the large underlying problem of the fair ownership of the Soviet assets has no easy solution
I understand. The "privatization" of Soviet assets was theft on an unprecedented scale. It dwarfs even the West's more recent ripoff by their banks. However, that still doesn't justify Putin's "strong man" approach and eh, less than zealous concern for the Rule of Law. I can't think of when that's ever turned out well. In 1917 Russia wound up trading the czar for the Bolsheviks. How did that work out? Maybe they could tax assets in excess of $10M at a 95% rate, I don't know. But do it according to the law.
The Western media maintain that the only cure to the situation in Russia is the respect for the rule of law... However, that's a mistake
Please forgive my Western bias, but I can't think of a single historical example where the Rule of Law wasn't preferable to the alternative. You seem to think Russia is an exception due to "special circumstances". That's the usual excuse for destroying the Rule of Law. Also, it's hard to think of when in Russian history people haven't argued that there were "special circumstances".
That's what the rest of the world thinks about America and their WinTel monopoly. Deal with it.
Really. America has never assassinated one of it's agents ever? You sure about that?
Hmm, and jailing billionaires? Say it's not so! Let's start a "Free the billionaire" charity. We could sell cookies.
In case you haven't heard, the Wintel monopoly ain't what it used to be. Also, while I'm hardly dreamy eyed about the US, it's historical sins, and certainly its current path, comparing the US to Russia is ludicrous. Perhaps the US has assassinated some of its own agents. Please provide citations. As for crying over fraudulently jailed billionaires, I don't lose much sleep over them either. However, you're missing the point. If they can jail someone with that much influence and visibility on trumped up charges, then what chance does anyone else have? In the US, if you're stuck with a public defender, you're toast. If you can afford good enough lawyers though we actually have pretty good protections for criminal defendants. It sucks that it depends on how much money you can pay for lawyers, but at least there's some chance. In Russia apparently, not so much.
Considering the bugs in the last two Kaspersky enterprise AV releases, I'd say this is a terrible move for Qualcomm. I can't say enough horrible stuff about kaspersky AV.
Well, say a few more, seriously. I believe several of the (apparently independent) AV test labs give them high marks, but if there are some buried bodies I'd like to hear about them.
insert Bill Gates slam here... insert Steve Jobs supreme being statement here
Neither, just a big "who cares". There are 37,000 people in the US who die every year from pancreatic cancer. I'm sure the vast majority have friends, or even former rivals, who aren't happy about their often premature deaths. Why am I supposed to care about such an odd couple named Jobs and Gates more than any others? If I cared about this crap, I'd read People magazine in some waiting room. At least they have pictures.
the real reason for the fall of the Roman empire, not the inability to terminate strings but the fact that they spent most of their time arguing over grammar
That and the fact that certain terms in Latin sound awfully similar but mean opposite things. I can imagine a 5th century battlefield where the order goes out to use the inter-legion defense, but half the legions heard intra-legion defense. Oops, of such things are barbarian victories made.
It would be better to equip every person and every vehicle with a GPS and a transponder, which could be queried at any time by police or other government agency performing essential public safety work. It could also serve as a universal form of ID.
It should read: Congressional 'contributors' want...
At this point it should just be understood that "congress wants" means "congressional contributors want". Anyone who doesn't realize that is either too bought or too naive to have an intelligent political discussion with.
How does SDR help here? And how do you know they aren't already using it for things like drones? The virtue of SDR is that one receiver/demodulator can handle many different modulation and coding schemes. It does not help the antennas and RF circuitry handle a wider range of carrier frequencies.
I like the idea but think this is too low of a frequency. Just some loosely connected numbers off the top of my head: the 900MHz ISM band already allows you 36dBm (4W) EIRP. That's 26dB above the 10mW max total radiated power you suggest. At those frequencies (actually 1.6GHz) I've used 85cm dishes that have 20.6dBi gain. In other words, high enough gain antennas/arrays would be awfully big at these frequencies.
That category needs to be abolished, because it's ridiculous to say they can engage in politics as long as they "mostly" do something else. I'm not excusing what was done, but 503(c) is ridiculous.
Right wingers represent the ruling class. The 1%. The ones with money.
The right wing represents some of the ruling class (e.g. oil interests) but the "left wing" (actually Democratic party) does a pretty good job of sucking up to other parts of it. You realize that Wall Street heavily backed Obama in 2008, right? Obama's AG wouldn't see a financial crime if it jumped up and down in front of him. Obama's former SecTreas, Turbo Timmy, would sell his grandmother if he thought it would help the banks. Also, tech mostly supports Dems. Remember you're a xenophobe if you oppose the H-1B cheap guest worker program.
This sucks. The Dems tried playing a little hardball
A little hardball? This is downright Nixonian. And if it matters, there are many ways that I lean pretty far to the left. There is no excuse for suppression of political speech.
about how the police and FBI worked together to shut down OWS and the anti-1% movement
But the country was threatened by a bunch of people camping out in a park. Yeah, the FBI and police coordination, as though there were some national threat instead of a few local differences, was pretty disgusting. NYC Mayor-for-Life Bloomberg sending in SWAT teams at 2AM as though the protesters were some sort of incredibly dangerous characters that could only be taken by military force. They also did everything they could to keep the press away from that, undoubtedly for their own protection.
However, the FBI that helped with that was in the executive branch run by Obama. Don't forget that. And regardless of who was responsible for it, political suppression of your team doesn't justify political suppression of the other team. If we start thinking like that we might as well burn the Constitution.
you ignored the second half of the sentence, "in public opinion"
How did you determine that right wing groups are marginalized in public opinion? You do realize that a much larger percentage of Americans call themselves conservatives than liberals, right?
If that's your rationalization then you aren't even close to being a conservative.
I'm not, nor did I ever say I was a conservative. However, eliminating unnecessary government red tape is an idea that conservatives, and others, should endorse. Considering the problems we have with illegal immigration, I don't think that verifying that I can legally work in the US is unnecessary. If you want to eliminate unnecessary red tape (and worse) get the TSA to knock off the security theater. Verifying that I can legally work in the US is a pleasure compared to going through airport "security".
I am not all that happy with the state of border crossings in the US, they certainly do make life crappy for the people who get entangled in their bureaucracy
Agreed. I think some of the garbage they pull is outrageous. However, simply producing a passport is a reasonable and long standing requirement.
If you have a drivers license (or permit, or non-permit ID) then you have a biometric ID linked to a centralized database. So what the heck is so scary about this one?
"Centralized" database? There is no such thing as a federal database of this sort (yet). There are 50 state databases. A nice feature of that is that if the federal government starts abusing it, the system could be broken by a few states telling the federal government to go screw itself. That split allocation of power is one of the key principles of our federal system. Nor is the idea of this happening so far fetched. From http://epic.org/privacy/id_cards/: "19 States have passed resolutions or laws rejecting the national ID program".
I don't know why I even bother to ask since you think "having an ID is a step toward a police state". That's a loony belief.
It's poor rhetorical form to quote something I didn't say, particularly when I already corrected your simplistic paraphrasing of what I actually said.
Of course there is reason to tie it into a national database. Why would anyone propose to do it if there were no reason?
Good point. Let me rephrase: What clear and important purpose does it serve that isn't served by the existing setup? No arm-waving please - to justify a project you should be able to identify concrete problems, why and how serious they are, and specifically how this is going to solve them. You shouldn't be able to start an office IT project without that, let alone a national biometric database.
Stop whining about policies of private institutions and state and local governments that are sensible and non-invasive.
Putting aside "non-invasive", how is this sensible? What clear and important purpose does it serve that isn't served by the existing setup? No arm-waving please - to justify a project you should be able to identify concrete problems, why and how serious they are, and specifically how this is going to solve them You shouldn't be able to start an office IT project without that, let alone a national biometric database.
I assumed that once I received my Driver's License (in 1986, heh), I was already IN a giant database like this? Why DON'T we have this? Seems like a pretty obvious thing that I would want if I was issuing photo IDs and SS#s.
They were databases even before there were computers. However, while there is a federal database of social security numbers (but without pictures or any other biometric data), and various state databases of driver's licenses (generally with photos), hitherto there hasn't been a federal database that included biometric data. While I can't guarantee that creating one will lead to the repeal of the Bill of Rights, it's definitely a step in the wrong direction. Whenever anybody suggests violating the "ain't broke, don't fix it" principle, you should ask why. Why do we need this when the existing databases work fine? Even if you can point to some potential improvement, is it worth the slippery slope risk? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
The right to work and therefore support yourself is about as universal as it gets.
Thankfully nobody is suggesting that that right be denied to any citizen, or even people who have the correct visas. Sorry though if you have no Constitutional or common law right to be free of government red tape.
Border crossings aren't even in the same league.
You mean if I choose to temporarily leave the US then it doesn't matter if the government denies me the right to live in my own country?
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that rather than skip over it, you took time to point out how much you don't care says something about you though.
I hope you're aware of the irony of you saying that. Why didn't you just skip over my post?
+10 or -10db?
I've forgotten. Maybe I'll say it depends on my mood. -10 means I'm very optimistic (because I think I can demodulate a signal like that!).
It's not about cultural differences
That was part of my point.
oligarchs are just as "bad" as Putin is.
Probably worse. I never said otherwise.
the large underlying problem of the fair ownership of the Soviet assets has no easy solution
I understand. The "privatization" of Soviet assets was theft on an unprecedented scale. It dwarfs even the West's more recent ripoff by their banks. However, that still doesn't justify Putin's "strong man" approach and eh, less than zealous concern for the Rule of Law. I can't think of when that's ever turned out well. In 1917 Russia wound up trading the czar for the Bolsheviks. How did that work out? Maybe they could tax assets in excess of $10M at a 95% rate, I don't know. But do it according to the law.
The Western media maintain that the only cure to the situation in Russia is the respect for the rule of law ... However, that's a mistake
Please forgive my Western bias, but I can't think of a single historical example where the Rule of Law wasn't preferable to the alternative. You seem to think Russia is an exception due to "special circumstances". That's the usual excuse for destroying the Rule of Law. Also, it's hard to think of when in Russian history people haven't argued that there were "special circumstances".
That's what the rest of the world thinks about America and their WinTel monopoly. Deal with it.
Really. America has never assassinated one of it's agents ever? You sure about that? Hmm, and jailing billionaires? Say it's not so! Let's start a "Free the billionaire" charity. We could sell cookies.
In case you haven't heard, the Wintel monopoly ain't what it used to be. Also, while I'm hardly dreamy eyed about the US, it's historical sins, and certainly its current path, comparing the US to Russia is ludicrous. Perhaps the US has assassinated some of its own agents. Please provide citations. As for crying over fraudulently jailed billionaires, I don't lose much sleep over them either. However, you're missing the point. If they can jail someone with that much influence and visibility on trumped up charges, then what chance does anyone else have? In the US, if you're stuck with a public defender, you're toast. If you can afford good enough lawyers though we actually have pretty good protections for criminal defendants. It sucks that it depends on how much money you can pay for lawyers, but at least there's some chance. In Russia apparently, not so much.
Considering the bugs in the last two Kaspersky enterprise AV releases, I'd say this is a terrible move for Qualcomm. I can't say enough horrible stuff about kaspersky AV.
Well, say a few more, seriously. I believe several of the (apparently independent) AV test labs give them high marks, but if there are some buried bodies I'd like to hear about them.
insert Bill Gates slam here ... insert Steve Jobs supreme being statement here
Neither, just a big "who cares". There are 37,000 people in the US who die every year from pancreatic cancer. I'm sure the vast majority have friends, or even former rivals, who aren't happy about their often premature deaths. Why am I supposed to care about such an odd couple named Jobs and Gates more than any others? If I cared about this crap, I'd read People magazine in some waiting room. At least they have pictures.
the real reason for the fall of the Roman empire, not the inability to terminate strings but the fact that they spent most of their time arguing over grammar
That and the fact that certain terms in Latin sound awfully similar but mean opposite things. I can imagine a 5th century battlefield where the order goes out to use the inter-legion defense, but half the legions heard intra-legion defense. Oops, of such things are barbarian victories made.
It would be better to equip every person and every vehicle with a GPS and a transponder, which could be queried at any time by police or other government agency performing essential public safety work. It could also serve as a universal form of ID.
I agree - very Keynesian (cue trolls). It also beats the hell out of starting another unjustifiable war.
It should read: Congressional 'contributors' want ...
At this point it should just be understood that "congress wants" means "congressional contributors want". Anyone who doesn't realize that is either too bought or too naive to have an intelligent political discussion with.
This is how Software Defined Radio wins.
How does SDR help here? And how do you know they aren't already using it for things like drones? The virtue of SDR is that one receiver/demodulator can handle many different modulation and coding schemes. It does not help the antennas and RF circuitry handle a wider range of carrier frequencies.
I like the idea but think this is too low of a frequency. Just some loosely connected numbers off the top of my head: the 900MHz ISM band already allows you 36dBm (4W) EIRP. That's 26dB above the 10mW max total radiated power you suggest. At those frequencies (actually 1.6GHz) I've used 85cm dishes that have 20.6dBi gain. In other words, high enough gain antennas/arrays would be awfully big at these frequencies.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/the_resilient_conservative_majority.html
NASCAR is marginalized as white trash and blue collar and... right wing.
Because there's a near complete saturation of the fan-base.
Such generalizations. I have it on good authority that Trotsky was a NASCAR fan.
All 503(c).4 organizations need more scrutiny.
That category needs to be abolished, because it's ridiculous to say they can engage in politics as long as they "mostly" do something else. I'm not excusing what was done, but 503(c) is ridiculous.
Right wingers represent the ruling class. The 1%. The ones with money.
The right wing represents some of the ruling class (e.g. oil interests) but the "left wing" (actually Democratic party) does a pretty good job of sucking up to other parts of it. You realize that Wall Street heavily backed Obama in 2008, right? Obama's AG wouldn't see a financial crime if it jumped up and down in front of him. Obama's former SecTreas, Turbo Timmy, would sell his grandmother if he thought it would help the banks. Also, tech mostly supports Dems. Remember you're a xenophobe if you oppose the H-1B cheap guest worker program.
This sucks. The Dems tried playing a little hardball
A little hardball? This is downright Nixonian. And if it matters, there are many ways that I lean pretty far to the left. There is no excuse for suppression of political speech.
about how the police and FBI worked together to shut down OWS and the anti-1% movement
But the country was threatened by a bunch of people camping out in a park. Yeah, the FBI and police coordination, as though there were some national threat instead of a few local differences, was pretty disgusting. NYC Mayor-for-Life Bloomberg sending in SWAT teams at 2AM as though the protesters were some sort of incredibly dangerous characters that could only be taken by military force. They also did everything they could to keep the press away from that, undoubtedly for their own protection.
However, the FBI that helped with that was in the executive branch run by Obama. Don't forget that. And regardless of who was responsible for it, political suppression of your team doesn't justify political suppression of the other team. If we start thinking like that we might as well burn the Constitution.
you ignored the second half of the sentence, "in public opinion"
How did you determine that right wing groups are marginalized in public opinion? You do realize that a much larger percentage of Americans call themselves conservatives than liberals, right?
the average American is only outraged when they are told to be by the mainstream media
I have more than a few qualms about the MSM and what they do and don't cover. However this one isn't getting a pass. That story is from the Associated Press, which is not exactly samizdat. It's also in McClatchy papers, which if anything are known for leaning left. http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/washington/2013/05/republicans-call-for-an-inquiry-into-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups.html
If that's your rationalization then you aren't even close to being a conservative.
I'm not, nor did I ever say I was a conservative. However, eliminating unnecessary government red tape is an idea that conservatives, and others, should endorse. Considering the problems we have with illegal immigration, I don't think that verifying that I can legally work in the US is unnecessary. If you want to eliminate unnecessary red tape (and worse) get the TSA to knock off the security theater. Verifying that I can legally work in the US is a pleasure compared to going through airport "security".
I am not all that happy with the state of border crossings in the US, they certainly do make life crappy for the people who get entangled in their bureaucracy
Agreed. I think some of the garbage they pull is outrageous. However, simply producing a passport is a reasonable and long standing requirement.
If you have a drivers license (or permit, or non-permit ID) then you have a biometric ID linked to a centralized database. So what the heck is so scary about this one?
"Centralized" database? There is no such thing as a federal database of this sort (yet). There are 50 state databases. A nice feature of that is that if the federal government starts abusing it, the system could be broken by a few states telling the federal government to go screw itself. That split allocation of power is one of the key principles of our federal system. Nor is the idea of this happening so far fetched. From http://epic.org/privacy/id_cards/: "19 States have passed resolutions or laws rejecting the national ID program".
I don't know why I even bother to ask since you think "having an ID is a step toward a police state". That's a loony belief.
It's poor rhetorical form to quote something I didn't say, particularly when I already corrected your simplistic paraphrasing of what I actually said.
Of course there is reason to tie it into a national database. Why would anyone propose to do it if there were no reason?
Good point. Let me rephrase: What clear and important purpose does it serve that isn't served by the existing setup? No arm-waving please - to justify a project you should be able to identify concrete problems, why and how serious they are, and specifically how this is going to solve them. You shouldn't be able to start an office IT project without that, let alone a national biometric database.
Stop whining about policies of private institutions and state and local governments that are sensible and non-invasive.
Putting aside "non-invasive", how is this sensible? What clear and important purpose does it serve that isn't served by the existing setup? No arm-waving please - to justify a project you should be able to identify concrete problems, why and how serious they are, and specifically how this is going to solve them You shouldn't be able to start an office IT project without that, let alone a national biometric database.
I assumed that once I received my Driver's License (in 1986, heh), I was already IN a giant database like this? Why DON'T we have this? Seems like a pretty obvious thing that I would want if I was issuing photo IDs and SS#s.
They were databases even before there were computers. However, while there is a federal database of social security numbers (but without pictures or any other biometric data), and various state databases of driver's licenses (generally with photos), hitherto there hasn't been a federal database that included biometric data. While I can't guarantee that creating one will lead to the repeal of the Bill of Rights, it's definitely a step in the wrong direction. Whenever anybody suggests violating the "ain't broke, don't fix it" principle, you should ask why. Why do we need this when the existing databases work fine? Even if you can point to some potential improvement, is it worth the slippery slope risk? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
The right to work and therefore support yourself is about as universal as it gets.
Thankfully nobody is suggesting that that right be denied to any citizen, or even people who have the correct visas. Sorry though if you have no Constitutional or common law right to be free of government red tape.
Border crossings aren't even in the same league.
You mean if I choose to temporarily leave the US then it doesn't matter if the government denies me the right to live in my own country?