reasonably decided it wasn't "substantially similar" enough to be covered by the patent which requires that. Very clearly Samsuing is more of the victim than Apple. The court was wrong.
Now you may argue that you don't know that and the court probably knows better than you. Fine. In that case you should not offer an opinion or just say that "generally I trust the US system of justice so I believe"; make sure that you are clear that it is the court's opinion and not a fact you know. Also don't expect not to be laughed at.
They can, have been and will be.
And before anyone asks for citations for this; the crucial comment you want is this one. There is a list of many cases in which improper behavior by the jury has been discovered after the fact and has lead to invalidation of their verdict.
Probably this would have to be brought up first with the original judge, but if she; as seems almost certain; blocks this evidence as she has done with almost all other evidence in Samsung's favor, that can certainly be brought up at appeal.
N.B. This has to be very specific comments which show that the jury breached its instructions or otherwise failed to act as a jury should; For example, if one of the jury brought his outside experience to the rest of the jury and explained things in ways which the judge had explicitly avoided, or if there was testimony which showed that some of the jury had been consulting outside sources such as the Internet. Something like "I could see from the fact that his lips were moving that Bill Gates was lying", on the other hand would just be legitimate opinion.
Americans make Nazis look not-so-bad.
Normally we could say you Godwined the thread, however for today I'd like to suspend that and actually debate this. The Nazis used to execute their own political prisoners with wire garrotes. They deliberately dropped fire bombs on civilian targets. They used to starve newborn babies to death in controlled experiments in concentration camps. The Nazis did not stop gay people getting married; they sent them to their deaths. In recent US massacres of civilians up to several hundreds of people have been killed and even in the largest battles it seems a maximum of a few thousand combatants were killed. Compare with Leningrad where 1.5 Million people were killed in the city alone including 0.5 Million civilians which should be added to another half million or so who died trying to leave the city. Or Stalingrad with about 1.5 million casualties, of them 600k Russian soldiers and 40k Russian civilians.
Comparing these two just looks silly. I could understand the claim that current changes might take us in that direction, however, we aren't nearly there yet and may never get close.
In what way has the UK not played fair?
There is a very clear and reasonable belief, given that leading and powerful American politicians have stated as much, that Assange is subject to political persecution by the US. The UK has a duty to provide assylum in such circumstances and; if passing Assange on to a third party such as Sweden, ensure that they do the same thing. The UK should extradite him; that's a standard European procedure. Before they extradite him they should ask for a simple guarantee that, as a person subject to political persecution from the US he could never be extradited to there. The Swedes should simply state "yes; obviously it would be illegal for us to extradite Assange to the US as long as there is a risk of political persecution". This is simple and would allow the entire rape allegation to be investigated properly.
Well, given that Sweden's government has treaties in place they must honor, they cannot give him a guarantee he won't be extradited to elsewhere.
There is a clear risk of political persecution for Assange in the USA. Furthermore, US law which fails to guarantee fair treatment for those without sufficient funds and which includes illegal punishments such as the death sentence and chain gangs clearly does not qualify as a proper system of law under European law. For these reasons it is perfectly standard for European countries to refuse extraditions to the US (see the recent sex offender case) or to do with conditions imposed on a case by case basis. In fact; the condition against the death penalty is now so standard that it has become a standard agreement.
Sweden not just could give guarantees against political extradition and torture for Assange. It is duty bound under European human rights law to do so. That the Swedes won't just simply stand up and state this is pretty suspicious.
(though you contradict yourself in your post as well)
Damnit; Poe's law wins again.
Maybe if I read the Microsoft blog linked from the original Sladot article about this or if I searched for the word "reputation" in the Ars Technica article, however that would involve reading the fine article and nobody on Slashdot does that; so I can't. Sorry. It would be immoral.
Yes, the system always favors elaborate trolls over obvious trolls.
Eventually the trolls will all be like me; posting intelligent, insightful, factual and knowedgable articles. There was an XKCD about that.
Horrible point, since in many cases it does function.
No no. It just seems to function because you have something to do (press the button) whilst you wait.
After I heard this story first time I actually had to go to my local lift with a stop watch and time the closing of the door repeatedly, pressing or not pressing the button more or less randomly. There was a real difference (4 seconds rather than 7 seconds from the moment that the doors reached maximum open)
There are a whole load of "suddenly technically knowlagable" people dissembling here (I'd hate to say shills; but somewhere someone is feeding in disinformation).
Now let's have a look at some of the language being used in the Ars Technica article.
"some estimates" implies that there wold be uncertainty; that Microsoft wouldn't be able to say 100% that you were using a piece of software. Maybe it is Tor; maybe it's actually Tornado the game. The implication is a humal level of uncertainty which just doesn't apply.
"which IP addresses" implies that Microsoft would not know who you are. This shows an even greater level of deception. It's even trying to imply that your information may not be linked, if, for example, you change IP addresses. Microsoft has your software registration. Microsoft knows about your usage of Bing. Microsoft has your passport account. If any company other than Google can link your IP address to a particular person; that company is Microsoft.
Compared to this Ars Technica article, Slashdot is a haven of technical superiority and higher journalistic ethics and integrity. Maybe Anonymous Coward could set up a journalism course for the guys at Ars Technica.
Finally let's look at Microsoft's statement in the article (N.B. we don't get told what question this is an answer to; note that it might potentially be Microsoft answering to a question about their web sites in which case Ars Technica is again doing the deception; let's take it at face value however).
The entire point of this service is to build up a "historical" database of executables. It works by identifying those downloads which are known and safe by how often they are downloaded and builds up a "reputation". Ars Technica describes this as "anonymised" without going into details. If you think that they don't at least have the IP network address then I have a bridge to sell you. Let me explain a simple exploit for you: before releasing your malware, repeatedly download it on each of your computers Microsoft will sign it as as having a good reputation. Microsoft's only possible defence against this is to ensure that it knows, at least to some level, which IP addresses used which software.
Don't all app stores do this?
All app stores of course record what Despite what the summary implies, this is completely different from what an app store does. With an app store, you navigate to the app store, you download from it and it's obvious to you that the owner of the app store is going to know what you just did. That's only a privacy violation at the point where they sell the data without you having opted into it.
With the Android app store you can opt out of this simply by side loading those applications you don't want Google to know about (and making sure they don't sync up to somewhere of course). With the Apple app store you can legally opt out of this by buying an Android device as well as your iDevice and using Android whenever you want to be free.
With Windows it's automatically opting you in to sending up a list of all the executables you download. It's very easy for a dissident downloading tor to end up accidentally giving this fact away.
He was prevented from flying because he was wearing a shirt joking about bombs and terrorists.
Bullshit; I shall cut down the article to help you read.
Oh yes, some dipshit has to mention the First Amendment - quote it even - but not understand what it says.....
And here we have another one. The guy bought a ticket. Normally that would be a simple contract; He pays Delta; Delta moves him from place a) to place b) according to their published schedule. Delta fails to deliver on the contract; Delta pays for the consequences. The only reason that they are allowed to even question that contract is because of laws made by congress which give the Pilot power over the passengers. If the law allows the pilot to impinge on first amendment rights for no good reason then it is unconstitutional.
...TSA hassling people ....
So many funny people who can't read a two line summary let alone RTFA. It's no wonder you don't understand your own constituation. It wasn't the TSA.
If by "mess" you mean "dominating every other country in the world at the top of the food chain" ...
No; actually you got into that position by being nice to French people who made it possible for you to escape from the brits. Oh; and trading with large areas of the rest of the world. Oh; and being able to represent yourselves as "land of the free; home of the brave". In fact; your interventions on the side of other people in WWII, very much late, but still much better than never, together with the massive loans you gave out to European nations in the Marshall Plan were almost entirely what set you up for the dominance you achieved from the 1950s to and beyond the fall of the iron curtain. It's your inability to engage with the rest of the world in a constructive way which is getting China into places like Africa nowadays.
.... stupidly huge 16:9 monitors today that can't even display one page of a PDF without scrolling....
The aspect ratio is actually a symptom of the problem. These monitors are garbage because they have about 900 effective vertical pixels (after your stupid windowing system uses up the top and bottom) which isn't enough. Basically you need about 1000px vertical to have a readable A4 document. Anything more than that you just put into smoother / more beautiful representation. These new resolutions will be great because you will be able to put multiple whole A4 vertical pages beside each other.
so what? Well; again from Arijit; at the end of his blog entry.
Ahhhh... thanks. I guess that makes sense. I still wish the original author would give his explanation of what he meant.
you'll find that Delta gave he and his wife another flight the next day.
To which you should mention that; despite it being standard to provide a hotel for someone who the airline fails to fly, Delta did not do that. He even had to pay for his own hire car. Delta should have taken all of his out of pocket expenses caused by their incompetence but failed to do that.