I was more making light of his bold deceleration that said feature will NEVER show up in iOS because Apple has a current reason for not including it and they could never change their minds;) It's not a matter of what I want or like, I actually own an iphone 3 (no G) and like it but still found the switch in multi-tasking rhetoric amusing.
If that is indeed the case that would seem completely unreasonable to me. But making it so Apple users couldn't just go to the website to sign up and get a 30% discount, while still somewhat of a dick move to their customer, seems less unreasonable towards the publishers then forcing the publishers to raise by 30% across the board.
there's no getting around those pesky Geneva Conventions when it comes to engaging medics and wounded enemies.
Which is why they don't fire when the guy is just crawling around on the ground, but when what they think are his buddies show up in an unmarked transport, don't give ANY first aid that would indicate they are medics, but just grab him by the feet and arms and try to escape from the battlefield they do fire. Mistake? Yes. Violation of Geneva Conventions? No.
First, have you listened to the audio in that video? The crew was practically begging for permission to shoot, bantering back and forth like they were playing a video game. As far as I'm concerned, when you approach a situation that could involve taking life with that kind of attitude, nothing that follows is an "accident."
Ummm, it's radio chatter chief. You don't get emotional on the comms, or at all if you can avoid it. That's how artillery gets dropped on your own guys or civilians. When you're flying a multi-million dollar killing machine providing top-cover for countless boots on the ground, well, golly gee Sally, you just don't have time to take a personal moment and cry a little while second guessing yourself over the radio for the entire AO to hear. If you're the 19 year old kid on the ground taking RPG fire do you want to hear you're top-cover which is supposed to be protecting you crying "Oh God I just killed someone. Was it the right person? I hope it was the right person! I'm scared up here!!"
And most importantly, if it truly was an accident, they should still be in jail. I guarantee you that if a civilian "accidentally" killed multiple individuals, none of whom had given any indication of danger, we would lock them up for a long time on manslaughter charges
It's almost as if different rules exist for soldiers in warzones then civilians in peacetime in recognition of the differences in environment and expectation....
As for [multi-threading], I can't figure out why people bring this up. It's a trade-off. There are certain advantages to having [only one program running] and it's a tradeoff to get them. If you don't want those advantages, buy a product that requires the user to [recharge their device more often], but you're NOT going to see those in iOS products. Period.
he best thing is that according to Apple's rules, the price has to be same for other devices too, so even if you don't use the iDevices, expect your prices to go up because of Apple's policies.
I'm not a fan of Apple but I think that's a misinterpretation. The rule is that the Apple device user has to be charged the same price if they buy the service outside the app store. So really all companies would have to do would be to add an extra fee on their site to enable streaming to i-devices, right?
Never-mind I'm in the wrong and didn't read carefully. I assumed a comparison between Egypt and Libya and skimmed the word assuming it was Mubarak and not Mugabe.
Their duty in that regard is to refuse specific orders that are clearly illegal. The military is not the tool for deciding whether certain debatable actions of an executive branch that has nothing to do with their orders falls within the bounds of constitutional law, that's the Supreme Court's job. There was nothing clearly illegal, constitutionally or otherwise, about the order to Manning to NOT divulge ALL classified material he could get his hands on. That's the order he disobeyed, and that's what he's being charged with.
Befehl ist Befehl! You know the problem with the US? They haven't had a war on their own soil for too long. It's about time they get one. It will teach them that war is a bit less 'fun' when it's your kids that are being shot at from an apache.
Yea, fuel laden missiles crashing into our buildings killing thousands of civilians including children sure taught us to be peace loving motherfuckers scared of throwing down and starting wars didn't it? It must also be the reason why Israel is such a teddy bear.
What in the world are you talking about? The constitution does not afford freedom of a soldier to divulge state secrets that they've sworn an oath to protect under penalty of death. NONE of the framers of the constitution, not a single one, would have had that meaning in freedom of speech. Even if the Supreme court ruled in such a ludicrous way thereby invalidating all NDA's and countless laws as well I'm pretty sure the vast super-majority of the American public would sponsor an amendment to the constitution making it clear that laws requiring the keeping of such state secrets by people who agree to that duty are legal.
The State Department called for both to step down. What's your definition for "not caring?" That we have a bigger reaction to Helicopter gunships firing into crowds and fighter jets bombing civilians then we do a country where the military kept violence relatively low? If you think it's economic based do you honestly think losing Libya's oil would cause a greater impact then losing access to the suez canal?
Out of curiosity what is someone "less scrupulous" going to do that's worse then breaking into you're companies private email and data, releasing it to the public, and deleting the backups? It's not like the government was paying HBGary via credit card using their website, it's just a PR thing. "You've added crappy 2-year cyber defense contract to your shopping cart - would you like to check out now or continue shopping?". As far as the website goes defacing it is the maximum damage route they could choose.
"Vigilante" is an idiotic term to use here. These people are protesters, nothing else, no different than people who block entrances to government buildings or bombard politicians with mail and phone calls. Why is it that when something happens on the Internet, it suddenly becomes something more than the same act happening in real life?
By your very argument then Anonymous would be common thieves and vandals for breaking into HBGary property, stealing documents, defacing their website, and destroying property (backups). If you want to make it "the same thing as if it happened in real life" they would not be protesters, but common criminals.
I thought the time tested method for creating vigilantes was blaming problems on a small group of people that the majority doesn't like anyways and so can get behind stringing up to work out their anger issues.
It's a most modern definition of uselessness: An email virus that sends itself to a fax machine.
That's what a few confused people around the world saw today, as their fax machines began churning out page after page of the computer code underlying the destructive "I Love You" virus.
The damage created by this particular manifestation of the virus--the computer equivalent of a pistol shooting a flag that says "BANG"--was nil. If anything, it proved that Microsoft's Outlook program was capable of annoying people even away from their personal computers.
I'm not sure how sending a fax of the virus code to literally print out is "infecting" a fax machine. Annoying, maybe, but all they are doing is sending them a harmless fax.
But if an internet organization compromises your mail servers and accounts to that level with the specific intent of discrediting and ruining your company doesn't that leave the door wide open to some gigantic reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of all those emails?
You're confusing the necessity to sue just to keep a trademark with the Mutually Assured Destruction practice of having a patent arsenal to ward off others from suing you. The end goal is to have neither you nor the other company to sue because you each have so many patents the other is infringing on that it would destroy both of your revenue streams. It's crazy, but this is how it's going these days.
Well, that would be the idea behind the release of "a commercial version at a later date", to make revenue. Maybe you should at least read the summary before flaming the editor. Of course feel free to comment on the article itself with just reading the headline since this is Slashdot after all;)
The release to academia (I assume through MSDN Academic Alliance?) is pretty cool. I know as a college student I had access to all that stuff and I downloaded everything I could off of it (Different versions of windows, IDE's, SQL servers) since you get to legally use it for non commercial stuff even afterwords. Granted Microsoft's incentive to do this is surely revenue based at the root but whatever, that's what companies do.
Or perhaps the word "life" is not actually included anywhere in the concept of "evolution".
No, but it is included in the concept of biological evolution. Bio - latin prefix for life or living organism. It's also funny that in the same breath you're arguing about the ridiculous of God creating things while simultaneously wishing to redefine evolution to nonliving things which would include the evolution of things made by a creator (like cars and computers totes evolving!) which is the same argument creationists go with.
I keep hearing this fallout claim. I could understand it if they were dropping the equivalent of one of the US's or Russia's bombs but I have to assume their first nuclear weapon would be far less powerful, more along the lines of fat man and little boy right? The fallout from those bombings didn't wreck all of Japan and if you're at the point where you're dropping nuclear weapons you're not really concerned about environmental impact studies that cancer rates might increase 5% for some small effected area 30 years down the road.
Slashdot Mirror
I was more making light of his bold deceleration that said feature will NEVER show up in iOS because Apple has a current reason for not including it and they could never change their minds ;) It's not a matter of what I want or like, I actually own an iphone 3 (no G) and like it but still found the switch in multi-tasking rhetoric amusing.
If that is indeed the case that would seem completely unreasonable to me. But making it so Apple users couldn't just go to the website to sign up and get a 30% discount, while still somewhat of a dick move to their customer, seems less unreasonable towards the publishers then forcing the publishers to raise by 30% across the board.
there's no getting around those pesky Geneva Conventions when it comes to engaging medics and wounded enemies.
Which is why they don't fire when the guy is just crawling around on the ground, but when what they think are his buddies show up in an unmarked transport, don't give ANY first aid that would indicate they are medics, but just grab him by the feet and arms and try to escape from the battlefield they do fire. Mistake? Yes. Violation of Geneva Conventions? No.
First, have you listened to the audio in that video? The crew was practically begging for permission to shoot, bantering back and forth like they were playing a video game. As far as I'm concerned, when you approach a situation that could involve taking life with that kind of attitude, nothing that follows is an "accident."
Ummm, it's radio chatter chief. You don't get emotional on the comms, or at all if you can avoid it. That's how artillery gets dropped on your own guys or civilians. When you're flying a multi-million dollar killing machine providing top-cover for countless boots on the ground, well, golly gee Sally, you just don't have time to take a personal moment and cry a little while second guessing yourself over the radio for the entire AO to hear. If you're the 19 year old kid on the ground taking RPG fire do you want to hear you're top-cover which is supposed to be protecting you crying "Oh God I just killed someone. Was it the right person? I hope it was the right person! I'm scared up here!!"
And most importantly, if it truly was an accident, they should still be in jail. I guarantee you that if a civilian "accidentally" killed multiple individuals, none of whom had given any indication of danger, we would lock them up for a long time on manslaughter charges
It's almost as if different rules exist for soldiers in warzones then civilians in peacetime in recognition of the differences in environment and expectation....
As for [multi-threading], I can't figure out why people bring this up. It's a trade-off. There are certain advantages to having [only one program running] and it's a tradeoff to get them. If you don't want those advantages, buy a product that requires the user to [recharge their device more often], but you're NOT going to see those in iOS products. Period.
he best thing is that according to Apple's rules, the price has to be same for other devices too, so even if you don't use the iDevices, expect your prices to go up because of Apple's policies.
I'm not a fan of Apple but I think that's a misinterpretation. The rule is that the Apple device user has to be charged the same price if they buy the service outside the app store. So really all companies would have to do would be to add an extra fee on their site to enable streaming to i-devices, right?
Never-mind I'm in the wrong and didn't read carefully. I assumed a comparison between Egypt and Libya and skimmed the word assuming it was Mubarak and not Mugabe.
What does Mugabe have to do with the Suez Canal, other than being on the same continent?
Mugabe has used starvation as a weapon against his own people.
You do realize that the Suez Canal is in and controlled by Egypt right? just as oil is in and controlled by Libya? Hence the comparison.
Their duty in that regard is to refuse specific orders that are clearly illegal. The military is not the tool for deciding whether certain debatable actions of an executive branch that has nothing to do with their orders falls within the bounds of constitutional law, that's the Supreme Court's job. There was nothing clearly illegal, constitutionally or otherwise, about the order to Manning to NOT divulge ALL classified material he could get his hands on. That's the order he disobeyed, and that's what he's being charged with.
Yea, if only the military had thought of giving TS SCI clearances to some members of JAG so that they too could deal with such things.....
Befehl ist Befehl! You know the problem with the US? They haven't had a war on their own soil for too long. It's about time they get one. It will teach them that war is a bit less 'fun' when it's your kids that are being shot at from an apache.
Yea, fuel laden missiles crashing into our buildings killing thousands of civilians including children sure taught us to be peace loving motherfuckers scared of throwing down and starting wars didn't it? It must also be the reason why Israel is such a teddy bear.
What in the world are you talking about? The constitution does not afford freedom of a soldier to divulge state secrets that they've sworn an oath to protect under penalty of death. NONE of the framers of the constitution, not a single one, would have had that meaning in freedom of speech. Even if the Supreme court ruled in such a ludicrous way thereby invalidating all NDA's and countless laws as well I'm pretty sure the vast super-majority of the American public would sponsor an amendment to the constitution making it clear that laws requiring the keeping of such state secrets by people who agree to that duty are legal.
The State Department called for both to step down. What's your definition for "not caring?" That we have a bigger reaction to Helicopter gunships firing into crowds and fighter jets bombing civilians then we do a country where the military kept violence relatively low? If you think it's economic based do you honestly think losing Libya's oil would cause a greater impact then losing access to the suez canal?
Contacting JAG
Out of curiosity what is someone "less scrupulous" going to do that's worse then breaking into you're companies private email and data, releasing it to the public, and deleting the backups? It's not like the government was paying HBGary via credit card using their website, it's just a PR thing. "You've added crappy 2-year cyber defense contract to your shopping cart - would you like to check out now or continue shopping?". As far as the website goes defacing it is the maximum damage route they could choose.
There's no functional difference between an AC and a pseudonym account. If real names were enforced here there'd be a lot fewer douchebags.
Says the AC. ^Real Name^ And just to spite you about there being less douche-bags this way? - Suck it ;)
"Vigilante" is an idiotic term to use here. These people are protesters, nothing else, no different than people who block entrances to government buildings or bombard politicians with mail and phone calls. Why is it that when something happens on the Internet, it suddenly becomes something more than the same act happening in real life?
By your very argument then Anonymous would be common thieves and vandals for breaking into HBGary property, stealing documents, defacing their website, and destroying property (backups). If you want to make it "the same thing as if it happened in real life" they would not be protesters, but common criminals.
I thought the time tested method for creating vigilantes was blaming problems on a small group of people that the majority doesn't like anyways and so can get behind stringing up to work out their anger issues.
It's a most modern definition of uselessness: An email virus that sends itself to a fax machine. That's what a few confused people around the world saw today, as their fax machines began churning out page after page of the computer code underlying the destructive "I Love You" virus. The damage created by this particular manifestation of the virus--the computer equivalent of a pistol shooting a flag that says "BANG"--was nil. If anything, it proved that Microsoft's Outlook program was capable of annoying people even away from their personal computers.
I'm not sure how sending a fax of the virus code to literally print out is "infecting" a fax machine. Annoying, maybe, but all they are doing is sending them a harmless fax.
But if an internet organization compromises your mail servers and accounts to that level with the specific intent of discrediting and ruining your company doesn't that leave the door wide open to some gigantic reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of all those emails?
You're confusing the necessity to sue just to keep a trademark with the Mutually Assured Destruction practice of having a patent arsenal to ward off others from suing you. The end goal is to have neither you nor the other company to sue because you each have so many patents the other is infringing on that it would destroy both of your revenue streams. It's crazy, but this is how it's going these days.
Well, that would be the idea behind the release of "a commercial version at a later date", to make revenue. Maybe you should at least read the summary before flaming the editor. Of course feel free to comment on the article itself with just reading the headline since this is Slashdot after all ;)
The release to academia (I assume through MSDN Academic Alliance?) is pretty cool. I know as a college student I had access to all that stuff and I downloaded everything I could off of it (Different versions of windows, IDE's, SQL servers) since you get to legally use it for non commercial stuff even afterwords. Granted Microsoft's incentive to do this is surely revenue based at the root but whatever, that's what companies do.
And watch the hypocrisy in the parent post, which fails to realize that virus and drive-by exploits are not the same thing as a trojan.
Failing to realize something is not hypocrisy. Ironically, you are trying to point out the ignorance of the parent post.
nor do they evolve in the biological sense.
You:
Or perhaps the word "life" is not actually included anywhere in the concept of "evolution".
No, but it is included in the concept of biological evolution. Bio - latin prefix for life or living organism. It's also funny that in the same breath you're arguing about the ridiculous of God creating things while simultaneously wishing to redefine evolution to nonliving things which would include the evolution of things made by a creator (like cars and computers totes evolving!) which is the same argument creationists go with.
I keep hearing this fallout claim. I could understand it if they were dropping the equivalent of one of the US's or Russia's bombs but I have to assume their first nuclear weapon would be far less powerful, more along the lines of fat man and little boy right? The fallout from those bombings didn't wreck all of Japan and if you're at the point where you're dropping nuclear weapons you're not really concerned about environmental impact studies that cancer rates might increase 5% for some small effected area 30 years down the road.