Yep. If you've been following the news, you'll notice that it's all about catching Snowden, and not about the massive NSA surveillance program. Most people just don't care about it, and the media sure isn't helping by focusing on Snowden to the exclusion of everything else.
I'm sure that ultimately, we'll get some law to "increase oversight on the NSA" that will have no teeth, the NSA will go back to spying on all communications it possibly can, and Snowden will get to discover the true meaning of "extraordinary rendition."
But can't you just put a sock over it? Congrats MS.. you get a first hand look at what the inside of my sock looks like... 24/7.
The Xbox One Kinect uses IR in addition to visible light. From this article:
Microsoft has even boosted the Kinect's infrared vision, which results in a number of dramatic improvements.
No longer will you have to play in a well and evenly lit room for the sensor to recognize your gestures, and conversely you won't end up with sunshine blooms interfering with the Kinect.
We were shown how it could still track a person's movements in a totally dark room as well as how a bright flashlight beam shone on the person wasn't even viewable by the sensor's IR mode.
On what sounded like a science-fiction-esque promise, we were also told that the new Kinect's IR capabilities would be able to track your heart beat, by detecting the flow of blood under the surface of your face.
So my guess would be that the sock wouldn't help much.
And for the record, I do believe there is a difference between a tiny ad within an icon that links to a store built into the system and actually displaying full video ads.
A difference, sure. But the bottom line is, no matter how many Sony fanboys want to claim otherwise, if you take a new PS3 and let it go online, you will be shown ads when the system starts. You may find them "less intrusive" than those on the Xbox 360, but they're there and they're shown by default. I certainly never opted in to them, and they appear now when I start my PS3. Pretty sure it was an update around the time that they removed OtherOS that added them.
No matter what the anti-Microsoft crowd would like to pretend, yes, Sony does the same thing with their console.
Oh, I see, they're "not ads," they're just "little pictures that are links to products that are for sale in the PlayStation Store."
Which are totally and completely a unique and distinct concept from ads.
No, sorry, those are ads, and they are what's shown by default when you start up a PS3 with the latest firmware that's connected to PSN. If you don't have a PSN account I guess it might work differently, but it most certainly happens by default if you do.
The default - which some update forced on everyone - is to start with at the PlayStation Store, so you get ads as soon as your PSN account is logged in. Just like the OP said. If there's an option to change it other than "never update" I've never found it, so it's well hidden.
Every ad on the Xbox 360 when I went to check was gaming-related, I'm not sure what your Slim Jims comment is about.
The point stands: Sony is doing the "ad on a console you paid for" thing just like Microsoft is. Who knows if the PS4 will be worse than the PS3, since there are next to no details about the PS4 OS yet.
But it's Sony. Whatever they give you at launch, you can be sure they'll be more than happy to take away with a mandatory patch down the line. Kind of like how PSN Plus will be required for online access on the PS4, something no one seems to care about. ("But you get free games with it!" Well, sure, you do now, but what about later when Sony decides to removes that feature? You can't say they wouldn't do that - they've proven they're perfectly happy to remove features people paid for and are using.)
Yep. You're moving off the ad screen too fast for it to load. (Getting to Netflix from start on mine involves 3 left and 1 down.) If you wait, the screen you're moving off of that you're shown by default will show you nine ads at a time if you sit on that icon. Not sure how many it scrolls through, but there are more than the nine that fit on the screen at once.
Go ahead and try it.
For comparison's sake, after starting up the Xbox 360, you're treated to a mere six. Not amazingly better, but still - fewer than on the PS3!
When you turn on your PS3, it will take you straight to a page of ads. Now, granted, you can navigate away from that immediately, but still: every time you start the PS3, you'll get bombarded with a screen full of ads. In fact, you're actually shown more ads immediately after turning on the PS3 than you are after starting the current 360.
Final Fantasy 3 is not the same version from the SNES. It has been remade in 3d.
It's also not the same game, thanks to the Great Final Fantasy Renumbering, so it's a 3D version of an NES game. Plus it's a port of the Android port of the iOS port of the DS remake, if I'm not mistaken.
Not to mention that the DS version was kind of terrible. I can't imagine the gameplay has become any less terrible by being ported to yet another platform, although the only version I've ever played was the DS version, and only far enough to get fed up with the game.
Fortunately, it broke MatLab and apparently a lot of other Swing applications.
Oh fucking hell. What very well might be the last thing keeping us stuck on Java 6 is MATLAB on OS X. I keep on hoping MathWorks will fix it to work with Oracle Java so I can finally move everything over to Java 7.
IT has been slowly ditching the remaining software that requires Java 6 (either via upgrading or flat-out changing vendors - go IT!), but I think there's one last piece of software that still requires Java 6 on Mac OS X other than MATLAB. I know they fixed it to work with Java 7 under Windows, it's that Mac OS X requirement that's fucking everything up.
Glad I'm just a developer and not an IT guy for this Java patch.
Re:Typical Oracle - Enterprise sheds tear
on
Java 6 EOL'd By Oracle
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Do you have any Idea how old Java 6 is?
Do you have any idea how new Java 7 is? It's just about two years old, but that makes it sound older than in reality, because for the first year it was out Sunacle were very clear that it was still "beta quality" and that developers should stick with Java 6. It wasn't until about a year ago that Java 7 really "rolled out" as the replacement for Java 6.
I can't remember when IT first allowed Java 7 onto our desktops, but I think it was less than a year ago. Even then, it's still not the "official" version of Java because there's some IT-related software that can't run on Java 7. Not to mention that some of the software I work with also can't run on Java 7 due to JNI incompatibilities. (Man I wish we could ditch that, but I didn't write the component that uses that component, so...)
In any case, no matter how old it is, Java 7 still isn't quite ready to replace Java 6. Especially under Mac OS X, thanks to the transition between Apple and Oracle supporting Java. Although I don't know who's really to blame for that one, Apple or Oracle, but they can both take the blame as far as I care.
The point is that I still use Java 6 on a day-to-day basis, and it's not from lack of trying to move to Java 7.
I remember watching a program about the police work done after the Boston Marathon bombing. They took the photographs produced by the FBI and ran them against facial recognition.
After a LOT of tweaking, they were able to get the actual photo of the actual bomber into the top 20 matches! By which I mean it was the 20th highest match out of a database of "samples" and not, say, all license photos. I think the entire sample size was in the thousands, so - not exactly a great example of facial recognition helping. And this was after they caught him, and after a lot of tweaking to try and "enhance" the photo they had off surveillance cameras.
If anyone ever wanted a great example of photo recognition not helping catch people or why PRISM is entirely useless, the Boston Marathon bombing is a perfect example. Not only did photo recognition not help catch them, not only did having a giant database of phone calls not help, not only did declaring martial law and shutting down an entire metro area not help, having a notice from Russia saying "this man is a radicalized Islamic terrorist" didn't help!
Not to mention that the PAX ban doesn't, well, work. There are still booth babes in the expo hall. As far as I know, they have to be able to answer questions about the game/games being demoed at the booth, and then they "aren't a booth babe" any more.
So you wind up with a whole bunch of costumed female presenters who "aren't booth babes" in the PAX expo hall, and PAX can act all self-righteous.
When considering 500MB is the usual data cap this is a problem, with the amount of data slurped up by the likes of Facebook, this must push useage up pretty high if loading a wikipedia page is taking over 2MB of data.
Not really, because Wikipedia is basically a worst-case scenario. To show you what I mean, here's the first <img> tag off Wikipedia's home page at present:
The bug appears to be that it loads all three images specified - the 100px (from src), and the 150px and 200px (from srcset) versions. But that's because Wikipedia not only uses srcset, it provides three different resolutions: a default (100px), and two "high DPI" versions (1.5x and 2x). Most other websites don't even use srcset at all - because no other browser even supports it. Not Firefox, not Chrome, not even Safari despite srcset being an Apple creation.
Facebook doesn't use srcset, so it won't trigger this bug.
In fact, I don't know of any website that does use srcset other than Wikipedia. Google doesn't. Twitter doesn't. Facebook doesn't. Slashdot doesn't. (Nor does CNN, Fox News, the BBC, Yahoo, Flickr, Tumblr, or Amazon.com.)
It's basically a bug that will only trigger on Wikipedia, so no, it's not really a big deal because unless you spend a lot of time on Wikipedia, you'll almost never trigger it.
It's still a bug that should be fixed, but I'd be hard-pressed to call it a "big deal," solely because about the only way you'll trigger it presently is on Wikipedia.
Which isn't surprising: none of the major browsers support srcset yet. Not even Safari, despite srcset being an Apple-designed standard. (The editor is an Apple employee and is the person who came up with this standard that no one except Samsung implements.)
Of course, there's very little point to implementing srcset as the use case for "hi-DPI images" is basically non-existent, so I suppose it's just as well that almost no one has bothered implementing a nearly worthless spec.
Given how well hidden the "power" menu and logout button are in Windows 8, that might actually not be a bad idea...
(To restart your computer, open the Charms Bar, go to Settings, and then hit the Power menu to reveal the Restart and Shutdown options. To log out, something you used to do from the same menu you shutdown and rebooted from, instead you open the Start menu, and click on your user name to open a menu you'd never guess existed.)
I know they are stupid and shouldn't be called a news show, but what did they do that requires wiretapping?
Journalism.
No, seriously: James Rosen asked someone at the State Department questions about North Korea.
Because that apparently could involve classified information (not that it necessarily did), Obama's Department of Justice pulled six years of Rosen's email.
I'd like to have an in-depth audit of this Congressman's finances... and I'd put significant money on the line that he owns stock, options, or has received significant contributions from companies like Safe Gun Technology
When Googling which district he was in, I found something even better: his campaign was funded by criminals. I guess criminals would want law-abiding citizens to be forced to use guns that don't work.
3) All in all, Congressman Tierney did this, in all likelihood, to help solidify his re-election next year. Since he got the press he wanted, I congratulate him now on his impending victory.
He's from Massachusetts, home of the gerrymander. His district is just north of Boston. His seat is in no real threat.
But you're right, this is just another pointless "feel-good" measure to prove to his constituents that he's "tough on crime." It's also a ploy to get Republicans to vote against it, allowing that stupid "mayors for gun control" PAC to run ads against them.
At this point, I think the only peaceful way to force this change is either directly through the use of a referendum or indirectly via a petition that a majority of the people sign that promises to vote out the current politicians unless they pass legislation that bans all forms of private campaign contributions.
It's worse than that - thanks to Citizen's United, the only way you can possibly legislate campaign contributions is with a constitutional amendment. Since campaign contributions count as political speech, they can't be regulated otherwise.
No, it doesn't. Hibernate doesn't log you out, it keeps all your programs running and does what you expect it to do.
The new "fast boot" system Windows 8 uses makes it so that "shutdown" will log you out (like you'd expect) and then, rather than completely shutdown, essentially hibernates at the log in screen.
The idea is that it will be faster to load from hibernation than it would be to do a full cold boot. I'm pretty sure that this isn't true, especially as RAM sizes in modern PCs increase. I'd have to time it to be sure, but I'm fairly sure my Windows 8 PC boots faster with the "fast boot" option off than it does with it on.
It took me 15 minutes to figure out how to shut down my computer in Window 8. Windows 7, you press the windows button and there's a shut down option.
And, as I've posted previously, there's a good chance you didn't really shut down the computer - instead you just logged out and hibernated. (Which is what "shutdown" does now.)
Actually shutting down the computer all the way involves a hidden setting somewhere in the power options - you have to "change what the power buttons do" and then uncheck "fast startup." Only then will shutting down the computer allow you to do a clean boot at a later point in time.
As an additional exercise, figure out how to log out. Remember how it always used to be an option in the shutdown menu? It's not any more.
The answer: turns out your account name on the start screen can be clicked on. I never noticed it was even there until it was pointed out to me, because my use of the Windows 8 start menu was almost exclusively "press start key, type search terms" - which makes the username vanish.
Personally I'd go for the potassium permanganate and glycerine experiment, or dropping metallic sodium into water. I suppose they qualify as WMD's.
They might, actually. Don't forget, the Boston marathon bomber is being charged with constructing and using a weapon of mass destruction.
No joke, he really is. Because, you know, killing three people is "mass destruction."
But apparently it's legally accurate (IANAL) - the legal definition of "weapon of mass destruction" is basically "any explosive device." Meaning that it's entirely possible that your examples would qualify as WMDs.
"Congress shall make no law," "shall not be infringed," "excessive bail shall not be required," etc, sure sound like restrictions to me.
Congratulations on demonstrating why the founding fathers didn't want to create the Bill of Rights in the first place.
Those aren't restrictions - they're clarifications. The government never had those powers in the first place, because they were never granted to them. All the Bill of Rights does is spell it out in plain language that these are things that the government cannot do.
(Which it does anyway: see gun control, health care laws, obscenity laws, and most recently, the refusal to allow the Boston marathon bomber his right to an attorney.)
The Tenth Amendment tries to make this clear, but no one ever bothers to pay it any attention.
Well, that, and there's the fact that the cameras did not identify the suspects.
Just to be clear, no one knew who they were until Tamerlan Tsarnaev was dead. They were only identified after Tamerlan was taken to the hospital and finger-printed.
The camera footage will likely make Dzhokhar's trial an open-and-shut case, but it proved to be absolutely useless for identifying them. They were only really caught because they told their carjacking victim who they were and he escaped. Killing the MIT cop probably didn't help, but it's likely that without the report by the carjacking victim that "these are the bombers" the police wouldn't have gone quite all-out in their pursuit. (Or have been able to use the carjacking victim's phone to track their movements.)
It is, of course, impossible to speculate on whether the images would eventually have turned up leads and whether or not they would have been successful in carrying out their New York attack, but the cameras did nothing to identify them or catch them in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. If you've been following the news, you'll notice that it's all about catching Snowden, and not about the massive NSA surveillance program. Most people just don't care about it, and the media sure isn't helping by focusing on Snowden to the exclusion of everything else.
I'm sure that ultimately, we'll get some law to "increase oversight on the NSA" that will have no teeth, the NSA will go back to spying on all communications it possibly can, and Snowden will get to discover the true meaning of "extraordinary rendition."
But can't you just put a sock over it? Congrats MS.. you get a first hand look at what the inside of my sock looks like... 24/7.
The Xbox One Kinect uses IR in addition to visible light. From this article:
Microsoft has even boosted the Kinect's infrared vision, which results in a number of dramatic improvements.
No longer will you have to play in a well and evenly lit room for the sensor to recognize your gestures, and conversely you won't end up with sunshine blooms interfering with the Kinect.
We were shown how it could still track a person's movements in a totally dark room as well as how a bright flashlight beam shone on the person wasn't even viewable by the sensor's IR mode.
On what sounded like a science-fiction-esque promise, we were also told that the new Kinect's IR capabilities would be able to track your heart beat, by detecting the flow of blood under the surface of your face.
So my guess would be that the sock wouldn't help much.
And for the record, I do believe there is a difference between a tiny ad within an icon that links to a store built into the system and actually displaying full video ads.
A difference, sure. But the bottom line is, no matter how many Sony fanboys want to claim otherwise, if you take a new PS3 and let it go online, you will be shown ads when the system starts. You may find them "less intrusive" than those on the Xbox 360, but they're there and they're shown by default. I certainly never opted in to them, and they appear now when I start my PS3. Pretty sure it was an update around the time that they removed OtherOS that added them.
No matter what the anti-Microsoft crowd would like to pretend, yes, Sony does the same thing with their console.
This generally contains shortcuts to the Store
Oh, I see, they're "not ads," they're just "little pictures that are links to products that are for sale in the PlayStation Store."
Which are totally and completely a unique and distinct concept from ads.
No, sorry, those are ads, and they are what's shown by default when you start up a PS3 with the latest firmware that's connected to PSN. If you don't have a PSN account I guess it might work differently, but it most certainly happens by default if you do.
The default - which some update forced on everyone - is to start with at the PlayStation Store, so you get ads as soon as your PSN account is logged in. Just like the OP said. If there's an option to change it other than "never update" I've never found it, so it's well hidden.
Every ad on the Xbox 360 when I went to check was gaming-related, I'm not sure what your Slim Jims comment is about.
The point stands: Sony is doing the "ad on a console you paid for" thing just like Microsoft is. Who knows if the PS4 will be worse than the PS3, since there are next to no details about the PS4 OS yet.
But it's Sony. Whatever they give you at launch, you can be sure they'll be more than happy to take away with a mandatory patch down the line. Kind of like how PSN Plus will be required for online access on the PS4, something no one seems to care about. ("But you get free games with it!" Well, sure, you do now, but what about later when Sony decides to removes that feature? You can't say they wouldn't do that - they've proven they're perfectly happy to remove features people paid for and are using.)
Just for you, I'll go check.
Yep. You're moving off the ad screen too fast for it to load. (Getting to Netflix from start on mine involves 3 left and 1 down.) If you wait, the screen you're moving off of that you're shown by default will show you nine ads at a time if you sit on that icon. Not sure how many it scrolls through, but there are more than the nine that fit on the screen at once.
Go ahead and try it.
For comparison's sake, after starting up the Xbox 360, you're treated to a mere six. Not amazingly better, but still - fewer than on the PS3!
When you turn on your PS3, it will take you straight to a page of ads. Now, granted, you can navigate away from that immediately, but still: every time you start the PS3, you'll get bombarded with a screen full of ads. In fact, you're actually shown more ads immediately after turning on the PS3 than you are after starting the current 360.
Final Fantasy 3 is not the same version from the SNES. It has been remade in 3d.
It's also not the same game, thanks to the Great Final Fantasy Renumbering, so it's a 3D version of an NES game. Plus it's a port of the Android port of the iOS port of the DS remake, if I'm not mistaken.
Not to mention that the DS version was kind of terrible. I can't imagine the gameplay has become any less terrible by being ported to yet another platform, although the only version I've ever played was the DS version, and only far enough to get fed up with the game.
Fortunately, it broke MatLab and apparently a lot of other Swing applications.
Oh fucking hell. What very well might be the last thing keeping us stuck on Java 6 is MATLAB on OS X. I keep on hoping MathWorks will fix it to work with Oracle Java so I can finally move everything over to Java 7.
IT has been slowly ditching the remaining software that requires Java 6 (either via upgrading or flat-out changing vendors - go IT!), but I think there's one last piece of software that still requires Java 6 on Mac OS X other than MATLAB. I know they fixed it to work with Java 7 under Windows, it's that Mac OS X requirement that's fucking everything up.
Glad I'm just a developer and not an IT guy for this Java patch.
Do you have any Idea how old Java 6 is?
Do you have any idea how new Java 7 is? It's just about two years old, but that makes it sound older than in reality, because for the first year it was out Sunacle were very clear that it was still "beta quality" and that developers should stick with Java 6. It wasn't until about a year ago that Java 7 really "rolled out" as the replacement for Java 6.
I can't remember when IT first allowed Java 7 onto our desktops, but I think it was less than a year ago. Even then, it's still not the "official" version of Java because there's some IT-related software that can't run on Java 7. Not to mention that some of the software I work with also can't run on Java 7 due to JNI incompatibilities. (Man I wish we could ditch that, but I didn't write the component that uses that component, so...)
In any case, no matter how old it is, Java 7 still isn't quite ready to replace Java 6. Especially under Mac OS X, thanks to the transition between Apple and Oracle supporting Java. Although I don't know who's really to blame for that one, Apple or Oracle, but they can both take the blame as far as I care.
The point is that I still use Java 6 on a day-to-day basis, and it's not from lack of trying to move to Java 7.
I remember watching a program about the police work done after the Boston Marathon bombing. They took the photographs produced by the FBI and ran them against facial recognition.
After a LOT of tweaking, they were able to get the actual photo of the actual bomber into the top 20 matches! By which I mean it was the 20th highest match out of a database of "samples" and not, say, all license photos. I think the entire sample size was in the thousands, so - not exactly a great example of facial recognition helping. And this was after they caught him, and after a lot of tweaking to try and "enhance" the photo they had off surveillance cameras.
If anyone ever wanted a great example of photo recognition not helping catch people or why PRISM is entirely useless, the Boston Marathon bombing is a perfect example. Not only did photo recognition not help catch them, not only did having a giant database of phone calls not help, not only did declaring martial law and shutting down an entire metro area not help, having a notice from Russia saying "this man is a radicalized Islamic terrorist" didn't help!
Not to mention that the PAX ban doesn't, well, work. There are still booth babes in the expo hall. As far as I know, they have to be able to answer questions about the game/games being demoed at the booth, and then they "aren't a booth babe" any more.
So you wind up with a whole bunch of costumed female presenters who "aren't booth babes" in the PAX expo hall, and PAX can act all self-righteous.
When considering 500MB is the usual data cap this is a problem, with the amount of data slurped up by the likes of Facebook, this must push useage up pretty high if loading a wikipedia page is taking over 2MB of data.
Not really, because Wikipedia is basically a worst-case scenario. To show you what I mean, here's the first <img> tag off Wikipedia's home page at present:
<img alt="The Tichborne Claimant" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/37/TichborneClaimantSketch_cropped.jpg/100px-TichborneClaimantSketch_cropped.jpg" width="100" height="137" srcset="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/37/TichborneClaimantSketch_cropped.jpg/150px-TichborneClaimantSketch_cropped.jpg 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/37/TichborneClaimantSketch_cropped.jpg/200px-TichborneClaimantSketch_cropped.jpg 2x" />
The bug appears to be that it loads all three images specified - the 100px (from src), and the 150px and 200px (from srcset) versions. But that's because Wikipedia not only uses srcset, it provides three different resolutions: a default (100px), and two "high DPI" versions (1.5x and 2x). Most other websites don't even use srcset at all - because no other browser even supports it. Not Firefox, not Chrome, not even Safari despite srcset being an Apple creation.
Facebook doesn't use srcset, so it won't trigger this bug.
In fact, I don't know of any website that does use srcset other than Wikipedia. Google doesn't. Twitter doesn't. Facebook doesn't. Slashdot doesn't. (Nor does CNN, Fox News, the BBC, Yahoo, Flickr, Tumblr, or Amazon.com.)
It's basically a bug that will only trigger on Wikipedia, so no, it's not really a big deal because unless you spend a lot of time on Wikipedia, you'll almost never trigger it.
It's still a bug that should be fixed, but I'd be hard-pressed to call it a "big deal," solely because about the only way you'll trigger it presently is on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is the only site I know that does.
Which isn't surprising: none of the major browsers support srcset yet. Not even Safari, despite srcset being an Apple-designed standard. (The editor is an Apple employee and is the person who came up with this standard that no one except Samsung implements.)
Of course, there's very little point to implementing srcset as the use case for "hi-DPI images" is basically non-existent, so I suppose it's just as well that almost no one has bothered implementing a nearly worthless spec.
What I really want on Windows is a Stop button.
Given how well hidden the "power" menu and logout button are in Windows 8, that might actually not be a bad idea...
(To restart your computer, open the Charms Bar, go to Settings, and then hit the Power menu to reveal the Restart and Shutdown options. To log out, something you used to do from the same menu you shutdown and rebooted from, instead you open the Start menu, and click on your user name to open a menu you'd never guess existed.)
I know they are stupid and shouldn't be called a news show, but what did they do that requires wiretapping?
Journalism.
No, seriously: James Rosen asked someone at the State Department questions about North Korea.
Because that apparently could involve classified information (not that it necessarily did), Obama's Department of Justice pulled six years of Rosen's email.
I'd like to have an in-depth audit of this Congressman's finances... and I'd put significant money on the line that he owns stock, options, or has received significant contributions from companies like Safe Gun Technology
When Googling which district he was in, I found something even better: his campaign was funded by criminals. I guess criminals would want law-abiding citizens to be forced to use guns that don't work.
3) All in all, Congressman Tierney did this, in all likelihood, to help solidify his re-election next year. Since he got the press he wanted, I congratulate him now on his impending victory.
He's from Massachusetts, home of the gerrymander. His district is just north of Boston. His seat is in no real threat.
But you're right, this is just another pointless "feel-good" measure to prove to his constituents that he's "tough on crime." It's also a ploy to get Republicans to vote against it, allowing that stupid "mayors for gun control" PAC to run ads against them.
At this point, I think the only peaceful way to force this change is either directly through the use of a referendum or indirectly via a petition that a majority of the people sign that promises to vote out the current politicians unless they pass legislation that bans all forms of private campaign contributions.
It's worse than that - thanks to Citizen's United, the only way you can possibly legislate campaign contributions is with a constitutional amendment. Since campaign contributions count as political speech, they can't be regulated otherwise.
Apple maps is great fun on the ipad. Pull up a big city and its like being in the future.
A dystopian future full of broken buildings, weird piles of wood and leaves that may have been trees, and lumps in the road where cars used to be.
Whatever they're using to automatically generate 3D buildings is kind of cool in theory - it just produces hilariously awful results.
No, it doesn't. Hibernate doesn't log you out, it keeps all your programs running and does what you expect it to do.
The new "fast boot" system Windows 8 uses makes it so that "shutdown" will log you out (like you'd expect) and then, rather than completely shutdown, essentially hibernates at the log in screen.
The idea is that it will be faster to load from hibernation than it would be to do a full cold boot. I'm pretty sure that this isn't true, especially as RAM sizes in modern PCs increase. I'd have to time it to be sure, but I'm fairly sure my Windows 8 PC boots faster with the "fast boot" option off than it does with it on.
It took me 15 minutes to figure out how to shut down my computer in Window 8. Windows 7, you press the windows button and there's a shut down option.
And, as I've posted previously, there's a good chance you didn't really shut down the computer - instead you just logged out and hibernated. (Which is what "shutdown" does now.)
Actually shutting down the computer all the way involves a hidden setting somewhere in the power options - you have to "change what the power buttons do" and then uncheck "fast startup." Only then will shutting down the computer allow you to do a clean boot at a later point in time.
As an additional exercise, figure out how to log out. Remember how it always used to be an option in the shutdown menu? It's not any more.
The answer: turns out your account name on the start screen can be clicked on. I never noticed it was even there until it was pointed out to me, because my use of the Windows 8 start menu was almost exclusively "press start key, type search terms" - which makes the username vanish.
Personally I'd go for the potassium permanganate and glycerine experiment, or dropping metallic sodium into water. I suppose they qualify as WMD's.
They might, actually. Don't forget, the Boston marathon bomber is being charged with constructing and using a weapon of mass destruction.
No joke, he really is. Because, you know, killing three people is "mass destruction."
But apparently it's legally accurate (IANAL) - the legal definition of "weapon of mass destruction" is basically "any explosive device." Meaning that it's entirely possible that your examples would qualify as WMDs.
"Congress shall make no law," "shall not be infringed," "excessive bail shall not be required," etc, sure sound like restrictions to me.
Congratulations on demonstrating why the founding fathers didn't want to create the Bill of Rights in the first place.
Those aren't restrictions - they're clarifications. The government never had those powers in the first place, because they were never granted to them. All the Bill of Rights does is spell it out in plain language that these are things that the government cannot do.
(Which it does anyway: see gun control, health care laws, obscenity laws, and most recently, the refusal to allow the Boston marathon bomber his right to an attorney.)
The Tenth Amendment tries to make this clear, but no one ever bothers to pay it any attention.
Well, that, and there's the fact that the cameras did not identify the suspects.
Just to be clear, no one knew who they were until Tamerlan Tsarnaev was dead. They were only identified after Tamerlan was taken to the hospital and finger-printed.
The camera footage will likely make Dzhokhar's trial an open-and-shut case, but it proved to be absolutely useless for identifying them. They were only really caught because they told their carjacking victim who they were and he escaped. Killing the MIT cop probably didn't help, but it's likely that without the report by the carjacking victim that "these are the bombers" the police wouldn't have gone quite all-out in their pursuit. (Or have been able to use the carjacking victim's phone to track their movements.)
It is, of course, impossible to speculate on whether the images would eventually have turned up leads and whether or not they would have been successful in carrying out their New York attack, but the cameras did nothing to identify them or catch them in this case.