If this is the case then why is storage relevant? It's the bandwidth necessary to get the data out; doing it reliably is necessary too. An attacker could theoretically just jam the frequencies that the recorder/transmitter uses, and then attack you, steal or destroy the device, and no one would be the wiser. As a security measure, this needs to be better thought out.
On top of that, what does Bruce Schneier need with protections from attack? I hear that behind his beard lives an inordinately large prime number of fists.
The first device linked to looks like the Sungworld ipad knockoff, which is allegedly real but there haven't been many sightings of it as of yet. What is certainly real is the other tablet that seller is advertising, the 10.1" Teso model that runs windows 7. I have seen them for sale in Shenzhen, China but that seller's picture looks like the one floating around the internet. So, they may be out to try to ring up sales before they come up with a way to import them from China when they have the money. Could be a mess, who knows, but the seller's feedback is pretty good. The price definitely stinks, though; they can be bought off the shelf in China for $580, and who knows how low you could get someone if you were a good haggler (rumor is the bulk price is $315 us).
LOL, not in China! There is a company called Teso making a tablet that is basically an Iphone scaled about 3x in each dimension, and it runs windows 7 (and actually has decent specs for a netbook). See this link: http://blogs.zdnet.com/gadgetreviews/?p=12752&tag=trunk;content They have to be seen to be believed, but believe me they are real.
And what is to say that this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time in Iraq, except to less visible (read: ordinary Iraqis) people. Unless there is some way to demonstrate that shooting anyone, on sight, who appears to be carrying something that might possibly be cylindrical, with nothing more than a passing glance at a little bit of said weapon, is not the status quo; then it sure seems like the US troops are the new Saddam Hussein.
Disclaimer: I'm at work, and they have video stuff blocked, so I have not seen the video
What really got me was that they used a GUNSHIP on HUMAN TARGETS.
And what's wrong with this? The usage of 'gunships' on human targets is valid by the laws of war. There's normally nothing special on how you kill people during war.
Where I WILL get upset is the targeting of non-combatants, whether by gunship, missile, or even humble assault rifle. I understand that there can and will be collateral damage if you need to use something with explosives to take out a target, but sometimes this is necessary.
Ahem... There have actually been numerous agreements that use of intentionally excessive force (even on a clear enemy target) goes against common decency, and to that effect things like the NATO ban on hollow point and other intentionally egregious ammunition have come about, specifically because you shouldn't kill when you can incapacitate, even if you really really don't like who you're shooting at.
Never mind that Microsoft has paid dividends for the past 7 years, while Apple stock value has skyrocketed but actual shareholder value of that stock is still only worth what they sell it for. What good is a stock that doesn't pay dividends, unless you are counting on an ever burgeoning supply of suckers willing to buy stock with the prospect of reselling it at a higher price to the next sucker? Gee, there's no way the price could ever get inflated in a scenario like that, is there?
Yes, because the market worked perfectly in Phoenix where a 1500 sq.ft. house sold for $500,000 three years ago and today can't be given away. It sure worked for Lehman Brothers, WaMu, and all the other banks that had stellar stock prices until *after* news broke that they were actually worthless and the shareholders needed to head for the fire exits or their 'investment' would quickly evaporate into a stack of pennies. Yep, good old market, always smarter than the individuals.
The market is great at deciding how much a tangible asset should cost, like a television or a gallon of gas. However, for bubble-riding real estate as well as for stock (especially ones that don't even pay dividends) what exactly is the point of even putting a price on it, except to sell it to some sucker who hopes it will go up before they want to sell it?
This comment will probably go down in flames, but it seems like this article is just an excuse to brown nose Steve Jobs. Apple makes fad devices; pretty nice devices but they are still playing to a fad (just take a look at their stock price). Microsoft, on the other hand, makes business computing possible on over 90% of the world's computers.
If you want an analogy here goes. Apple may be the hip guy who shaved his head to hide his middle aged bald spot, and hangs out with trendy friends. However, Microsoft is driving the minivan around because he actually has shit to get done while Apple is living off a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.
Smoking pot harms no one... Adultery is immoral (and harmful)...
Thank you for neatly disproving your own argument. Both of these things are pure opinion, it is trivial to argue both in either direction.
And, fwiw, the moral dilemmas they posed were of the lines of "sally and alice are at a chemical plant. alice gives sally a cup of coffee and in it she puts what she thinks is sugar but it's really poison. was alice wrong in giving the coffee to sally?" vs "sally and alice are at a chemical plant. alice gives sally a cup of coffee and also adds some poison to it while sally thinks it only has sugar in it. was alice wrong in giving the coffee to sally?" And so on and so forth in various ways that include the poison working and the poison being ineffective, in either the malicious or the benign scenario. These approach the issue of doing harm vs intending to do harm, for outcomes that are either benign or harmful, which illustrates the extent at which someone is willing to classify something as "wrong" depending on the intent AND the outcome.
It's important to note that the research focused on moral judgements about the *intentions* of actions, not on the actions and outcomes themselves. So, a person with a disrupted brain might not see a problem with wanting to steal a car, but they can still fully grasp the weight of actually stealing the car. Since moral judgement is lost on some people anyway, the normal effects of punishment should still be as effective, with or without disruption via magnetic field. Ergo, using this as a defense is about as probable as getting in front of the judge and saying "well no one was there to tell me *not* to steal it, your honor".
I think what you meant to ask for was "how many deaths per unit of vehicle distance travelled" since this controls not for how many drivers there are but for how much driving is actually going on. If you compare these numbers, you see that the US sees about 9 deaths per billion kilometers, and the UK sees 6.3 deaths. It's slightly more genuine and not nearly as 'shocking' (1.4x more vs 3.3x more fatalities) than the blanket deaths per person metric mentioned earlier. The UK sees fewer deaths overall in just about every measurable metric, however speculating on the actual causation is an exercise in futility left to the reader.
Except that it costs you a metric tonne of credibility, as well as most of your facebook friends. If these things are of no perceived value to you, by all means play Farmville.
Was I the only one who read "child naming rights" and then skimmed straight to "Sergey And Larry", thinking that he was in fact going to name his next kid "Sergey And Larry Gaylord"?
What a prize. Anyway, I imagine the next article is going to read something like this:
"Raleigh Councilman's Child Production Rights Revoked By Upset Wife"
Why are you surprised? NASA spent millions to develop a pen that could write in space... the Russians used a pencil. Sometimes people look for a really complicated solution instead of going for something cheap and cheerful that gets-the-job-done.
You can pry my spinning disk out of my cold, dead hands. There are a number of benefits still; cost and durability (aside from shock resistance) chief among them. Solid state disks will be taking a bigger role in storage, but spinning disks are a long way from being obsolete.
These measurements might not be 100% accurate at identifying the root of each of the problem areas, but when an ISP is on all but one of the top ten lists, you have to start wondering what they are doing wrong. ThePlanet.com, what gives? Too many undereducated customers running infected servers? No top level detection and deactivation process in place? Seems like there are a lot of things missing.
The headline is misleading, despite the source. The source was willing to go as far as saying that this figure is in spite of Obama's own directive to stop using these loopholes for the FOIA. So whether it is lack of proper pressure, simple insubordination, or a deluge of requests (these figures should appropriately be compared to the overall requests, right?) the bottom line is that the President directed it to not happen and it is happening anyway.
That bigger problem is, quite simply, that we are living in a total illusion. We are told that the most beneficial members of society will get the most compensation (in order of their perceived benefit), and this motivates us to be beneficial ourselves. But who gets all the money? Those mooks from American Idol who sing poorly and clog up telephone networks (among other completely undeserving people). Yet, if we all get rich and famous by singing and dancing and swearing on TV we too can be a net-earner for our society! Except there is no way that our means of production will support that kind of lifestyle, simply because we are rewarding so many people who, honest to god, mean jack to society/prosperity/whatever.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a 'rise of the proletariat' type of person at all, but I know for sure that we are in for a free-market kick in the nuts once all our bad decisions start catching up with us.
BadAnalogyGuy has the day off. I am filling in. Yes the US market has a strong demand for drugs (that happen to be illegal per national laws), but saying this is the root cause of the violent drug trade across the border is pretty silly, almost as silly as my bad analogy. If the drugs were illegally grown in the US there would be no illegal importation problem anymore, eh?
So, honestly, what do farm subsidies have to do with illegal immigrant labor? I am legitimately curious. Also, you would need to both legalize growing/processing/selling/using AND create a nearly tariff free import policy, otherwise illegal importation of drugs will always be the cheaper method to obtain them (considering the labor here in the US is god awful expensive).
Run the numbers... If you are lucky enough to be in the top 1% of income earners you are likely to be paying more into the system than you are getting out of it. For the rest of us, the system is so overbearing that we have no hope of paying for it. We are leaving that for our kids and grandkids (in the form of debt). It's simple, really.
Is this the same logic that says the problem of Mexican drugs being imported into the US is the US's fault? Sure, there needs to be demand, but this is a bit like saying that murderers wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for all of these *living* people around!
Honestly, I believe the problem needs to be solved on both sides of the border. Americans are willing to pay a fraction of what they would to a local, to do a menial job. Mexicans are willing to risk life and limb just to get a chance to do that job. Something is very wrong with every part of this situation.
No; you too are wrong. The key missing point is a fiddle. And, possibly, an improbable wager. Then we will know if the material will perform as expected, or if it will run afoul of 'the demon'.
Slashdot Mirror
If this is the case then why is storage relevant? It's the bandwidth necessary to get the data out; doing it reliably is necessary too. An attacker could theoretically just jam the frequencies that the recorder/transmitter uses, and then attack you, steal or destroy the device, and no one would be the wiser. As a security measure, this needs to be better thought out.
On top of that, what does Bruce Schneier need with protections from attack? I hear that behind his beard lives an inordinately large prime number of fists.
The first device linked to looks like the Sungworld ipad knockoff, which is allegedly real but there haven't been many sightings of it as of yet. What is certainly real is the other tablet that seller is advertising, the 10.1" Teso model that runs windows 7. I have seen them for sale in Shenzhen, China but that seller's picture looks like the one floating around the internet. So, they may be out to try to ring up sales before they come up with a way to import them from China when they have the money. Could be a mess, who knows, but the seller's feedback is pretty good. The price definitely stinks, though; they can be bought off the shelf in China for $580, and who knows how low you could get someone if you were a good haggler (rumor is the bulk price is $315 us).
LOL, not in China! There is a company called Teso making a tablet that is basically an Iphone scaled about 3x in each dimension, and it runs windows 7 (and actually has decent specs for a netbook). See this link: http://blogs.zdnet.com/gadgetreviews/?p=12752&tag=trunk;content They have to be seen to be believed, but believe me they are real.
If by "simply investigating" you mean "stringing him up without so much as a word in his defense" then yes, they are indeed simply investigating.
And what is to say that this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time in Iraq, except to less visible (read: ordinary Iraqis) people. Unless there is some way to demonstrate that shooting anyone, on sight, who appears to be carrying something that might possibly be cylindrical, with nothing more than a passing glance at a little bit of said weapon, is not the status quo; then it sure seems like the US troops are the new Saddam Hussein.
Disclaimer: I'm at work, and they have video stuff blocked, so I have not seen the video
What really got me was that they used a GUNSHIP on HUMAN TARGETS.
And what's wrong with this? The usage of 'gunships' on human targets is valid by the laws of war. There's normally nothing special on how you kill people during war.
Where I WILL get upset is the targeting of non-combatants, whether by gunship, missile, or even humble assault rifle. I understand that there can and will be collateral damage if you need to use something with explosives to take out a target, but sometimes this is necessary.
Ahem... There have actually been numerous agreements that use of intentionally excessive force (even on a clear enemy target) goes against common decency, and to that effect things like the NATO ban on hollow point and other intentionally egregious ammunition have come about, specifically because you shouldn't kill when you can incapacitate, even if you really really don't like who you're shooting at.
Never mind that Microsoft has paid dividends for the past 7 years, while Apple stock value has skyrocketed but actual shareholder value of that stock is still only worth what they sell it for. What good is a stock that doesn't pay dividends, unless you are counting on an ever burgeoning supply of suckers willing to buy stock with the prospect of reselling it at a higher price to the next sucker? Gee, there's no way the price could ever get inflated in a scenario like that, is there?
Yes, because the market worked perfectly in Phoenix where a 1500 sq.ft. house sold for $500,000 three years ago and today can't be given away. It sure worked for Lehman Brothers, WaMu, and all the other banks that had stellar stock prices until *after* news broke that they were actually worthless and the shareholders needed to head for the fire exits or their 'investment' would quickly evaporate into a stack of pennies. Yep, good old market, always smarter than the individuals.
The market is great at deciding how much a tangible asset should cost, like a television or a gallon of gas. However, for bubble-riding real estate as well as for stock (especially ones that don't even pay dividends) what exactly is the point of even putting a price on it, except to sell it to some sucker who hopes it will go up before they want to sell it?
This comment will probably go down in flames, but it seems like this article is just an excuse to brown nose Steve Jobs. Apple makes fad devices; pretty nice devices but they are still playing to a fad (just take a look at their stock price). Microsoft, on the other hand, makes business computing possible on over 90% of the world's computers.
If you want an analogy here goes. Apple may be the hip guy who shaved his head to hide his middle aged bald spot, and hangs out with trendy friends. However, Microsoft is driving the minivan around because he actually has shit to get done while Apple is living off a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.
Smoking pot harms no one... Adultery is immoral (and harmful)...
Thank you for neatly disproving your own argument. Both of these things are pure opinion, it is trivial to argue both in either direction.
And, fwiw, the moral dilemmas they posed were of the lines of "sally and alice are at a chemical plant. alice gives sally a cup of coffee and in it she puts what she thinks is sugar but it's really poison. was alice wrong in giving the coffee to sally?" vs "sally and alice are at a chemical plant. alice gives sally a cup of coffee and also adds some poison to it while sally thinks it only has sugar in it. was alice wrong in giving the coffee to sally?" And so on and so forth in various ways that include the poison working and the poison being ineffective, in either the malicious or the benign scenario. These approach the issue of doing harm vs intending to do harm, for outcomes that are either benign or harmful, which illustrates the extent at which someone is willing to classify something as "wrong" depending on the intent AND the outcome.
It's important to note that the research focused on moral judgements about the *intentions* of actions, not on the actions and outcomes themselves. So, a person with a disrupted brain might not see a problem with wanting to steal a car, but they can still fully grasp the weight of actually stealing the car. Since moral judgement is lost on some people anyway, the normal effects of punishment should still be as effective, with or without disruption via magnetic field. Ergo, using this as a defense is about as probable as getting in front of the judge and saying "well no one was there to tell me *not* to steal it, your honor".
Ahem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
I think what you meant to ask for was "how many deaths per unit of vehicle distance travelled" since this controls not for how many drivers there are but for how much driving is actually going on. If you compare these numbers, you see that the US sees about 9 deaths per billion kilometers, and the UK sees 6.3 deaths. It's slightly more genuine and not nearly as 'shocking' (1.4x more vs 3.3x more fatalities) than the blanket deaths per person metric mentioned earlier. The UK sees fewer deaths overall in just about every measurable metric, however speculating on the actual causation is an exercise in futility left to the reader.
I think perhaps you meant to type HomeStar Runner?
Except that it costs you a metric tonne of credibility, as well as most of your facebook friends. If these things are of no perceived value to you, by all means play Farmville.
Was I the only one who read "child naming rights" and then skimmed straight to "Sergey And Larry", thinking that he was in fact going to name his next kid "Sergey And Larry Gaylord"?
What a prize. Anyway, I imagine the next article is going to read something like this:
"Raleigh Councilman's Child Production Rights Revoked By Upset Wife"
Why are you surprised? NASA spent millions to develop a pen that could write in space... the Russians used a pencil. Sometimes people look for a really complicated solution instead of going for something cheap and cheerful that gets-the-job-done.
LOL!
I mean, no. No they didn't. This is an urban legend perpetuated by petty anti-government types. Educate thy self: http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
You can pry my spinning disk out of my cold, dead hands. There are a number of benefits still; cost and durability (aside from shock resistance) chief among them. Solid state disks will be taking a bigger role in storage, but spinning disks are a long way from being obsolete.
These measurements might not be 100% accurate at identifying the root of each of the problem areas, but when an ISP is on all but one of the top ten lists, you have to start wondering what they are doing wrong. ThePlanet.com, what gives? Too many undereducated customers running infected servers? No top level detection and deactivation process in place? Seems like there are a lot of things missing.
The headline is misleading, despite the source. The source was willing to go as far as saying that this figure is in spite of Obama's own directive to stop using these loopholes for the FOIA. So whether it is lack of proper pressure, simple insubordination, or a deluge of requests (these figures should appropriately be compared to the overall requests, right?) the bottom line is that the President directed it to not happen and it is happening anyway.
Yes and no...
That bigger problem is, quite simply, that we are living in a total illusion. We are told that the most beneficial members of society will get the most compensation (in order of their perceived benefit), and this motivates us to be beneficial ourselves. But who gets all the money? Those mooks from American Idol who sing poorly and clog up telephone networks (among other completely undeserving people). Yet, if we all get rich and famous by singing and dancing and swearing on TV we too can be a net-earner for our society! Except there is no way that our means of production will support that kind of lifestyle, simply because we are rewarding so many people who, honest to god, mean jack to society/prosperity/whatever.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a 'rise of the proletariat' type of person at all, but I know for sure that we are in for a free-market kick in the nuts once all our bad decisions start catching up with us.
BadAnalogyGuy has the day off. I am filling in. Yes the US market has a strong demand for drugs (that happen to be illegal per national laws), but saying this is the root cause of the violent drug trade across the border is pretty silly, almost as silly as my bad analogy. If the drugs were illegally grown in the US there would be no illegal importation problem anymore, eh?
So, honestly, what do farm subsidies have to do with illegal immigrant labor? I am legitimately curious. Also, you would need to both legalize growing/processing/selling/using AND create a nearly tariff free import policy, otherwise illegal importation of drugs will always be the cheaper method to obtain them (considering the labor here in the US is god awful expensive).
Run the numbers... If you are lucky enough to be in the top 1% of income earners you are likely to be paying more into the system than you are getting out of it. For the rest of us, the system is so overbearing that we have no hope of paying for it. We are leaving that for our kids and grandkids (in the form of debt). It's simple, really.
Is this the same logic that says the problem of Mexican drugs being imported into the US is the US's fault? Sure, there needs to be demand, but this is a bit like saying that murderers wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for all of these *living* people around!
Honestly, I believe the problem needs to be solved on both sides of the border. Americans are willing to pay a fraction of what they would to a local, to do a menial job. Mexicans are willing to risk life and limb just to get a chance to do that job. Something is very wrong with every part of this situation.
No; you too are wrong. The key missing point is a fiddle. And, possibly, an improbable wager. Then we will know if the material will perform as expected, or if it will run afoul of 'the demon'.