I must have missed that memo. I looked through my mail for anything with a subject called "The Presidents Personal Kill List", but I'm guessing I'm just not on that distribution.
I think this is where a [Citation Needed] is justified. At the parent stated, this make believe scenario was created by Rand Paul. In my opinion, it was done for one reason. Rand Paul personal ambition. The nation has always had a top list of most wanted, and dead or alive for a terrorist isn't a problem. It wasn't a problem for Bush, it wasn't a problem for Clinton, and it wasn't a problem for Bush Sr. They don't stop and try to take these folks into custody. If someone has declared them intentions and is clearly in collusion with a terrorist cell, then they have forfeited their rights as a citizen, and have declared themselves an enemy of the state.
Police will already shoot and kill an armed and dangerous person if they pull a weapon and the officer fears for his life. Now take that same scenario, apply it to a suspected terrorist with a dirty bomb. I have zero issue with said terrorist getting his ass blown away before he might harm hundreds or thousands in an OKC style bombing, or drastically worse, a dirty nuclear weapon. Walking up to such a person, and trying to arrest them and read them their miranda rights is more likely to just get them to trigger the bomb. A drone can take a person out before they have to to react and do such a thing.
The Constitution already charges the president with protecting it's citizens from threats both foreign and domestic. Holder already stated that using a drone, on a common American Citizen, siting in a Starbucks, would be an unnecessary use of force. That is not an ambiguous statement. I don't care what 'party' a President hails from. Any President who used a drone on innocent civilians without an overwhelming need to protect thousands more, would be impeached, and likely thrown in prison. Rand Paul claiming that this President could somehow do just that, and not face any consequences as a result was pure rhetoric, and beneath the dignity that the Office of the President deserves as a leader of the United States. Even his own party members called him out on it.
Lastly, Rand himself said he had no problem and would expect the President to use a drone to take out a terrorist who was an imminent threat in such a situation.
That 13 hours was all for the benefit of Rand, and no one else.
Actually it's not. You can create a hybrid volume from any two drives easily via terminal. You can find the instructions to do so with a few seconds of Googling.
The restriction on dual boot is not related to the hybrid, but rather due to the EFI and limitations in Windows.
Windows can’t boot from drives larger than 2TB in the absence of an EFI or UEFI BIOS.
I suspect the/. crowd hates the idea because they don't have total control over what data is stored on SSD. Face it, we're all a bit of a control freak when it comes to anything PC.
That said, I have no problem with the SSHD, but I find 8GB to be largely useless. I much prefer the Apple approach of melding separate platter and SSD volumes together. You get a much larger SSD that makes it more practical and likely that often used programs will remain on SSD, while allowing huge storage capacities. It also leaves the option open to allow tweaking as to the algorithm or ruleset used to determine where data is stored.
I don't think it's the capping that is the only issue, but rather the pricing. It's hard to justify 100+ bucks for top tier service. We used to pay 20-30 bucks for 5, 7, or 10 Mb. In my area, bumping the 'stock' 10Mbps to 18 is $60. Going higher than that gets exorbitant.
If there was competition, this would no doubt change, but they have a virtual monopoly around here.
Actually your slant is misdirected. It's the cell providers who would brick a phone, and they can do so easily but have resisted calls to do so until recent pressure from certain congressmen and law enforcement brought the issue to a boiling point. It has nothing to do with 'Apple', other than the fact that those phones havea high market value, but rather there was nothing preventing a criminal from activating a known stolen phone on a providers network.
The simple fact is, that cell providers will happily continue to allow criminals to use your stolen phone, even knowing that it's stolen, because it's a source of revenue.
Hi, you must be new here. Slashdot is a moderated site, meaning enough people were interested to mod the initial story up so that it made it as a published story. That also means your somewhat slanted view of what is news and what isn't doesn't mesh completely with all the folks on this site. Welcome to the internet. Not everyone will agree with you, or want the same stories as you would like to see.
I might suggest in the future you simply ignore the post, or mod it down prior to it being published rather than whining about it after the fact, clicking on the link, and posting a response to the story, which in turn makes the post look more valuable in 'clicks' as well as measured by activity.
You might want to think that through for a moment;)
Under Apple volume licensing, I believe you get unlimited licenses for OS X. That's a pretty good deal, although I don't know what the volume license cost is. That's outside of my area.
If I had to guess, I'd say OS X is probably better positioned right now to benefit fom Microsofts missteps. I'm seeing a larger corporate uptake of Mac and iOS. I also think Mac as a line is hitting hat magic saturation point where individuals and corporations will consider adoption. Even our own IT shop, which is notoriously pro MS just penned a support contract with Apple. Surprising, as previously, support for Apple hardware was via 3rd party and was best effort or typically addressed through MS for things like ActiveSync issues (MS would escalate issues to Apple when Apple was at fault). I'm seeing nothing on the Linux front.
On that related note, are other IT shops as averse to open source as ours seems to be? This has always puzzled me in my current company. We use server applications (Apache, etc.) but almost never any desktop apps. When I ask, I'm told that support and IP are always concerns. I can somewhat see this stance (spent a large amount of time and resources deploying some desktop app only to lose it due to litigation against the developer) but is a corporation really at risk in these cases as far as ongoing support if the app is in limbo? Can they be forced to stop using an app, or be unable to get support if the developer loses a lawsuit?
You do realize it's not a matter of just using another search engine. If the market dominant search engine is also one of the best, switching to something that is sub-optimal isn't going to be a good choice for many. You are suggesting it's just a matter of picking another. There's a reason Google is the #1 search engine, and highly desirable for both end users and for businesses to be listed there.
If your argument was valid, then Microsoft's lock-in of the desktop market at 90%+ was irrelevant as anyone could switch to Linux or Mac at the drop of a hat. That obviously wasn't happening as there are more factors in play than just having other options available.
The simple fact is, that the Windows phone browser worked just fine, and used the same engine as the desktop, which was not blocked. When you spoofed the user agent header, it also worked fine on the Windows Phone.
I suspect Google saw that they went to far, and backed off. Was it evil? Probably not. Dickish? Probably. Anti-competetive? Possibly since Android is the dominant OS in the market, and Windows is by far one of of the weakest competitors.
Irritating. Even the mother didn't seem to clarify what was found, or the newspaper purposely stripped the info. I've read at least 30 stories on this and the are all very list on info including the mothers response below.
I have serious doubts about the picture sorce myself since it is not cited and there is a link about a weapons ban found below the story. If so, that's pretty dispicale.
2002 when the US Consulate in the Karachi, Pakistan, was attacked and 10 were killed. 2004 when the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another nine injured 2004, when the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was stormed and 8 lost their lives 2006, armed men attacked the US Embassy in Syria and one was murdered 2007 a grenade was thrown at the US Embassy in Athens 2008, the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire 2008, bombings in the US Embassy in Yemen killed 10
Where was the Republican rage during these attacks? That's right...there was none. No investigations. Not a peep.
You should also be aware that the 'gun scandal' was started under Bush in 2006. It just names over the years. All other details of the plan remained the same. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal]
Maybe you missed it because it's not a good idea to throw stones in a glass house?
The two are not mutually exclusive. A tax system can fund government and be fair. Ours currently is not. If the loopholes that these corporations exploit were closed and the government didn't have to close the gap by taxing middle America at a higher rate, much of our weak middle class economy issues would disappear.
I disagree. I think they are focusing on exactly that; abuse of the tax system. The current crop of GOP senators are very business friendly, and money plays a larger role in politics than in any time in the past. I can understand why Google takes this approach, but to appear unapologetic is just rubbing salt in the wounds.
Take individuals for instance. They get a very specific set of deductions, and are expected to take them. Because of the special interests and years of corruption in congress, we have businesses making billions in profit, and paying almost nothing in taxes. It may be legal, but it doesn't make it right. The system is geared to give every benefit to a business, and none to middle America.
What they are highlighting is not the fact that is illegal (it's not), but rather that it's unfair, which it is.
As I said, in essence, both correct. You could unininstall IE from Windows 95. They didn't make it difficult until Windows 98. Initially they just required them to bundle IE, or lose their right to distribute. They went farther with Windows 98 and make it difficult to unbundle from the OS.
Bolded part mine from your own quote:
Microsoft's exclusionary restrictions forbid, among other things, any changes by an OEM that would remove from the PC any part of Microsoft's Internet Explorer software (or any other Microsoft-dictated software)
Exactly. Simply being dominant in the market isn't illegal unless you leverage that to a competitors detriment, or lacking a monopoly, you could use something like an essential patent or collude with other small players on prices to put a dominant player at a disadvantage. In short, it's not how big your business is, but how you use it;)
I suppose it could be viewed either way. The end result is the same. OEM's were prohibited from removing IE and putting any other alternative browsers under threat of losing their Windows distribution licenses for Windows 95. They didn't threaten OEM's with removal until Windows 98, when they then claimed it was integrated and couldn't be removed.
18. Second, Microsoft unlawfully required PC manufacturers, as a condition of obtaining licenses for the Windows 95 operating system, to agree to license, preinstall, and distribute Internet Explorer on every Windows PC such manufacturers shipped. By virtue of the monopoly position Windows enjoys, it was a commercial necessity for OEMs to preinstall Windows 95 -- and, as a result of Microsoft's illegal tie-in, Internet Explorer -- on virtually all of the PCs they sold. Microsoft thereby unlawfully tied its Internet Explorer software to the Windows 95 version of its monopoly operating system and unlawfully leveraged its operating system monopoly to require PC manufacturers to license and distribute Internet Explorer on every PC those OEMs shipped with Windows.
20. Microsoft designed Windows 98 so that removal of Internet Explorer by OEMs or end users is operationally more difficult than it was in Windows 95. Although it is nevertheless technically feasible and practicable to remove Microsoft's Internet browser software from Windows 98 and to substitute other Internet browser software, OEMs are prevented from doing so by Microsoft's contractual tie-in.
A monopoly is not illegal. If you abuse a monopoly, thats when it becomes a legal matter. Microsoft threatened vendors when they wanted to put other browsers on their OEM builds and that's what made it illegal. just bundling your own browser is not illegal. Threatening to kill a vendors access to the market dominant OS if they put a competitors browser on is definitely illegal.
Apple is not a monopoly, they are not doing anything illegal, and they can put whatever browser they choose on their devices. I agree with the parent. If you don't like it, don't buy it, and obviously many don't since Android is the dominant OS, no?
Actually the members of the security council are bound to assist and/or defend civilian populations. In othe words, they are doing alone in many cases, what the UN should be doing collectively.
Responsibility to protect Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted on 28 April 2006, "reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity". The resolution commits the Council to take action to protect civilians in an armed conflict. The Security Council's role in implementing the responsibility to protect is not limited to taking collective action against mass atrocities (pillar three of the responsibility to protect), but it can also make important contributions to structural and operational prevention of genocide, war, crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity (pillar two of the responsibility to protect).
A few points. In a perfect world with a CD in pristine condition, you will still have mastering errors. In the real world, day to day use will cause far more imperfections in a disc, and assuming the reader can just read everything without any read errors is a generous assumption, especially at 48 or 52X. You do not rip at 1X Even EAC will hit read errors it can't correct or that need multiple passes to get good data.
When reading an audio CD at a max rated speed for the drive (say 48X or 52X), you are at the limit of the drives specs for vibration, and max rotational speed. Start moving the head around to re-read a block and you will see what that does to your read times. Throw in a heavier head for an RW or especially for a lightscribe, and you get poor ripping performance.
So in the world you live in, they can cram both the read and write lasers into the same space and weight of a read-only laser? It's common knowledge that RW gear wears out quicker, has slower seek times, slower max read rates, and generally underperforms against CD-ROM drives. The extra gear adds to the weight of the heads, vibration, and wear and tear. The first two have a direct impact on performance.
If your statement about power were true, then all DVD-RW drives would perform exactly the same as their -R counterparts, and that just doesn't happen.
It's a basic question of physics. The RW head is bigger, heavier, and creates more vibration and slows drive performance over a read-only ROM.
I'm using heads in a slightly ambiguous term, and you do realize that they are still called 'heads' (albeit 'laser heads')? I'm guessing you probably spell police in your spare time? You seem the type.
You know as well as I do that a burner has a much heavier head (comparatively speaking) laser unit than a simple rom. It's the primary reason most RW drives are slower than read only DVD drives.
Slashdot Mirror
I must have missed that memo. I looked through my mail for anything with a subject called "The Presidents Personal Kill List", but I'm guessing I'm just not on that distribution.
I think this is where a [Citation Needed] is justified. At the parent stated, this make believe scenario was created by Rand Paul. In my opinion, it was done for one reason. Rand Paul personal ambition. The nation has always had a top list of most wanted, and dead or alive for a terrorist isn't a problem. It wasn't a problem for Bush, it wasn't a problem for Clinton, and it wasn't a problem for Bush Sr. They don't stop and try to take these folks into custody. If someone has declared them intentions and is clearly in collusion with a terrorist cell, then they have forfeited their rights as a citizen, and have declared themselves an enemy of the state.
Police will already shoot and kill an armed and dangerous person if they pull a weapon and the officer fears for his life. Now take that same scenario, apply it to a suspected terrorist with a dirty bomb. I have zero issue with said terrorist getting his ass blown away before he might harm hundreds or thousands in an OKC style bombing, or drastically worse, a dirty nuclear weapon. Walking up to such a person, and trying to arrest them and read them their miranda rights is more likely to just get them to trigger the bomb. A drone can take a person out before they have to to react and do such a thing.
The Constitution already charges the president with protecting it's citizens from threats both foreign and domestic. Holder already stated that using a drone, on a common American Citizen, siting in a Starbucks, would be an unnecessary use of force. That is not an ambiguous statement. I don't care what 'party' a President hails from. Any President who used a drone on innocent civilians without an overwhelming need to protect thousands more, would be impeached, and likely thrown in prison. Rand Paul claiming that this President could somehow do just that, and not face any consequences as a result was pure rhetoric, and beneath the dignity that the Office of the President deserves as a leader of the United States. Even his own party members called him out on it.
Lastly, Rand himself said he had no problem and would expect the President to use a drone to take out a terrorist who was an imminent threat in such a situation.
That 13 hours was all for the benefit of Rand, and no one else.
Actually it's not. You can create a hybrid volume from any two drives easily via terminal. You can find the instructions to do so with a few seconds of Googling.
The restriction on dual boot is not related to the hybrid, but rather due to the EFI and limitations in Windows.
Windows can’t boot from drives larger than 2TB in the absence of an EFI or UEFI BIOS.
I suspect the /. crowd hates the idea because they don't have total control over what data is stored on SSD. Face it, we're all a bit of a control freak when it comes to anything PC.
That said, I have no problem with the SSHD, but I find 8GB to be largely useless. I much prefer the Apple approach of melding separate platter and SSD volumes together. You get a much larger SSD that makes it more practical and likely that often used programs will remain on SSD, while allowing huge storage capacities. It also leaves the option open to allow tweaking as to the algorithm or ruleset used to determine where data is stored.
I don't think it's the capping that is the only issue, but rather the pricing. It's hard to justify 100+ bucks for top tier service. We used to pay 20-30 bucks for 5, 7, or 10 Mb. In my area, bumping the 'stock' 10Mbps to 18 is $60. Going higher than that gets exorbitant.
If there was competition, this would no doubt change, but they have a virtual monopoly around here.
Actually your slant is misdirected. It's the cell providers who would brick a phone, and they can do so easily but have resisted calls to do so until recent pressure from certain congressmen and law enforcement brought the issue to a boiling point. It has nothing to do with 'Apple', other than the fact that those phones havea high market value, but rather there was nothing preventing a criminal from activating a known stolen phone on a providers network.
The simple fact is, that cell providers will happily continue to allow criminals to use your stolen phone, even knowing that it's stolen, because it's a source of revenue.
http://blog.chron.com/techblog/2012/11/finally-wireless-carriers-collaborating-on-stolen-cellphone-database/
Hi, you must be new here. Slashdot is a moderated site, meaning enough people were interested to mod the initial story up so that it made it as a published story. That also means your somewhat slanted view of what is news and what isn't doesn't mesh completely with all the folks on this site. Welcome to the internet. Not everyone will agree with you, or want the same stories as you would like to see.
I might suggest in the future you simply ignore the post, or mod it down prior to it being published rather than whining about it after the fact, clicking on the link, and posting a response to the story, which in turn makes the post look more valuable in 'clicks' as well as measured by activity.
You might want to think that through for a moment ;)
Under Apple volume licensing, I believe you get unlimited licenses for OS X. That's a pretty good deal, although I don't know what the volume license cost is. That's outside of my area.
If I had to guess, I'd say OS X is probably better positioned right now to benefit fom Microsofts missteps. I'm seeing a larger corporate uptake of Mac and iOS. I also think Mac as a line is hitting hat magic saturation point where individuals and corporations will consider adoption. Even our own IT shop, which is notoriously pro MS just penned a support contract with Apple. Surprising, as previously, support for Apple hardware was via 3rd party and was best effort or typically addressed through MS for things like ActiveSync issues (MS would escalate issues to Apple when Apple was at fault). I'm seeing nothing on the Linux front.
On that related note, are other IT shops as averse to open source as ours seems to be? This has always puzzled me in my current company. We use server applications (Apache, etc.) but almost never any desktop apps. When I ask, I'm told that support and IP are always concerns. I can somewhat see this stance (spent a large amount of time and resources deploying some desktop app only to lose it due to litigation against the developer) but is a corporation really at risk in these cases as far as ongoing support if the app is in limbo? Can they be forced to stop using an app, or be unable to get support if the developer loses a lawsuit?
You do realize it's not a matter of just using another search engine. If the market dominant search engine is also one of the best, switching to something that is sub-optimal isn't going to be a good choice for many. You are suggesting it's just a matter of picking another. There's a reason Google is the #1 search engine, and highly desirable for both end users and for businesses to be listed there.
You are ignoring that facet.
If your argument was valid, then Microsoft's lock-in of the desktop market at 90%+ was irrelevant as anyone could switch to Linux or Mac at the drop of a hat. That obviously wasn't happening as there are more factors in play than just having other options available.
The simple fact is, that the Windows phone browser worked just fine, and used the same engine as the desktop, which was not blocked. When you spoofed the user agent header, it also worked fine on the Windows Phone.
I suspect Google saw that they went to far, and backed off. Was it evil? Probably not. Dickish? Probably. Anti-competetive? Possibly since Android is the dominant OS in the market, and Windows is by far one of of the weakest competitors.
Irritating. Even the mother didn't seem to clarify what was found, or the newspaper purposely stripped the info. I've read at least 30 stories on this and the are all very list on info including the mothers response below.
http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/20385390/fi
Hell, I could have been that kid.
I have serious doubts about the picture sorce myself since it is not cited and there is a link about a weapons ban found below the story. If so, that's pretty dispicale.
Which was why I noted that the picture wasn't cited. There is actually very little info about this on the net as of yet.
If this article from a local rag is indeed showing a picture of what they found, this may have been warranted.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/n-boy-arrested-bomb-making-parts-article-1.1223474
Note tha it doesn't indicate the source of the picture though. It looks like far more than common sink chemicals.
2002 when the US Consulate in the Karachi, Pakistan, was attacked and 10 were killed.
2004 when the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another nine injured
2004, when the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was stormed and 8 lost their lives
2006, armed men attacked the US Embassy in Syria and one was murdered
2007 a grenade was thrown at the US Embassy in Athens
2008, the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire
2008, bombings in the US Embassy in Yemen killed 10
Where was the Republican rage during these attacks? That's right...there was none. No investigations. Not a peep.
You should also be aware that the 'gun scandal' was started under Bush in 2006. It just names over the years. All other details of the plan remained the same. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal]
Maybe you missed it because it's not a good idea to throw stones in a glass house?
The two are not mutually exclusive. A tax system can fund government and be fair. Ours currently is not. If the loopholes that these corporations exploit were closed and the government didn't have to close the gap by taxing middle America at a higher rate, much of our weak middle class economy issues would disappear.
The GOP has always been representative of Business. It simply is what it is.
I disagree. I think they are focusing on exactly that; abuse of the tax system. The current crop of GOP senators are very business friendly, and money plays a larger role in politics than in any time in the past. I can understand why Google takes this approach, but to appear unapologetic is just rubbing salt in the wounds.
Take individuals for instance. They get a very specific set of deductions, and are expected to take them. Because of the special interests and years of corruption in congress, we have businesses making billions in profit, and paying almost nothing in taxes. It may be legal, but it doesn't make it right. The system is geared to give every benefit to a business, and none to middle America.
What they are highlighting is not the fact that is illegal (it's not), but rather that it's unfair, which it is.
As I said, in essence, both correct. You could unininstall IE from Windows 95. They didn't make it difficult until Windows 98. Initially they just required them to bundle IE, or lose their right to distribute. They went farther with Windows 98 and make it difficult to unbundle from the OS.
Bolded part mine from your own quote:
Exactly. Simply being dominant in the market isn't illegal unless you leverage that to a competitors detriment, or lacking a monopoly, you could use something like an essential patent or collude with other small players on prices to put a dominant player at a disadvantage. In short, it's not how big your business is, but how you use it ;)
I suppose it could be viewed either way. The end result is the same. OEM's were prohibited from removing IE and putting any other alternative browsers under threat of losing their Windows distribution licenses for Windows 95. They didn't threaten OEM's with removal until Windows 98, when they then claimed it was integrated and couldn't be removed.
[Complaint: U.S. v. Microsoft Corp.] (source: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f1700/1763.htm)
A monopoly is not illegal. If you abuse a monopoly, thats when it becomes a legal matter. Microsoft threatened vendors when they wanted to put other browsers on their OEM builds and that's what made it illegal. just bundling your own browser is not illegal. Threatening to kill a vendors access to the market dominant OS if they put a competitors browser on is definitely illegal.
Apple is not a monopoly, they are not doing anything illegal, and they can put whatever browser they choose on their devices. I agree with the parent. If you don't like it, don't buy it, and obviously many don't since Android is the dominant OS, no?
The market health seems fine to me.
Actually the members of the security council are bound to assist and/or defend civilian populations. In othe words, they are doing alone in many cases, what the UN should be doing collectively.
A few points. In a perfect world with a CD in pristine condition, you will still have mastering errors. In the real world, day to day use will cause far more imperfections in a disc, and assuming the reader can just read everything without any read errors is a generous assumption, especially at 48 or 52X.
You do not rip at 1X
Even EAC will hit read errors it can't correct or that need multiple passes to get good data.
When reading an audio CD at a max rated speed for the drive (say 48X or 52X), you are at the limit of the drives specs for vibration, and max rotational speed. Start moving the head around to re-read a block and you will see what that does to your read times. Throw in a heavier head for an RW or especially for a lightscribe, and you get poor ripping performance.
So in the world you live in, they can cram both the read and write lasers into the same space and weight of a read-only laser? It's common knowledge that RW gear wears out quicker, has slower seek times, slower max read rates, and generally underperforms against CD-ROM drives. The extra gear adds to the weight of the heads, vibration, and wear and tear. The first two have a direct impact on performance.
If your statement about power were true, then all DVD-RW drives would perform exactly the same as their -R counterparts, and that just doesn't happen.
It's a basic question of physics. The RW head is bigger, heavier, and creates more vibration and slows drive performance over a read-only ROM.
I'm using heads in a slightly ambiguous term, and you do realize that they are still called 'heads' (albeit 'laser heads')? I'm guessing you probably spell police in your spare time? You seem the type.
You know as well as I do that a burner has a much heavier head (comparatively speaking) laser unit than a simple rom. It's the primary reason most RW drives are slower than read only DVD drives.