The intelligence community isn't doing this in bad faith. The believe that this is what they have to do to protect "the People."
Even if that were true, you could say that about most of the evil tyrants throughout history. It doesn't mean what they're doing is actually what's best for the people. They believe it is because they believe that the more power they have, the more they can make things go their way, and that their way is the right way. Their actions are nothing more noble than a power grab.
You see, In the 'Special Housing Unit,' which is Bureau of Prisons codespeak for 'solitary confinement' and 'torture,' I had enough time to think about the current state of federal government. "
The guy is clearly messed up in the head from his experience (or maybe he was to some degree before, I don't know). They successfully broke him. Most likely with all that time in solitary confinement, in his mind he rallied behind the names of people who are famous for hating the government, regardless of their cause. I wonder if he can find a good psychotherapist willing to accept bitcoins.
Yes. The White House (Obama's administration) convinced the House Leadership (legislative members of the House of [pseudo]Representatives) to gut the bill.
The NSA already ignores the US Constitution, the highest law of the land which they are sworn to uphold, or at least their bosses are when they're sworn in. Does anyone really think a state law (from a non-swing state) will matter?
"educated in science" is in and of itself an oxymoron.
No, It's not.
You can't be educated in science.
Yes, you can.
Okay, I think I know what you're getting at, but trying to make your point by arguing the semantics of one phrase is pointless and and completely detracts from the point you're trying to make. To me, educated in science means 2 things: 1. The scientific method. Not just memorizing the names of some steps and knowing what to fill in the blanks on a class lab report, but really understanding what they mean, how to apply them, how to evaluate how somebody else applied them and be able to understand the conclusions of somebody else's peer reviewed paper, so you can translate the journalist's headline of "zOMG This is Going to Change the World" to "Researcher Discovers Something That May Suggest Something Interesting to Study Further." 2. Stuff that has been discovered and validated using the scientific method (biology, chemistry, physics, etc). This not only gives you useful or interesting information about the world, it also helps you understand #1 and gives you background you need in order to practice #1.
I think what you're getting at is that "science education" has really become only #2, but it should be #1 and #2. With that, I agree. Most schools do a piss-poor to nonexistent job at teaching #1. Even universities tend to do a poor job at teaching #1, the difference between university and high school is that high schoolers don't even know about #1 while university students know about #1, and think they understand it, but can't really apply it very well. Not until you're going for your PhD (in some cases MS depending on the program) do students really get to understand #1. Obviously I'm speaking to the majority, there are some teachers/mentors at lower levels that are able to instill #1, but it really needs to be stressed more at the high school and undergrad levels.
...should a lawyer get to determine the science curriculum? Shouldn't it be, you know, people who are educated in science that decide the science curriculum? (yes, that was rhetorical, I know damn well what the answer is)
They are not acting in the short term interest of those the endowments are there to serve. They are using the financial clout of the endowments to make a political statement, often to the detriment of the endowment's beneficiaries.
FTFY. They are allowed to divest of companies that will create substantial social injury. Being a major contributor to global warming will indeed to significant social (among other types) injury. Such harm will indeed do harm to the endowment's beneficiaries in the long term. Therefore, they are acting in the long term interest of the beneficiaries (and their children, and their children's children, and their children's children's children...etc).
None of those arrested because of the NSA tip-off [reuters.com] were arrested for their speech. It may or may not be in violation of the 4th Amendment, but not of the 1st.
Do you really believe that? The officer grabbed her boob from behind (hard enough to leave bruises in the shape of a hand), she reacted by swinging her elbow at her assailant. If she were somebody else being pulled over by an officer in any other situation, the officer would be the one being prosecuted for assault. While technically she wasn't prosecuted for her speech, clearly she was prosecuted (and persecuted) because of her speech.
And to stay on topic...Russia isn't saying you aren't allowed to blog. They merely want to make it easier for them to monitor your blogging. The US needs no such law, because the NSA is doing it anyway in violation of the constitution. The only real difference is that Russia is being transparent about it. In either country, if those in political power want to shut you up, they will find an excuse to do so, so requiring that you be careful what you say is implicit in either country (at least as long as you're flying high enough above the radar that somebody cares, nobody in either country is going to care about a/. comment).
"The transistors, just a few atoms thick and hence transparent,"
Sorry, but "a few atoms thick" still gives it all three axes in Cartesian space, no matter how small any given axis may be. Hell, even "one atom thick" qualifies as three-dimensional.
Pedant Headline Fail, eh?
Although the whole thing is a few atoms thick, each individual material is only one atom thick. It is a few atoms thick because it consists of 3 different materials, each layer of which is 1 atom thick. Click on the article and there's a pretty picture at the top for you. While I dislike the term 2-D (why can't they just call it one atom thick?) because a single atom obviously has thickness, as far as electrons are concerned there are only 2 dimensions that matter. The term relates to electron transport, not how thick the material is in space. While I agree that/. headlines are often horrible and misleading, in this case it's a term that's more widely used. At least try to understand, or click on the article ([diety] forbid you'd actually take 30 seconds to google it) before you claim it's bogus.
I think iPhones are treated like bicycles -- something that there just are not the resources for, even if the purported thief is nailed down to a location...As a devil's advocate, US police are woefully underfunded.
Even if that's true, is very short sighted. If you report your phone stolen, then they have to devote resources to filling out that report. If they start busting phone thieves it's extra work upfront, but there will be fewer future reports to fill out both because you bust the thief who is going to keep stealing, and because you discourage others. Oh yeah, and then there's the fact that it's their job to enforce the law.
When I had my phone stolen, I did all the legwork (it was quite a bit more involved than Find My Phone, but again I did it all for them) so that they could have busted the thief not only for theft but also for credit card fraud, all they had to do was fill out Verizon's law enforcement request to get his identity and home address. It would have taken less time than giving me excuses, but then they would have had to go arrest the thief and I guess that's too much paperwork for them. Additionally, all signs pointed to a professional, experienced thief, thus showing that the Maui Police Department* doesn't really care about the law or serving and protecting citizens. If you can't enforce a law then there's no point in even having that law. I think most people would agree that theft shouldn't be made legal.
*There are cops in the department who are good people, but the department as a whole doesn't seem to have the culture in place to straighten out or get rid of the bad apples, which is ultimately the higher-ups' responsibility, which is why I point to the department as the problem.
This is why you should never use consumer grade hardware/software for mission critical tasks. Have a mission critical task that relies on a certain bit of software? Better make sure you have a long term agreement on how that software will be maintained (access to source, perpetual support contract, defined software upgrade roadmap, etc.)
For many niche markets there simply isn't a choice. Often times there is only choice, and in other markets there might be 2 or 3 that suck equally. These types of vendors make incredibly shitty software that sucks too bad to upgrade, and the way they see it is that there's no incentive to spend money make it better if there's no competition forcing them to. In these cases the problem is those vendors, not the users. In other cases, a vendor may have been chosen because they met the most checkboxes on the requirements sheet that management had, even if there was a higher quality alternative at the time. It's easy to point at that problem in retrospect, but doesn't help the issue of not being upgradeable now. I'm not saying this is the case with everyone still using XP by any means, I'm trying to point out that the problem is not limited to Grandma who doesn't know how to upgrade.
The author seems to have no grasp on why there's still so many XP installations out there. Sure, there are a bunch that are just because home users don't know better or offices don't want to spend a few hundred bucks to upgrade, and for those use cases where all that really matters are being able to edit Word documents and browse the web, then his ideas apply. Problem is, there are a ton of users that are using niche software, whose creators have either gone out of business or simply stopped developing upgrades, that won't work on anything other than XP. Upgrading would cost millions to a business and/or affect the work flow of the whole organization. For example, there's super-duper expensive hospital equipment that can only be run by software running on Windows XP. You can't air-gap it, because it has to be networked in order to move data around to actually be useful. Upgrading from XP means scrapping the equipment and spending 6-7 figures for just that one piece of equipment, which is otherwise still working fine. There's other systems that don't necessarily run hardware, but would cost 6-7 figures in implementation to switch systems, and not all businesses that use that software have that kind of spare cash so it's not necessarily that they are just being greedy.
Yes, this is a problem, no, I'm not saying it's okay, what I am saying is that not issuing security fixes isn't going to force those types of users to upgrade, it just means they'll be forced to use a system that isn't secure. You have to fix the culture of the vendors who make this shitware (where there are usually no alternatives) before you can force their users to upgrade.
Count me out. No way would I rely on this technology, or the electronics, or the battery.
And yet, you probably have no problem flying in a heavier-than-air aluminum can that is totally dependent on electronics, and where you will die if the electronics all suddenly fail. And you have no problem locking yourself in a steel cage nearly every single day that is controlled by electronics and hurtling down the freeway at 65+ mph.
I assume you own firearms now, how often do you maintain them? If the battery life is longer than the maintenance cycle, then why is battery life an issue?
Definitely stopped several talking and driving accidents. This needs to be weighed fairly on the scales of justice.
That's a pretty big claim. How do you know it didn't actually cause some? Driver is talking on phone, enters range of jammer and call drops. Now driver is even more distracted and is looking at phone to try to redial call instead of looking at the road...
By the way: "stereoscopic" vision is hardly unusual in arthropods. Most crabs and shrimp have it. Hunting spiders often have it (not even just "stereo"... more like surround sound). And so on. I am pretty sure a lot of flies can see forward in stereo.
Are you just citing arthropods that have multiple eyes that can see in different directions? Stereoscopic means that the difference in what the two eyes see can be interpreted as depth (i.e. through parallax). Think of it like stereo vs mono sound. Just because you have two speakers that you point in different directions doesn't mean you have stereo sound even though it might fill the room better than a single speaker, the difference between what's coming out of the two speakers is what makes it stereo.
How about closeups of circuits made with this device? The demo vidio does not show the actual conductors. Sure, it may be able to throw down a few crude conductors but that is far from "complex circuits". To me this is yet another marketing post to get pre-orders on something that really does not work yet.
There's also nothing there to show that they did anything innovative. Dual extrusion is nothing new, and conductive filament is already available (though I don't know how high resistance it is). So what if one of the extruders happens to be extruding a conductive material? Is there something really innovative about the material? About how it's extruded? If there is, I can't find anything to suggest what it is.
Also, how am I supposed to solder components onto it? Considering a soldering iron runs around 400C and ABS is extruded around 230C, won't it destroy my part if I try to solder on it? Or is the only use case for this thing for printing a game controller? Even in their video, the components are on a separate breadboard, not on the controller.
If they did do something innovative, even if it's just a small incremental step, good for them! But unless/until they can show what that is or a useful use case for it, I don't imagine them selling very many units. And most of all, don't lie and say it's printing circuitry or electronics if it's really just extruding conductive wires.
Does it merely make them look bad? A bad cop is a more dangerous criminal than most of the people the cops are there to deal with. If the 'good cops' aren't enthusiastically hunting them down, I'd say that they are ineffectual at best and complicit at worst, not merely sullied by unfortunate proximity.
Very good point, but I suppose "good" and "bad" is a spectrum. The problem is, if a cop with the best intentions knows about bad/illegal behavior of another cop, what are they going to do? If they report them (at least if they're not the bad cop's superior), then the bad cop will still not be punished, but the otherwise good cop will be harassed and hazed until they have no choice but to quit or be fired (or in the case previously mentioned be thrown in a mental institution). So, would it do more "good" in the world to get shoved out the door and not effect change, or to continue doing what you can to bust the criminals that you can? I suppose the answer to that depends on how idealistic you are, but the real world tends not to be boolean.
The photos are "old news," Bratton said. "They’ve been out there for a long time."
Well, Commissioner Bratton, since these photos are old news and you are welcoming the attention they are getting, I'm sure you'd be happy to share with us what sort of investigation into these incidents there were and what punishment the officers received?
...then they wouldn't consider this a failure. Truth and evidence should never be considered a failure. Identifying police brutality so that those individual cops can be punished, and thus hopefully prevent other cops from doing the same, should be considered a success. But obviously that's not how it works.
There are plenty of good cops out there, but by not punishing the bad cops it makes them all look bad.
I find it difficult to believe... so...do you have any references that says Gorilla Glass is cheaper and harder than Sapphire?
Even Corning's own website doesn't say outright that Gorilla Glass is stronger. Only that:
Sapphire's performance as a cover for high-end watches probably leads to the current speculation. But those covers are much smaller than a mobile phone and are two to three times thicker than Gorilla Glass. In one of our commonly accepted strength tests, sapphire breaks more easily than Gorilla Glass after the same simulated use. Additionally, sapphire’s cost and environmental hit are huge issues.
Notice how they totally weasel around and, and only in "one of our commonly accepted strength tests" did Gorilla Glass outperform sapphire? So do they only have one test, or did sapphire outperform Gorilla Glass in all the others?
The real question is: Which is more likely to break in real life? That probably depends on how you test it. The best test would be to give a bunch of iPhones to a statistically significant set of teenagers and see how many screens of each are still intact after a while.
Also, there is some speculation on several different sites that Apple may not intend to use sapphire for the screen, but instead for the camera lens. They currently use it on the camera lens and the home button. I wonder if it's something they could use in other things that don't currently use Gorilla Glass, like macbook screens?
It has now come to light that Palcohol received approval for their label, not the product. A representative for the federal bureau said that the approval was made in error, though details were not provided about how the error occurred. Palcohol creator Mark Phillips was not available for comment, but agreed to surrender the approvals this afternoon. Phillips will likely re-evaluate the situation and try for approval on his labels again.
Slashdot Mirror
The intelligence community isn't doing this in bad faith.
The believe that this is what they have to do to protect "the People."
Even if that were true, you could say that about most of the evil tyrants throughout history. It doesn't mean what they're doing is actually what's best for the people. They believe it is because they believe that the more power they have, the more they can make things go their way, and that their way is the right way. Their actions are nothing more noble than a power grab.
This is very unexpected news to me. I didn't realize Turkey had such poor math standards.
You see, In the 'Special Housing Unit,' which is Bureau of Prisons codespeak for 'solitary confinement' and 'torture,' I had enough time to think about the current state of federal government. "
The guy is clearly messed up in the head from his experience (or maybe he was to some degree before, I don't know). They successfully broke him. Most likely with all that time in solitary confinement, in his mind he rallied behind the names of people who are famous for hating the government, regardless of their cause. I wonder if he can find a good psychotherapist willing to accept bitcoins.
Am I reading it wrong?
Yes. The White House (Obama's administration) convinced the House Leadership (legislative members of the House of [pseudo]Representatives) to gut the bill.
The NSA already ignores the US Constitution, the highest law of the land which they are sworn to uphold, or at least their bosses are when they're sworn in. Does anyone really think a state law (from a non-swing state) will matter?
"educated in science" is in and of itself an oxymoron.
No, It's not.
You can't be educated in science.
Yes, you can.
Okay, I think I know what you're getting at, but trying to make your point by arguing the semantics of one phrase is pointless and and completely detracts from the point you're trying to make. To me, educated in science means 2 things:
1. The scientific method. Not just memorizing the names of some steps and knowing what to fill in the blanks on a class lab report, but really understanding what they mean, how to apply them, how to evaluate how somebody else applied them and be able to understand the conclusions of somebody else's peer reviewed paper, so you can translate the journalist's headline of "zOMG This is Going to Change the World" to "Researcher Discovers Something That May Suggest Something Interesting to Study Further."
2. Stuff that has been discovered and validated using the scientific method (biology, chemistry, physics, etc). This not only gives you useful or interesting information about the world, it also helps you understand #1 and gives you background you need in order to practice #1.
I think what you're getting at is that "science education" has really become only #2, but it should be #1 and #2. With that, I agree. Most schools do a piss-poor to nonexistent job at teaching #1. Even universities tend to do a poor job at teaching #1, the difference between university and high school is that high schoolers don't even know about #1 while university students know about #1, and think they understand it, but can't really apply it very well. Not until you're going for your PhD (in some cases MS depending on the program) do students really get to understand #1. Obviously I'm speaking to the majority, there are some teachers/mentors at lower levels that are able to instill #1, but it really needs to be stressed more at the high school and undergrad levels.
...should a lawyer get to determine the science curriculum? Shouldn't it be, you know, people who are educated in science that decide the science curriculum? (yes, that was rhetorical, I know damn well what the answer is)
I think Wyoming can do far better.
I agree!
They are not acting in the short term interest of those the endowments are there to serve. They are using the financial clout of the endowments to make a political statement, often to the detriment of the endowment's beneficiaries.
FTFY. They are allowed to divest of companies that will create substantial social injury. Being a major contributor to global warming will indeed to significant social (among other types) injury. Such harm will indeed do harm to the endowment's beneficiaries in the long term. Therefore, they are acting in the long term interest of the beneficiaries (and their children, and their children's children, and their children's children's children...etc).
None of those arrested because of the NSA tip-off [reuters.com] were arrested for their speech. It may or may not be in violation of the 4th Amendment, but not of the 1st.
Do you really believe that? The officer grabbed her boob from behind (hard enough to leave bruises in the shape of a hand), she reacted by swinging her elbow at her assailant. If she were somebody else being pulled over by an officer in any other situation, the officer would be the one being prosecuted for assault. While technically she wasn't prosecuted for her speech, clearly she was prosecuted (and persecuted) because of her speech.
And to stay on topic...Russia isn't saying you aren't allowed to blog. They merely want to make it easier for them to monitor your blogging. The US needs no such law, because the NSA is doing it anyway in violation of the constitution. The only real difference is that Russia is being transparent about it. In either country, if those in political power want to shut you up, they will find an excuse to do so, so requiring that you be careful what you say is implicit in either country (at least as long as you're flying high enough above the radar that somebody cares, nobody in either country is going to care about a /. comment).
"The transistors, just a few atoms thick and hence transparent,"
Sorry, but "a few atoms thick" still gives it all three axes in Cartesian space, no matter how small any given axis may be. Hell, even "one atom thick" qualifies as three-dimensional.
Pedant Headline Fail, eh?
Although the whole thing is a few atoms thick, each individual material is only one atom thick. It is a few atoms thick because it consists of 3 different materials, each layer of which is 1 atom thick. Click on the article and there's a pretty picture at the top for you. While I dislike the term 2-D (why can't they just call it one atom thick?) because a single atom obviously has thickness, as far as electrons are concerned there are only 2 dimensions that matter. The term relates to electron transport, not how thick the material is in space. While I agree that /. headlines are often horrible and misleading, in this case it's a term that's more widely used. At least try to understand, or click on the article ([diety] forbid you'd actually take 30 seconds to google it) before you claim it's bogus.
I think iPhones are treated like bicycles -- something that there just are not the resources for, even if the purported thief is nailed down to a location...As a devil's advocate, US police are woefully underfunded.
Even if that's true, is very short sighted. If you report your phone stolen, then they have to devote resources to filling out that report. If they start busting phone thieves it's extra work upfront, but there will be fewer future reports to fill out both because you bust the thief who is going to keep stealing, and because you discourage others. Oh yeah, and then there's the fact that it's their job to enforce the law.
When I had my phone stolen, I did all the legwork (it was quite a bit more involved than Find My Phone, but again I did it all for them) so that they could have busted the thief not only for theft but also for credit card fraud, all they had to do was fill out Verizon's law enforcement request to get his identity and home address. It would have taken less time than giving me excuses, but then they would have had to go arrest the thief and I guess that's too much paperwork for them. Additionally, all signs pointed to a professional, experienced thief, thus showing that the Maui Police Department* doesn't really care about the law or serving and protecting citizens. If you can't enforce a law then there's no point in even having that law. I think most people would agree that theft shouldn't be made legal.
*There are cops in the department who are good people, but the department as a whole doesn't seem to have the culture in place to straighten out or get rid of the bad apples, which is ultimately the higher-ups' responsibility, which is why I point to the department as the problem.
This is why you should never use consumer grade hardware/software for mission critical tasks. Have a mission critical task that relies on a certain bit of software? Better make sure you have a long term agreement on how that software will be maintained (access to source, perpetual support contract, defined software upgrade roadmap, etc.)
For many niche markets there simply isn't a choice. Often times there is only choice, and in other markets there might be 2 or 3 that suck equally. These types of vendors make incredibly shitty software that sucks too bad to upgrade, and the way they see it is that there's no incentive to spend money make it better if there's no competition forcing them to. In these cases the problem is those vendors, not the users. In other cases, a vendor may have been chosen because they met the most checkboxes on the requirements sheet that management had, even if there was a higher quality alternative at the time. It's easy to point at that problem in retrospect, but doesn't help the issue of not being upgradeable now. I'm not saying this is the case with everyone still using XP by any means, I'm trying to point out that the problem is not limited to Grandma who doesn't know how to upgrade.
The author seems to have no grasp on why there's still so many XP installations out there. Sure, there are a bunch that are just because home users don't know better or offices don't want to spend a few hundred bucks to upgrade, and for those use cases where all that really matters are being able to edit Word documents and browse the web, then his ideas apply. Problem is, there are a ton of users that are using niche software, whose creators have either gone out of business or simply stopped developing upgrades, that won't work on anything other than XP. Upgrading would cost millions to a business and/or affect the work flow of the whole organization. For example, there's super-duper expensive hospital equipment that can only be run by software running on Windows XP. You can't air-gap it, because it has to be networked in order to move data around to actually be useful. Upgrading from XP means scrapping the equipment and spending 6-7 figures for just that one piece of equipment, which is otherwise still working fine. There's other systems that don't necessarily run hardware, but would cost 6-7 figures in implementation to switch systems, and not all businesses that use that software have that kind of spare cash so it's not necessarily that they are just being greedy.
Yes, this is a problem, no, I'm not saying it's okay, what I am saying is that not issuing security fixes isn't going to force those types of users to upgrade, it just means they'll be forced to use a system that isn't secure. You have to fix the culture of the vendors who make this shitware (where there are usually no alternatives) before you can force their users to upgrade.
Count me out. No way would I rely on this technology, or the electronics, or the battery.
And yet, you probably have no problem flying in a heavier-than-air aluminum can that is totally dependent on electronics, and where you will die if the electronics all suddenly fail. And you have no problem locking yourself in a steel cage nearly every single day that is controlled by electronics and hurtling down the freeway at 65+ mph.
I assume you own firearms now, how often do you maintain them? If the battery life is longer than the maintenance cycle, then why is battery life an issue?
Facebook and the NSA know what you look like, and Google can identify you by your browsing habits.
Definitely stopped several talking and driving accidents. This needs to be weighed fairly on the scales of justice.
That's a pretty big claim. How do you know it didn't actually cause some? Driver is talking on phone, enters range of jammer and call drops. Now driver is even more distracted and is looking at phone to try to redial call instead of looking at the road...
By the way: "stereoscopic" vision is hardly unusual in arthropods. Most crabs and shrimp have it. Hunting spiders often have it (not even just "stereo"... more like surround sound). And so on. I am pretty sure a lot of flies can see forward in stereo.
Are you just citing arthropods that have multiple eyes that can see in different directions? Stereoscopic means that the difference in what the two eyes see can be interpreted as depth (i.e. through parallax). Think of it like stereo vs mono sound. Just because you have two speakers that you point in different directions doesn't mean you have stereo sound even though it might fill the room better than a single speaker, the difference between what's coming out of the two speakers is what makes it stereo.
How about closeups of circuits made with this device? The demo vidio does not show the actual conductors. Sure, it may be able to throw down a few crude conductors but that is far from "complex circuits". To me this is yet another marketing post to get pre-orders on something that really does not work yet.
There's also nothing there to show that they did anything innovative. Dual extrusion is nothing new, and conductive filament is already available (though I don't know how high resistance it is). So what if one of the extruders happens to be extruding a conductive material? Is there something really innovative about the material? About how it's extruded? If there is, I can't find anything to suggest what it is.
Also, how am I supposed to solder components onto it? Considering a soldering iron runs around 400C and ABS is extruded around 230C, won't it destroy my part if I try to solder on it? Or is the only use case for this thing for printing a game controller? Even in their video, the components are on a separate breadboard, not on the controller.
If they did do something innovative, even if it's just a small incremental step, good for them! But unless/until they can show what that is or a useful use case for it, I don't imagine them selling very many units. And most of all, don't lie and say it's printing circuitry or electronics if it's really just extruding conductive wires.
Does it merely make them look bad? A bad cop is a more dangerous criminal than most of the people the cops are there to deal with. If the 'good cops' aren't enthusiastically hunting them down, I'd say that they are ineffectual at best and complicit at worst, not merely sullied by unfortunate proximity.
Very good point, but I suppose "good" and "bad" is a spectrum. The problem is, if a cop with the best intentions knows about bad/illegal behavior of another cop, what are they going to do? If they report them (at least if they're not the bad cop's superior), then the bad cop will still not be punished, but the otherwise good cop will be harassed and hazed until they have no choice but to quit or be fired (or in the case previously mentioned be thrown in a mental institution). So, would it do more "good" in the world to get shoved out the door and not effect change, or to continue doing what you can to bust the criminals that you can? I suppose the answer to that depends on how idealistic you are, but the real world tends not to be boolean.
He also said:
The photos are "old news," Bratton said. "They’ve been out there for a long time."
Well, Commissioner Bratton, since these photos are old news and you are welcoming the attention they are getting, I'm sure you'd be happy to share with us what sort of investigation into these incidents there were and what punishment the officers received?
...then they wouldn't consider this a failure. Truth and evidence should never be considered a failure. Identifying police brutality so that those individual cops can be punished, and thus hopefully prevent other cops from doing the same, should be considered a success. But obviously that's not how it works.
There are plenty of good cops out there, but by not punishing the bad cops it makes them all look bad.
I find it difficult to believe... so...do you have any references that says Gorilla Glass is cheaper and harder than Sapphire?
Even Corning's own website doesn't say outright that Gorilla Glass is stronger. Only that:
Sapphire's performance as a cover for high-end watches probably leads to the current speculation. But those covers are much smaller than a mobile phone and are two to three times thicker than Gorilla Glass. In one of our commonly accepted strength tests, sapphire breaks more easily than Gorilla Glass after the same simulated use. Additionally, sapphire’s cost and environmental hit are huge issues.
Notice how they totally weasel around and, and only in "one of our commonly accepted strength tests" did Gorilla Glass outperform sapphire? So do they only have one test, or did sapphire outperform Gorilla Glass in all the others?
The real question is: Which is more likely to break in real life? That probably depends on how you test it. The best test would be to give a bunch of iPhones to a statistically significant set of teenagers and see how many screens of each are still intact after a while.
Also, there is some speculation on several different sites that Apple may not intend to use sapphire for the screen, but instead for the camera lens. They currently use it on the camera lens and the home button. I wonder if it's something they could use in other things that don't currently use Gorilla Glass, like macbook screens?
The equipment you are suggesting costs quite a bit more than a plane ticket, even including the extra baggage fee and the $10 soggy sandwich.
From http://www.iflscience.com/chem...
It has now come to light that Palcohol received approval for their label, not the product. A representative for the federal bureau said that the approval was made in error, though details were not provided about how the error occurred. Palcohol creator Mark Phillips was not available for comment, but agreed to surrender the approvals this afternoon. Phillips will likely re-evaluate the situation and try for approval on his labels again.
Maybe everyone will be able to have their cases thrown out due to the warrantless surveillance conducted on them prior to their arrest.
Hahahaha! That's the funniest bit of satire I've read all day! The notion that the judicial branch would do their jobs, hahahaha!!!1!eleven!!