Jupiter's Galilean moons are tidally locked to Jupiter, but they are not blasted by radiation.
Actually, they are. And it is a major source of headaches for probes we have sent to Jupiter. Jupiter has a very strong magnetosphere, which has given rise to radiation belts much like Earth's Van Allen belts only much more so. And at least the inner Galilean moons are right in the middle of these radiation belts.
They used the transit method. But even the transit method will give a stronger signal the smaller the star. The shadow of a terrestrial sized planet will be a larger percentage of the total stellar output.
iOS apps are full of those dumb fake game ads too. Ads suck in general, and are pretty much unavoidable wherever you go. But they will never go away as long as people in general are not willing to pay for content. A couple of bucks for a game is really not unreasonable at all in the grand scheme of things, but people are conditioned to think that everything should be free so charging $5 for an app is considered an extreme expense by most consumers.
It seems to have worked out fine for Apple since they discontinued their line of printers.
A monitor is a monitor. There really is no value that Apple can add to a monitor by designing and building it themselves. Since the return of Jobs, Apple's m.o. has been to focus their energy on areas where they can differentiate themselves on functionality as well as build quality. There was nothing that an Apple LaserWriter could do that a Canon printer couldn't, so the LaserWriter was discontinued. There is nothing a Cinema Display could do that an LG display can't, so the Cinema Display was discontinued. Likewise, there isn't anything an Airport can do that a Linksys router can't, so I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the Airport line was dropped in the future as well.
Such things depend on the context. A course on feminist dance theory might be valuable in the context of a larger sociology degree, where the student might gain the perspective that practitioners of feminist dance are reacting to something in society, and what are the larger implications of that thing which they are reacting to, and might society as a whole benefit from somehow addressing whatever that thing is?
But if the feminist dance theory course is nothing more than self-congratulatory navel gazing, then sure, charge $500,000 for it.
Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material
18 U.S.C. 1924
Class: A Misdemeanor
Possible Penalty: Imprisonment for 1 year and/or $100,000 fine
Text: “Knowingly removing materials containing classified information of the United States with the intent to retain said info at an unauthorized location without the authority to do so”
All classified or later classified emails retained on her personal email server and also Huma's Laptop violate this statute. Having a non sanctioned storage device is arguably a violation as well.
There are two issues. Clinton's server, and Abedin's laptop.
Regarding the server, I have bolded a very relevant part of the statute, namely "unauthorized location". It was the FBI's conclusion that as Clinton was the boss, if she directed information to be stored in a particular location, that location was by definition an authorized location. Comey's analysis was that the aforementioned authorized location was damn stupid, but as the law doesn't specifically forbid stupidity, there was nothing prosecutable.
Regarding Abedin's laptop, my understanding is that she was a top Clinton aide, and that therefore she as a person was authorized to receive the emails in question. Nobody seems to be complaining that Abedin was sent those emails, just that they turned up on her laptop. Therefore, I fail to see how their existence on a laptop that Clinton had no control over, or that she even knew existed in any way implicates her in wrongdoing. Also, even if the existence of the laptop emails constitutes a smoking gun that confidential emails went through the Clinton server, see point #1 regarding the fact that setting up the server itself was already not considered to be a prosecutable offense.
Gathering, Transmitting Or Losing Defense Information
18 U.S.C. 793
Class: Felony
Possible Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years and/or $250,000 fine
Text: “Allowing [by means of gross negligence] any document relating to the national defense to be removed from its proper place of custody or destroyed –or- willfully retaining unauthorized documents relating to national defense and failing to deliver them to the United States employee entitled to receive them –or- failure to report that unauthorized documents relating to national defense were removed from their proper place of custody or destroyed”
Classified docs on the server and laptop violate this. Her forwarding them to Huma is also a violation as Weiner's personal laptop is not a secure device.
Again, server and laptop.
This one has a new twist for the server. Once again I have bolded the relevant part, with italics on the key phrase. As stated earlier, by definition, the place Clinton directed the emails to be stored was its proper place. Stupid, but not illegal. The twist is that stupidity is a hair's breadth away from negligence. So if by directing that the proper place for documents was a hackable server, and that server was hacked, then she would be guilty of gross negligence in allowing confidential information to be removed from its proper place. However, while there is evidence that there were attempts to hack the server, there is no evidence that anyone was successful. So Clinton was stupid but lucky, and therefore still not prosecutable.
Regarding the laptop, as Abedin was an authorized recipient of the emails, by accessing them on a laptop Weiner had access to, Abedin would be guilty of 18 U.S.C. 793 (had Weiner actually seen the emails), not Clinton.
Concealment, Removal, Or Mutilation Generally
18 U.S.C. 2071
Class: Felony
Possible Penalty: Imprisonment of no more than 3 years, a fine, or both
Text: “Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes
I just read through the DDG privacy policy statement you linked. I have no reason to doubt their intentions at preserving your privacy. However, it would not be in violation of their privacy policy for them to do a call-out to a third party REST service (e.g. one run by the aforementioned ad network) on the server side as part of their search engine code, sending your IP, user agent, and search string. All they say is that they do not include your search terms in the referrer header sent to websites via links in the result list, and they do not persist any of your information themselves.
... given that the emails she did hand over were enough to put a normal person in prison...
I keep hearing people repeat this (probably because they keep hearing it repeated on talk radio and such), but I have never actually heard any specifics. Can you please tell me what it was that she did exactly, and which law that action broke (please cite specific statute), the breaking of which would normally have lead to a conviction and incarceration?
One small point of contention - you will find very few synesthetes who consider themselves to "suffer" due to the condition, or who would consider it to be a disorder. When non-synesthetes hear about synesthesia, they often say that they would find it odd or distracting. But in reality, it is not a matter of desensitization to a negative situation at all. Rather, due to the 'naturalness' of the sensation it generally ranges from neutral to actually pleasant where they would legitimately miss it if it was gone.
The thing about synesthesia (grapheme-color and chromesthesia synesthete here, so I speak from experience) is that the phenomenon feels so natural that you don't even think about other people not mentioning it in the same way you don't think about other people not going around talking about what the color red looks like all the time. When people don't mention something which feels natural to you, the first assumption most people have is that it must feel natural to others as well, not that they don't experience the thing in the first place.
The existence of people who have that driving pattern was never a question. The issue is whether the percentage of people who rarely if ever commute beyond their own metropolitan areas is great enough that a shift to the majority of the population driving electric cars is economically and practically feasible. Pointing out that counterexamples exist to a trend in an attempt to question the existence or magnitude of the trend is fallacious and dishonest.
My apologies. There seem to be enough Apple haters in this thread who do honestly believe that CR gave Apple special treatment for one reason or another that I couldn't choose who to reply to. And I made a mistake by choosing to reply to the one person making that argument sarcastically.
What this whole story is really about is that a bunch of Apple haters got a reason to gloat, and are now feeling ripped off when their reason to gloat was taken away from them. The actual technical reasons behind the original decision and the decision to reverse the decision are beside the point.
CR found a defect in the product which caused them to not recommend it. The manufacturer of the product then took steps to fix the defect. When CR re-ran their tests with the fixed product, it passed, causing them to recommend it once more. In what way is that a concession? If Apple didn't fix the defect, but instead only insisted that they change their methodology (i.e. base their updated report solely on testing the MBP with caching enabled), then you would have an argument. But as they changed their recommendation only after retesting the fixed product using their original methodology, any further complaining is only anti-Apple bias. A company responding to the discovery of a bug by fixing that bug is a GOOD thing!
Considering WiFi EM frequencies are non-ionizing radiation, the transmitting power of a WiFi radio capable of causing physical harm would make such a device approach Bond villain evil plan status. Then again, considering the intended use, that might not be a bad thing.
Not trying to be judgmental, just curious as your opinion seems to be in the minority. What sort of 3D content do you regularly view on your TV that you feel is enhanced by being in 3D?
How is the USB-C implementation different from Thunderbolt 3? Is it because it natively supports HDMI as well as USB 3, PCIe, and DisplayPort, if that is what "direct access" means?
If it is the same, why don't they just call it a Thunderbolt 3 port? If Intel has developed a port that has the capabilities of Thunderbolt 3 + native HDMI, since they own Thunderbolt, why don't they just make that port the Thunderbolt spec rather than engineering two different but very similar ports?
In your hypothetical breakup, only the advertising company stands a chance of surviving. Advertising is the only Google (sorry, Alphabet) company that actually makes money, and it subsidizes all of the others. Conversely, all the others slurp up user data to enhance the functionality of the advertising company. So post-breakup, the advertising company would be crippled, starved of the data that makes it valuable, and all the others will die from having zero funding to run them. So congratulations, you just killed Google.
I am not clear on how forking a FOSS project counts as stealing. That goes for the GP comment as well (i.e. if forking a project isn't stealing, then neither is forking a fork).
Slashdot Mirror
Jupiter's Galilean moons are tidally locked to Jupiter, but they are not blasted by radiation.
Actually, they are. And it is a major source of headaches for probes we have sent to Jupiter. Jupiter has a very strong magnetosphere, which has given rise to radiation belts much like Earth's Van Allen belts only much more so. And at least the inner Galilean moons are right in the middle of these radiation belts.
They used the transit method. But even the transit method will give a stronger signal the smaller the star. The shadow of a terrestrial sized planet will be a larger percentage of the total stellar output.
If that is the right repository, then this is the relevant pull request: https://github.com/zcoinoffici...
It is a one line change from two days ago. Apparently the typo was initializing a variable to 1 instead of 0.
iOS apps are full of those dumb fake game ads too. Ads suck in general, and are pretty much unavoidable wherever you go. But they will never go away as long as people in general are not willing to pay for content. A couple of bucks for a game is really not unreasonable at all in the grand scheme of things, but people are conditioned to think that everything should be free so charging $5 for an app is considered an extreme expense by most consumers.
It seems to have worked out fine for Apple since they discontinued their line of printers.
A monitor is a monitor. There really is no value that Apple can add to a monitor by designing and building it themselves. Since the return of Jobs, Apple's m.o. has been to focus their energy on areas where they can differentiate themselves on functionality as well as build quality. There was nothing that an Apple LaserWriter could do that a Canon printer couldn't, so the LaserWriter was discontinued. There is nothing a Cinema Display could do that an LG display can't, so the Cinema Display was discontinued. Likewise, there isn't anything an Airport can do that a Linksys router can't, so I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the Airport line was dropped in the future as well.
Such things depend on the context. A course on feminist dance theory might be valuable in the context of a larger sociology degree, where the student might gain the perspective that practitioners of feminist dance are reacting to something in society, and what are the larger implications of that thing which they are reacting to, and might society as a whole benefit from somehow addressing whatever that thing is?
But if the feminist dance theory course is nothing more than self-congratulatory navel gazing, then sure, charge $500,000 for it.
Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material
18 U.S.C. 1924
Class: A Misdemeanor
Possible Penalty: Imprisonment for 1 year and/or $100,000 fine
Text: “Knowingly removing materials containing classified information of the United States with the intent to retain said info at an unauthorized location without the authority to do so”
All classified or later classified emails retained on her personal email server and also Huma's Laptop violate this statute. Having a non sanctioned storage device is arguably a violation as well.
There are two issues. Clinton's server, and Abedin's laptop.
Regarding the server, I have bolded a very relevant part of the statute, namely "unauthorized location". It was the FBI's conclusion that as Clinton was the boss, if she directed information to be stored in a particular location, that location was by definition an authorized location. Comey's analysis was that the aforementioned authorized location was damn stupid, but as the law doesn't specifically forbid stupidity, there was nothing prosecutable.
Regarding Abedin's laptop, my understanding is that she was a top Clinton aide, and that therefore she as a person was authorized to receive the emails in question. Nobody seems to be complaining that Abedin was sent those emails, just that they turned up on her laptop. Therefore, I fail to see how their existence on a laptop that Clinton had no control over, or that she even knew existed in any way implicates her in wrongdoing. Also, even if the existence of the laptop emails constitutes a smoking gun that confidential emails went through the Clinton server, see point #1 regarding the fact that setting up the server itself was already not considered to be a prosecutable offense.
Gathering, Transmitting Or Losing Defense Information
18 U.S.C. 793
Class: Felony
Possible Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years and/or $250,000 fine
Text: “Allowing [by means of gross negligence] any document relating to the national defense to be removed from its proper place of custody or destroyed –or- willfully retaining unauthorized documents relating to national defense and failing to deliver them to the United States employee entitled to receive them –or- failure to report that unauthorized documents relating to national defense were removed from their proper place of custody or destroyed”
Classified docs on the server and laptop violate this. Her forwarding them to Huma is also a violation as Weiner's personal laptop is not a secure device.
Again, server and laptop.
This one has a new twist for the server. Once again I have bolded the relevant part, with italics on the key phrase. As stated earlier, by definition, the place Clinton directed the emails to be stored was its proper place. Stupid, but not illegal. The twist is that stupidity is a hair's breadth away from negligence. So if by directing that the proper place for documents was a hackable server, and that server was hacked, then she would be guilty of gross negligence in allowing confidential information to be removed from its proper place. However, while there is evidence that there were attempts to hack the server, there is no evidence that anyone was successful. So Clinton was stupid but lucky, and therefore still not prosecutable.
Regarding the laptop, as Abedin was an authorized recipient of the emails, by accessing them on a laptop Weiner had access to, Abedin would be guilty of 18 U.S.C. 793 (had Weiner actually seen the emails), not Clinton.
Concealment, Removal, Or Mutilation Generally
18 U.S.C. 2071
Class: Felony
Possible Penalty: Imprisonment of no more than 3 years, a fine, or both
Text: “Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes
I just read through the DDG privacy policy statement you linked. I have no reason to doubt their intentions at preserving your privacy. However, it would not be in violation of their privacy policy for them to do a call-out to a third party REST service (e.g. one run by the aforementioned ad network) on the server side as part of their search engine code, sending your IP, user agent, and search string. All they say is that they do not include your search terms in the referrer header sent to websites via links in the result list, and they do not persist any of your information themselves.
... given that the emails she did hand over were enough to put a normal person in prison ...
I keep hearing people repeat this (probably because they keep hearing it repeated on talk radio and such), but I have never actually heard any specifics. Can you please tell me what it was that she did exactly, and which law that action broke (please cite specific statute), the breaking of which would normally have lead to a conviction and incarceration?
If you didn't want a wannabe iPhone, you shouldn't have gone with Samsung.
One small point of contention - you will find very few synesthetes who consider themselves to "suffer" due to the condition, or who would consider it to be a disorder. When non-synesthetes hear about synesthesia, they often say that they would find it odd or distracting. But in reality, it is not a matter of desensitization to a negative situation at all. Rather, due to the 'naturalness' of the sensation it generally ranges from neutral to actually pleasant where they would legitimately miss it if it was gone.
The thing about synesthesia (grapheme-color and chromesthesia synesthete here, so I speak from experience) is that the phenomenon feels so natural that you don't even think about other people not mentioning it in the same way you don't think about other people not going around talking about what the color red looks like all the time. When people don't mention something which feels natural to you, the first assumption most people have is that it must feel natural to others as well, not that they don't experience the thing in the first place.
The existence of people who have that driving pattern was never a question. The issue is whether the percentage of people who rarely if ever commute beyond their own metropolitan areas is great enough that a shift to the majority of the population driving electric cars is economically and practically feasible. Pointing out that counterexamples exist to a trend in an attempt to question the existence or magnitude of the trend is fallacious and dishonest.
Nah, only if the large battery is removable, and it also has an SD slot, a CD drive, and a SCSI port.
Are you suggesting that GP is 'holding it wrong'?
My apologies. There seem to be enough Apple haters in this thread who do honestly believe that CR gave Apple special treatment for one reason or another that I couldn't choose who to reply to. And I made a mistake by choosing to reply to the one person making that argument sarcastically.
Can you please provide evidence that Apple provided anything other than a fixed product that was previously broken, in exchange for an updated review?
What this whole story is really about is that a bunch of Apple haters got a reason to gloat, and are now feeling ripped off when their reason to gloat was taken away from them. The actual technical reasons behind the original decision and the decision to reverse the decision are beside the point.
CR found a defect in the product which caused them to not recommend it. The manufacturer of the product then took steps to fix the defect. When CR re-ran their tests with the fixed product, it passed, causing them to recommend it once more. In what way is that a concession? If Apple didn't fix the defect, but instead only insisted that they change their methodology (i.e. base their updated report solely on testing the MBP with caching enabled), then you would have an argument. But as they changed their recommendation only after retesting the fixed product using their original methodology, any further complaining is only anti-Apple bias. A company responding to the discovery of a bug by fixing that bug is a GOOD thing!
Considering WiFi EM frequencies are non-ionizing radiation, the transmitting power of a WiFi radio capable of causing physical harm would make such a device approach Bond villain evil plan status. Then again, considering the intended use, that might not be a bad thing.
Not trying to be judgmental, just curious as your opinion seems to be in the minority. What sort of 3D content do you regularly view on your TV that you feel is enhanced by being in 3D?
How is the USB-C implementation different from Thunderbolt 3? Is it because it natively supports HDMI as well as USB 3, PCIe, and DisplayPort, if that is what "direct access" means?
If it is the same, why don't they just call it a Thunderbolt 3 port? If Intel has developed a port that has the capabilities of Thunderbolt 3 + native HDMI, since they own Thunderbolt, why don't they just make that port the Thunderbolt spec rather than engineering two different but very similar ports?
In your hypothetical breakup, only the advertising company stands a chance of surviving. Advertising is the only Google (sorry, Alphabet) company that actually makes money, and it subsidizes all of the others. Conversely, all the others slurp up user data to enhance the functionality of the advertising company. So post-breakup, the advertising company would be crippled, starved of the data that makes it valuable, and all the others will die from having zero funding to run them. So congratulations, you just killed Google.
I am not clear on how forking a FOSS project counts as stealing. That goes for the GP comment as well (i.e. if forking a project isn't stealing, then neither is forking a fork).
Probably because it has a good chance of causing cancer. The mechanism sounds awfully like what happens with asbestos fibers.