The difference between different brands are minimal, as obviously, many brands use the same manufacturer(s). You get what you pay for (although it could just as well be that you're paying for the brand-name instead of the performance). But if you insist in worrying about this, make sure to buy from someone who sells lots of batteries. Old batteries that have lived on the shelf for a year, without being recharged, are probably in bad condition.
Conclusion: Buy cheap, but not suspiciously cheap, no-brand or weirdo-brand batteries from a high-volume retailer (e.g. the "private" brand of a large webshop specializing in batteries).
And of course, USA has "gotten away with" a much higher income equality, because of "the American dream". I have never heard of a "Brazilian dream". Nor does there exist a "Canadian dream".
Or his potential employeer will see that he is the famous Star Wars Kid, and employ him on the spot, hoping that some customers will recognize him. Which is just as likely.
Or his potential employer won't recognize him. Because he is at least 5 years older, has different clothes, a new haircut, and doesn't try to dance around with a long stick. Which is the most likely thing to happen.
But then again, it's only our generation who cares about this. When the kids of today grows up, everybody will have access to nude/embarassing/whatever pictures/movies/whatever of everyone else.
If Israel can create a state on Ottoman captured territory, administered by Britain, and Jordan and Iraq can do the same, and Syria and Lebanon with French soil, and the PLO with unowned territory occupied by Israel, why can't Sealand exist.
Nobody claims Sealand doesn't exist. All you need to verify its existence is a pair of binoculars. What I was claiming was that it isn't recognized as a country by any other countries. And the reason for that is obvious, it is an artificial structure in the sea with no inhabitants. Some people (including me) find it funny to pretend it's a real country, but there's a difference between having fun pretending something, and real international politics. If you are going to invest that much money, you'd better worry about the real stuff first.
NOTE: for those who disagree with my view of history
I don't even agree with the premises of your view of history. To summarize my view: you are fucked in the head! Countries and their borders aren't established by ((inter)national) law, they are determined by consensus between several different parties, such as the government, the people who allow the government to exist, and the people and governments of neighbouring countries. Unless consensus is achieved, wars and/or civil wars follow. (Note that an efficient way to reach consensus is by coercion). It doesn't fucking matter who were there first, or who holds a fucking piece of paper from 1600 claiming ownership of some land, if there are other people there claiming it now. As of now, if Israel claims it, and nobody disputes it enough to go to war with them (and win!), it's Israel that owns it. You may disagree with Israels aggression (or you may agree with it), even so, that's just the way it is.
Furthermore, that's the way it's always been. A few hundred years ago, the kings of the European countries may have exchanged pieces of papers, claiming ownership of various pieces of land (both colonial, and within Europe). However, these pieces of papers were only valid, as long as the parties involved agreed, and didn't go to war with each other.
That would be a waste of money. As much as I support piratebay, they are much more secure within Sweden than they ever will be at Sealand.
First, Sealand is not a real country, it is a part of Britain. The fact that some people who are good at manipulating media claims otherwise, doesn't make it so.
Secondly, even if Sealand was a real country, it's not a country any other country needs to maintain relations with. If they find out that they dislike you, they will be perfectly happy to shut down your Internet connection. That the server remains out of their reach is not important. More important is the fact that unless you agree to be e.g. British, you will not have the protection of e.g. British law against service providers who decide to shut you down.
Finally, it's a waste of money. If you really believe Sealand is a country, and that owning it will somehow help you avoiding legalities when hosting torrents, then you should just do the same as the current owner did: occupy it. At this time, there is only one person on Sealand (a security guard). I'm sure the cost of renting a small ship or a helicopter and sufficient crews to fight him will be well below the prize the current "owners" ask for.
What makes you think that these problems are universal?
Because every large project I've been involved in, or have heard enough about to form an opinion of, have had these problems. On the other hand, I have never heard about a large software project that didn't experience problems.
The only reason things don't work out is you either haven't planned them well enough, don't understand the problem, or you've failed.
Again, a proof that you've never been involved in a large project. You can't plan for things you don't know about. You can't fully understand the problem before you've solved it. And in general, you can't avoid failing, when there are unknown factors at work. Again, I think it's suitable to quote Rumsfeld.
No I'm not an easy person to work with.
In that case, you are part of the problem, not the solution.
I think what you're describing to me are failures you've experienced working in large groups. They are not universal or necessary.
Then please point to at least a single large of medium-scale software project that didn't experience problems. If such a project exists, I'm sure it's well documented in either books, journal articles, or teh Intarweb.
but just because JoBlowCo can't get it done, doesn't mean the rest of us can't
For your information, the phrase "the rest of us" is usually associated with those of us who are not geniuses. And "the rest of us" certainly can't get large-scale software development done without experiencing trouble.
Ignoring this misunderstanding, I'm also a bit curious as to who you would consider good enough to put together in a team. Even if you had Donald Knuth, John Carmack, Dennis Ritchie, Linus Torvalds, and Richard Gabriel, you'd experience trouble. Perhaps especially then.
In my experience the only time it becomes difficult is when people are NOT doing their jobs.
In that case, you have essentially proven that you have no experience with large software projects. Even if everybody is qualified for the job they are hired to do, and are enthusiastic about the project, and doing the things they are supposed to do, things just don't work out right at first try. Or second try. Or third try. Or... you get the picture. And then, when that problem's finally done with, you have 7 new ones, where at least 3 of them are total show stoppers.
It's of course easy to start pointing fingers at people. That guy is an idiot. The management has no idea what we are doing. Writing documentation is killing my productivity. I had to rewrite this assholes code since he didn't follow my favourite bracing style. And so on... The point is, the guy you call an idiot probably knows three hundred times more than you about fluid dynamics, which is what all the project is about. Management isn't supposed to know what you are doing, they are supposed to handle budgets, equipment, hiring, firing, etc. And the last two are kind of obvious...
Software development is hard, because it's not a solved problem. You don't build software the same way you build buildings. There are no rigid rules to follow, no best practices that can be universally agreed upon. The purpose of each new software project is to solve (a) problem(s) that has never been solved before. And because of that, there are great uncertainties involved. You can guesstimate a lot of parameters, but eventually, some of the unknowns are going to bite you in the ass. (As Rumsfeld said: There are known knowns...)
The only other problem I've encountered with software development are when people have unrealistic expectations, despite me telling them exactly what to expect and delivering on exactly that.
that this info will be shared with other countries does imply that other countries have a certain interest in the prints of their citizens
Well, technically, it only means that the US has an interest in sharing it with other countries.
I have the hunch that the next fashion fad for privacy concerned people will be gloves.
What for? If you already have a trail of FBI against dusting and fingerprinting everything you touch, it's probably a bit late to start worrying about privacy, no? Sunglasses and trenchcoat would make more sense, but even that works against it's purpose, as everybody would assume you are a flasher.
A more serious suggestion would be to not carry a cell-phone, and to use cash instead of cards. But in reality, the only realistic way to make sure your privacy is respected, is through political influence. It's by fighting against initiatives like this that privacy will get respected again, not by living like the citizens of Gattaca
the problem lies on the 4-Clause BSD license of the whole thing
No. The problem lies in the fact that law is difficult, and software developers are not lawyers. Which is why big software houses have their own departments taking care of such issues. Whenever you choose or write a license for your software (instead of just giving it away to the public domain), you are limiting some people from using it and allowing some other people to use it. This may not be exactly the same people as you intended, unless your license is perfect (which nothing is).
If you subscribe to any online dating site for a while you'll see there are two distinct populations: transients who are there because they are passing through a phase, and "lifers" who are clearly serial daters with lots of short relationships behind them.
Well. My experience is that the two distinct populations are:
Men: All of them totally desperate about getting either a relationship or sex. Everyone who appears to be somewhat female will be sent at least one message. For women they will mostly appear as dirty old men who only think about one thing, or as whiny idiots they wouldn't date if they were the last man on earth.
Women: All of them being shotgunned with messages from men, even if they upload a totally unattractive image. Either they turn away as they are getting scared of the experience, or they become addicts of all the attention. They might try a few dates, but will quickly realize that all the online attention turns them on more than all the dorks they meet. Besides, they already have boyfriends and simply want to meet "friends".
There are probably exceptions, but that's my experience after trying some online dating sites. A reasonable way to make dating sites better, would be to eliminate the shotgun tactic for men. Such as having a fee for each first contact message. Or, with a subscription based site, simply add a quota of e.g max 3 first contact messages per week. The same principles would work for chatrooms too, but free sites can't put such restrictions in, since they all allow for dupe accounts.
As for the block, the court order tells (who? ISPs?) to implement "filters", but it doesn't specify whether only the video should be blocked or the whole site.
Huh? The whole trial started because she wasn't satisfied with youtube removing the video every single time she asked. She wanted youtube to make it impossible for someone to ever upload the video again. When they didn't comply with this impossible request, she went to court. As a result: all of youtube is blocked.
Services like True.com and Match.com are designed to be temporary.
No, they are not. They are designed to keep you away from succesfully finding a partner. If they were really able to find you a suitable partner (a) they wouldn't need to be a service, and (b) they would loose all their customers. This is simple logic. If you believe otherwise, you are only deceiving yourself.
Of course, people may still find each other through such services. But that's only to be expected. Out of a large pool of strangers that send each other messages with the express purpose of finding someone, at least some will succeed, no matter how crappy the service is. That doesn't mean the service is designed to let the majority find someone in a reasonable time-span.
You could just as well start approaching strangers on the subway, probably even with greater success.
Ha Ha! Fun story! Being in the security business myself (not the same company), I can relate to that. Total incompetence in every way is the hallmark of our business, from hiring thugs, to covering up mishaps such as loosing confidential information, or even keys and alarm codes, or billing customers for services that weren't even provided, only ordered.
It could just as well be our company, or any of our closest competitors. I guess our only excuse is that the police seems to be at least as incompetent when it comes to administrative matters (not to mention the military...)
We already have a standard way of cancelling subscriptions. It's called snail mail. Try it, all you need is a stamp!
Of course, companies should offer a way to cancel your subscription with them that was as easy as signing up. But they don't. Therefore, I'm not a subscriber. (Well, that, and the fact that none of the companies listed in the article provided a service I would be willing to pay for. The only subscriptions I pay for are apartment fees, electricity, insurance, public transport monthly card, and phone, and I'm starting to question the need for insurance...).
In general, if companies insist that I need an account with them, need to become a member, need a subscription, or whatever..., they are signalling that they don't want me as a customer. I'm more than willing to pay for stuff (which is what I expect they want me to), but I'm not at all willing to let them take control of my expenses, and I don't need another account name/password to keep track of.
Companies that insists on providing "a service" when all I want is "a product" don't deserve my business.
This is not the upper stage. The only reason to design a rocket this way is to have a single stage to orbit. Otherwise, you could just continue using rockets like e.g. Apollo, which is actually pretty well designed.
That's the interesting thing about sceptisism. It's only valid if you are sceptical about things that are difficult to prove or unfashionable amongst the clique of people who are right.
I'm very skeptical about this statement;-)
Let's say you are ridiculed if you tell someone that you are skeptical about the theory of gravity. That doesn't mean that it's because you fail to have the popular opinion. It could just as well be because you are unable to explain to other people your reasons for this belief, and/or that you have succesfully explained your reasoning, and your reasoning simply sucks.
People may have laughed at Einstein, but who laughs now? His reasoning was sound, and his theories described nature more accurately than other theories. I doubt you can say that about most pseudoscientic drivel that also gets laughed at.
As for Melinda, I think her statement makes more sense than John Hoskins' statement. It seems Hoskins means that we shouldn't worry about possibly toxic chemicals today, because we have good analysis methods, and are able to detect it, even if the dose isn't lethal. It's possible he has a point somewhere, but if he is trying to correct a blonde bimbo speaking out of her ass, he'd better make sure he at least is more correct than her.
...they have created a bittorrent client that sucks less than all the other bittorrent clients. This doesn't threaten the bittorrent protocol any more than having better cars threaten the road system.
Exactly what modifications to ethernet hardware would be needed for this service?
Increase packet size. Sure, some cards and routers have it configurable, but probably not in an appropriate range. A megabyte or ten would make more sense than a kilobyte or two. Also, gigabit ethernet is not really fast.
In fact, what changes to IP would be needed?
See above. Internet protocols require a MTU of 1500 (because of ethernet and hysterical raisins).
But why would they need to engineer whole new protocols? I just don't see it.
New protocols will be better suited to the tasks they are trying to accomplish. That's why there exists other hardware than ethernet in the world.
On the other hand, requiring a totally separate network reduces their chances of commercial success quite a bit!
What? You seriously think the next big operating system release from software "almost-monopolist" Microsoft will become at least moderately successful in the marketplace? You are obviously not properly informed yet. You see, within the next 6 months, every computer user on earth is going to convert to Stallmanism(TM), and make sure their computers only contain GPL-compatible software. Then Vista will fail... Oh yes, it will!
Thank you Captain Obvious. I have one further question: Does the grandparent poster thus indicate that he may have been affected by the parasite, and that this infection could somehow have come as a result of his gray cat? Please explain if my reasoning is right...
...that when I'm old enough to need this kind of care, nobody attempts to give me a robotic seal to pet. Fortunately for the people creating these robotic seals, the old people they are trying to give the seals to, are probably not a physical threat anymore. But if I were one of them, I think I would have tried to land a shot anyway...
Ah, but I am opposed to the "all encryption key are belong to us" law. I just don't find it invasive. I find it ineffective, and cumbersome. There's a difference there. The law would have been invasive if it had succeeded in its goals. It doesn't.
On the other hand, other terror-related laws, that allow detainment of people suspected of doing terrorism in the future, is invasive. And Britain has even topped that, allowing it for normal criminals. I find such laws Kafka-esque, at best.
Finally, people have fear of all new technology. Some people are afraid of ATM-machines. Do you want to remove them from public spaces too? CCTV cameras perform a useful function. They have very few (real) privacy issues, and are often helpful in getting a criminal convicted.
There are real privacy issues out there that provides much greater privacy dangers. All kinds of (central, or small private) registers, debit/credit cards, customer loyalty cards, monitoring of employees email, key-loggers, cell-phone tracking, etc... Unlike CCTV, these allow for cost-efficient tracking of more or less everything you do. I'm sure Britain is leading the way here too, something which is a hell of a lot more scary.
No, I never questioned your facts. I questioned your opinions.
I never said that not wanting to have your movements recorded when you are in public spaces is indicative of criminal behaviour. What I said is that people who worry about CCTV cameras are worrying too much. Let me give you an example. I work in the security industry. A youth that had a restriction order from the police from a certain area had visited it, or so witnesses could tell. They could also give exact time and date of the incident, as well as tell which areas he walked through, and what clothes he was wearing. Our cameras at that area where pretty new and give good pictures. And I knew that youth from earlier episodes. It took me two hours to find a picture where I was somewhat able to guess that it *might* have been him. Finding something that could support the witnesses in court would be impossible.
What you should worry about when you enter a public space is *people*, not cameras. People watch you, report on you, and recognize you. The cameras..., at best they can be used to support the story of the witnesses. Surely cameras will get better, and image recognition algorithms improve. But given how bad they are at this technological age, I think it will take a long time before they can be used for what people seem to believe they are already using them for.
As for the cameras that are movable, zoomable, controllable, and that people might actually use for real-time observation, remember one thing: They are used for large open spaces containing thousands of people. Unless you are a female with a large cleavage, or somebody who in other ways are obviously trying to get attention, you will not be noticed. More importantly, the people who are supposed to watch, get bored, and start surfing the Internet, or smoking a cigarette, or whatever. Because nobody is watching the guard at the monitor, he is most likely slacking 99% of the time. Unless he has other duties, he is mostly a waste of money (possibly even taxpayer money). On the other hand, when recording a pre-programmed movement pattern continously, these cameras can be a cost-efficient alternative to many fixed cameras.
Finally, most places with CCTV cameras are not places you partially own. They are privately owned places, such as offices, shopping malls, etc... People who are there are usually on somebody elses property. Furthermore, just because you have an irrational fear of CCTV cameras doesn't mean that whoever owns them have to turn them off. I have an irrational fear of escalators, but I don't expect people to turn them off just because I arrive.
As for encryption keys. I was not saying that law didn't exist. I was saying that it probably required a bit more than just a police officer telling you to give him your encryption key. Just like they need a search warrant for inspecting your house. Secondly, this law does not change the principle about assuming innocense untill proven guilty. It is it's own law. If you have encrypted information, and you refuse to give them the key, you are breaking the law. If you are a law-abiding citizen, you give them the key. If you are a law-abiding citizen, and have information that you don't want the government to see, you protect it in other ways than just encryption. If you are a criminal or terrorist, you probably also protect your information in other ways than just encryption. The law isn't invasive, it's just stupid.
I agree that it sounds pretentious, but than again, I don't understand quantum mechanics myself. On the other hand, I'm not sure quantum mechanists are making such claims. What they are claiming is that: (A) newtonian mechanics doesn't work, and (B) their mathematical framework which treats small particles as probabilistic wave functions does. Whether you choose to interpret that as to mean that small particles really are probabilistic in their behaviour, or that particles sometimes act as a wave and sometimes as a particle, or that there are multiverses to cover every possibility, or whatever..., is a question of metaphysics. At least untill we can imagine an experiment that would settle the issue.
Britney Spears appeared in Internet porn long before she started going around without panties, so your argument is faulty. Internet users have access to image-manipulation software that allows them to create pictures of naked women fucked by a donkey and a crocodile, with the face of Britney Spears.
Slashdot Mirror
Conclusion: Buy cheap, but not suspiciously cheap, no-brand or weirdo-brand batteries from a high-volume retailer (e.g. the "private" brand of a large webshop specializing in batteries).
If there are self-made men, there's still hope.
Or his potential employeer will see that he is the famous Star Wars Kid, and employ him on the spot, hoping that some customers will recognize him. Which is just as likely.
Or his potential employer won't recognize him. Because he is at least 5 years older, has different clothes, a new haircut, and doesn't try to dance around with a long stick. Which is the most likely thing to happen.
But then again, it's only our generation who cares about this. When the kids of today grows up, everybody will have access to nude/embarassing/whatever pictures/movies/whatever of everyone else.
Nobody claims Sealand doesn't exist. All you need to verify its existence is a pair of binoculars. What I was claiming was that it isn't recognized as a country by any other countries. And the reason for that is obvious, it is an artificial structure in the sea with no inhabitants. Some people (including me) find it funny to pretend it's a real country, but there's a difference between having fun pretending something, and real international politics. If you are going to invest that much money, you'd better worry about the real stuff first.
I don't even agree with the premises of your view of history. To summarize my view: you are fucked in the head! Countries and their borders aren't established by ((inter)national) law, they are determined by consensus between several different parties, such as the government, the people who allow the government to exist, and the people and governments of neighbouring countries. Unless consensus is achieved, wars and/or civil wars follow. (Note that an efficient way to reach consensus is by coercion). It doesn't fucking matter who were there first, or who holds a fucking piece of paper from 1600 claiming ownership of some land, if there are other people there claiming it now. As of now, if Israel claims it, and nobody disputes it enough to go to war with them (and win!), it's Israel that owns it. You may disagree with Israels aggression (or you may agree with it), even so, that's just the way it is.
Furthermore, that's the way it's always been. A few hundred years ago, the kings of the European countries may have exchanged pieces of papers, claiming ownership of various pieces of land (both colonial, and within Europe). However, these pieces of papers were only valid, as long as the parties involved agreed, and didn't go to war with each other.
That would be a waste of money. As much as I support piratebay, they are much more secure within Sweden than they ever will be at Sealand.
First, Sealand is not a real country, it is a part of Britain. The fact that some people who are good at manipulating media claims otherwise, doesn't make it so.
Secondly, even if Sealand was a real country, it's not a country any other country needs to maintain relations with. If they find out that they dislike you, they will be perfectly happy to shut down your Internet connection. That the server remains out of their reach is not important. More important is the fact that unless you agree to be e.g. British, you will not have the protection of e.g. British law against service providers who decide to shut you down.
Finally, it's a waste of money. If you really believe Sealand is a country, and that owning it will somehow help you avoiding legalities when hosting torrents, then you should just do the same as the current owner did: occupy it. At this time, there is only one person on Sealand (a security guard). I'm sure the cost of renting a small ship or a helicopter and sufficient crews to fight him will be well below the prize the current "owners" ask for.
Because every large project I've been involved in, or have heard enough about to form an opinion of, have had these problems. On the other hand, I have never heard about a large software project that didn't experience problems.
Again, a proof that you've never been involved in a large project. You can't plan for things you don't know about. You can't fully understand the problem before you've solved it. And in general, you can't avoid failing, when there are unknown factors at work. Again, I think it's suitable to quote Rumsfeld.
In that case, you are part of the problem, not the solution.
Then please point to at least a single large of medium-scale software project that didn't experience problems. If such a project exists, I'm sure it's well documented in either books, journal articles, or teh Intarweb.
For your information, the phrase "the rest of us" is usually associated with those of us who are not geniuses. And "the rest of us" certainly can't get large-scale software development done without experiencing trouble.
Ignoring this misunderstanding, I'm also a bit curious as to who you would consider good enough to put together in a team. Even if you had Donald Knuth, John Carmack, Dennis Ritchie, Linus Torvalds, and Richard Gabriel, you'd experience trouble. Perhaps especially then.
In that case, you have essentially proven that you have no experience with large software projects. Even if everybody is qualified for the job they are hired to do, and are enthusiastic about the project, and doing the things they are supposed to do, things just don't work out right at first try. Or second try. Or third try. Or... you get the picture. And then, when that problem's finally done with, you have 7 new ones, where at least 3 of them are total show stoppers.
It's of course easy to start pointing fingers at people. That guy is an idiot. The management has no idea what we are doing. Writing documentation is killing my productivity. I had to rewrite this assholes code since he didn't follow my favourite bracing style. And so on... The point is, the guy you call an idiot probably knows three hundred times more than you about fluid dynamics, which is what all the project is about. Management isn't supposed to know what you are doing, they are supposed to handle budgets, equipment, hiring, firing, etc. And the last two are kind of obvious...
Software development is hard, because it's not a solved problem. You don't build software the same way you build buildings. There are no rigid rules to follow, no best practices that can be universally agreed upon. The purpose of each new software project is to solve (a) problem(s) that has never been solved before. And because of that, there are great uncertainties involved. You can guesstimate a lot of parameters, but eventually, some of the unknowns are going to bite you in the ass. (As Rumsfeld said: There are known knowns...)
Not exactly an easy person to work with, are you?
Well, technically, it only means that the US has an interest in sharing it with other countries.
What for? If you already have a trail of FBI against dusting and fingerprinting everything you touch, it's probably a bit late to start worrying about privacy, no? Sunglasses and trenchcoat would make more sense, but even that works against it's purpose, as everybody would assume you are a flasher.
A more serious suggestion would be to not carry a cell-phone, and to use cash instead of cards. But in reality, the only realistic way to make sure your privacy is respected, is through political influence. It's by fighting against initiatives like this that privacy will get respected again, not by living like the citizens of Gattaca
No. The problem lies in the fact that law is difficult, and software developers are not lawyers. Which is why big software houses have their own departments taking care of such issues. Whenever you choose or write a license for your software (instead of just giving it away to the public domain), you are limiting some people from using it and allowing some other people to use it. This may not be exactly the same people as you intended, unless your license is perfect (which nothing is).
Well. My experience is that the two distinct populations are:
There are probably exceptions, but that's my experience after trying some online dating sites. A reasonable way to make dating sites better, would be to eliminate the shotgun tactic for men. Such as having a fee for each first contact message. Or, with a subscription based site, simply add a quota of e.g max 3 first contact messages per week. The same principles would work for chatrooms too, but free sites can't put such restrictions in, since they all allow for dupe accounts.
Huh? The whole trial started because she wasn't satisfied with youtube removing the video every single time she asked. She wanted youtube to make it impossible for someone to ever upload the video again. When they didn't comply with this impossible request, she went to court. As a result: all of youtube is blocked.
No, they are not. They are designed to keep you away from succesfully finding a partner. If they were really able to find you a suitable partner (a) they wouldn't need to be a service, and (b) they would loose all their customers. This is simple logic. If you believe otherwise, you are only deceiving yourself.
Of course, people may still find each other through such services. But that's only to be expected. Out of a large pool of strangers that send each other messages with the express purpose of finding someone, at least some will succeed, no matter how crappy the service is. That doesn't mean the service is designed to let the majority find someone in a reasonable time-span.
You could just as well start approaching strangers on the subway, probably even with greater success.
Ha Ha! Fun story! Being in the security business myself (not the same company), I can relate to that. Total incompetence in every way is the hallmark of our business, from hiring thugs, to covering up mishaps such as loosing confidential information, or even keys and alarm codes, or billing customers for services that weren't even provided, only ordered.
It could just as well be our company, or any of our closest competitors. I guess our only excuse is that the police seems to be at least as incompetent when it comes to administrative matters (not to mention the military...)
We already have a standard way of cancelling subscriptions. It's called snail mail. Try it, all you need is a stamp!
Of course, companies should offer a way to cancel your subscription with them that was as easy as signing up. But they don't. Therefore, I'm not a subscriber. (Well, that, and the fact that none of the companies listed in the article provided a service I would be willing to pay for. The only subscriptions I pay for are apartment fees, electricity, insurance, public transport monthly card, and phone, and I'm starting to question the need for insurance...).
In general, if companies insist that I need an account with them, need to become a member, need a subscription, or whatever..., they are signalling that they don't want me as a customer. I'm more than willing to pay for stuff (which is what I expect they want me to), but I'm not at all willing to let them take control of my expenses, and I don't need another account name/password to keep track of.
Companies that insists on providing "a service" when all I want is "a product" don't deserve my business.
This is not the upper stage. The only reason to design a rocket this way is to have a single stage to orbit. Otherwise, you could just continue using rockets like e.g. Apollo, which is actually pretty well designed.
I'm very skeptical about this statement ;-)
Let's say you are ridiculed if you tell someone that you are skeptical about the theory of gravity. That doesn't mean that it's because you fail to have the popular opinion. It could just as well be because you are unable to explain to other people your reasons for this belief, and/or that you have succesfully explained your reasoning, and your reasoning simply sucks.
People may have laughed at Einstein, but who laughs now? His reasoning was sound, and his theories described nature more accurately than other theories. I doubt you can say that about most pseudoscientic drivel that also gets laughed at.
As for Melinda, I think her statement makes more sense than John Hoskins' statement. It seems Hoskins means that we shouldn't worry about possibly toxic chemicals today, because we have good analysis methods, and are able to detect it, even if the dose isn't lethal. It's possible he has a point somewhere, but if he is trying to correct a blonde bimbo speaking out of her ass, he'd better make sure he at least is more correct than her.
...they have created a bittorrent client that sucks less than all the other bittorrent clients. This doesn't threaten the bittorrent protocol any more than having better cars threaten the road system.
Increase packet size. Sure, some cards and routers have it configurable, but probably not in an appropriate range. A megabyte or ten would make more sense than a kilobyte or two. Also, gigabit ethernet is not really fast.
See above. Internet protocols require a MTU of 1500 (because of ethernet and hysterical raisins).
New protocols will be better suited to the tasks they are trying to accomplish. That's why there exists other hardware than ethernet in the world.
On the other hand, requiring a totally separate network reduces their chances of commercial success quite a bit!
What? You seriously think the next big operating system release from software "almost-monopolist" Microsoft will become at least moderately successful in the marketplace? You are obviously not properly informed yet. You see, within the next 6 months, every computer user on earth is going to convert to Stallmanism(TM), and make sure their computers only contain GPL-compatible software. Then Vista will fail... Oh yes, it will!
Thank you Captain Obvious. I have one further question: Does the grandparent poster thus indicate that he may have been affected by the parasite, and that this infection could somehow have come as a result of his gray cat? Please explain if my reasoning is right...
...that when I'm old enough to need this kind of care, nobody attempts to give me a robotic seal to pet. Fortunately for the people creating these robotic seals, the old people they are trying to give the seals to, are probably not a physical threat anymore. But if I were one of them, I think I would have tried to land a shot anyway...
On the other hand, other terror-related laws, that allow detainment of people suspected of doing terrorism in the future, is invasive. And Britain has even topped that, allowing it for normal criminals. I find such laws Kafka-esque, at best.
Finally, people have fear of all new technology. Some people are afraid of ATM-machines. Do you want to remove them from public spaces too? CCTV cameras perform a useful function. They have very few (real) privacy issues, and are often helpful in getting a criminal convicted.
There are real privacy issues out there that provides much greater privacy dangers. All kinds of (central, or small private) registers, debit/credit cards, customer loyalty cards, monitoring of employees email, key-loggers, cell-phone tracking, etc... Unlike CCTV, these allow for cost-efficient tracking of more or less everything you do. I'm sure Britain is leading the way here too, something which is a hell of a lot more scary.
No, I never questioned your facts. I questioned your opinions.
I never said that not wanting to have your movements recorded when you are in public spaces is indicative of criminal behaviour. What I said is that people who worry about CCTV cameras are worrying too much. Let me give you an example. I work in the security industry. A youth that had a restriction order from the police from a certain area had visited it, or so witnesses could tell. They could also give exact time and date of the incident, as well as tell which areas he walked through, and what clothes he was wearing. Our cameras at that area where pretty new and give good pictures. And I knew that youth from earlier episodes. It took me two hours to find a picture where I was somewhat able to guess that it *might* have been him. Finding something that could support the witnesses in court would be impossible.
What you should worry about when you enter a public space is *people*, not cameras. People watch you, report on you, and recognize you. The cameras..., at best they can be used to support the story of the witnesses. Surely cameras will get better, and image recognition algorithms improve. But given how bad they are at this technological age, I think it will take a long time before they can be used for what people seem to believe they are already using them for.
As for the cameras that are movable, zoomable, controllable, and that people might actually use for real-time observation, remember one thing: They are used for large open spaces containing thousands of people. Unless you are a female with a large cleavage, or somebody who in other ways are obviously trying to get attention, you will not be noticed. More importantly, the people who are supposed to watch, get bored, and start surfing the Internet, or smoking a cigarette, or whatever. Because nobody is watching the guard at the monitor, he is most likely slacking 99% of the time. Unless he has other duties, he is mostly a waste of money (possibly even taxpayer money). On the other hand, when recording a pre-programmed movement pattern continously, these cameras can be a cost-efficient alternative to many fixed cameras.
Finally, most places with CCTV cameras are not places you partially own. They are privately owned places, such as offices, shopping malls, etc... People who are there are usually on somebody elses property. Furthermore, just because you have an irrational fear of CCTV cameras doesn't mean that whoever owns them have to turn them off. I have an irrational fear of escalators, but I don't expect people to turn them off just because I arrive.
As for encryption keys. I was not saying that law didn't exist. I was saying that it probably required a bit more than just a police officer telling you to give him your encryption key. Just like they need a search warrant for inspecting your house. Secondly, this law does not change the principle about assuming innocense untill proven guilty. It is it's own law. If you have encrypted information, and you refuse to give them the key, you are breaking the law. If you are a law-abiding citizen, you give them the key. If you are a law-abiding citizen, and have information that you don't want the government to see, you protect it in other ways than just encryption. If you are a criminal or terrorist, you probably also protect your information in other ways than just encryption. The law isn't invasive, it's just stupid.
I agree that it sounds pretentious, but than again, I don't understand quantum mechanics myself. On the other hand, I'm not sure quantum mechanists are making such claims. What they are claiming is that: (A) newtonian mechanics doesn't work, and (B) their mathematical framework which treats small particles as probabilistic wave functions does. Whether you choose to interpret that as to mean that small particles really are probabilistic in their behaviour, or that particles sometimes act as a wave and sometimes as a particle, or that there are multiverses to cover every possibility, or whatever..., is a question of metaphysics. At least untill we can imagine an experiment that would settle the issue.
Britney Spears appeared in Internet porn long before she started going around without panties, so your argument is faulty. Internet users have access to image-manipulation software that allows them to create pictures of naked women fucked by a donkey and a crocodile, with the face of Britney Spears.