The DHS has a total of around 200,000 employees. The number of those who are actually armed (as opposed to sitting on their butts in an air conditioned office in D.C.) is significantly less. In a cursory search, I couldn't turn up any concrete numbers, but I imagine it's safe to say that probably 10% of DHS employees are actually "agents" of some type (Border Patrol, ATF, Air Marshals, etc). So that's 20,000 armed employees.
I don't see a 1% loss rate as "statistically insignificant" when you're talking about firearms lost through negligence.
Really? How about one of those 1% guns was used in a crime that killed you, or your wife/husband/kid/mom?
Its not about statistics, it's about reality.
Homeland Security is supposed to be protecting us, yet they can NOT even secure their own guns. don't care if it's just 1% of the guns that went missing. I'm sure there was a 1% chance that the World Tradecenter would get ran into by an airplane.
lets look at it this way, way less then 1% of america died on 9/11. Guess we should just chalk it up to life and move on, huh?
Certainly any loss is bad, but the reality is humans won't be perfect and there will be loss/theft issues with anything, weapons included. It should also be noted that ~3/4 (179) of the loss was due to 'weapons not being properly secured' (i.e. the officer's fault). It would be nice if law enforcement didn't need firearms, but that isn't realistic in the U.S. either. I did want to add some more numbers to the discussion. The only numbers I could find in a quick search are from CBS in 2008,
which shows weapons loss per year per 1000 employees:
ATF.52 FBI.29 DEA.28
Using the 188.5k employee HSA, 243 lost weapons over three years (although it is hard to tell from the article, this could be two or one year depending on whether 'between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2008' is inclusive or exclusive or both:
HSA.43 (or.64, or 1.29)
I would say, at best, this shows that they need to improve there handling of weapons (via policy/punishment something) and, at worse, this is plain awful and maybe a few heads should roll. Both the DEA and FBI are able to do better and perhaps their policies could be used at the HSA? (The ATF also, um, sucks.)
"'... storage on the iPhone is typically filled with music...'
How do you know what is typical?... Lots of games use large amounts of memory, and I think a fair chunk of that is used by two GPS apps I have with cached offline maps - AccuTerra and iTopoMaps.
But the real point is that if you need more space for apps, you can just slim down the number of songs or videos until you get the number of apps you want. As nice as it is to be able to expand via SD it's kind of pointless if said expansion doesn't really give you any more space for one key aspect of the device. The main problem with the Android space limitation means that whole classes of applications will simply never be developed for Android, even if some users can hack around the restriction with an altered filesystem..."
YOUR COMPLAINT IS TOO LATE!
Those types of applications already exist on the Android OS.
The executable app size is limited, the data size is not and is generally supposed to be stored on the SD card. I have offline mapping software on my G1 (and have had it for quite awhile) that works just fine. I've had first person shooter games that worked just fine. And if you root the phone, you can have app storage on the SD card as well if you really have the need (there's talk on this coming to unrooted phones, I'm not sure how likely that is).
Oh, by the by, most of my sd card space is filled with music....;)
Um, then you might want to make sure you're on wi-if for the first run. You went to the trouble of downloading at home, but can't be bothered to run it once there? Although, most of the apps I've used download it all as one chunk and then split the app and data during unpacking (i.e. so all the data is downloaded before the first run)
This is only a non issue if the app itself is tiny. What about if the app is graphics intensive? I think "Defender Chronices" for the iPhone is 125Mb all by itself and Dungeon Hunter is 225Mb.
So to get around this stupid limitation an app would need to come with a loader that would then download the remaining data to the SD card.
Over hyped? Not if you play games. Either way it's a pretty stupid and a major design limitation.
Well, I'm not the biggest fan of the memory design, but the current android OS already handles this (and has since I bough the G1 last year (well two years ago technically:) ). The app runs in the limited space but can access the microsd storage for data. I have mapping software which does this, I've had games which do this. It's part of the design. So app size is a limit, data size really is not.
And when microsd size moves to 32GB, my phone memory can double with a purchase of a card. With the iphone, it'll be time to by a new phone, Admittedly 16GB is way more than I need or can imagining needing in the near future. But memory card switching and expansion is a nice advantage (as is replaceable batteries, but I'm digressing)
Oh, and if you root the phones, which isn't that difficult, you can have app space on the microsd card as well (i.e. limited to whatever partition size you want to create)
rant Let me first say, Fuck!, do I hate slashdot at this point. Can they make it harder to load or comment on this site than they do. Let's wait for ever for the scripting crap to load, let's watch firefox spin and do all kind of weird shit before being able to do anything, and don't consider for even a minute looking at it on your phone's web browser, I think last time I did flames started to shoot and out and I had to dowse it with my coffee. Really?, floating window!?, I really really don't need slashdot's clippy around, thank you/rant
Sorry , back to your normal station, this is a horrible analogy
Home address, you either are moving around a lot and the address is a poor indicator of I.D. or you, Rent: and have been credit checked, pay monthly, and tend to live at a location for years at a time. Extremely connected to you Buy, you have a mortgage, even more connected to you.
Car, you purchased a car, probably have a loan, the car is registered with the state based on your I.D, car's Vin# , licence #, etc... If you live in a state with regular car examinations (i.e. smog checks here), this info is also periodically checked. Extremely connected to you.
IP address, if I have a static address, it is connected to me in some way. See wireless networks and NAT however for how I may be only remotely and unknowingly connected personally to whatever is going on. More often though, these are dynamic and again you may have wireless and NAT. Or I pop into a coffee shop and what address did I just get?, or I use a different network card in my notebook, or wait... I just changed the MAC address on one of the cards or.... you get the idea. As other's have mentioned, IP's only really reference a network node for a certain period of time. This could be very identifiable: static IP to a DNS'd address that's consistent for years or it could be almost completely anonymous: some various network card with a handset MAC at a coffee shop.
If you want an analogy, how about your current location? If you're at home, it might be good indicator of who you are (although it could be anyone who lives with you or is visiting), If you're some place crowded or that you've never been to before, it's a horrible indicator.
I haven't seen that PSA in quite awhile but all of the last times I remember seeing it in the theatre, people in the audience just laughed at it. I can't imagine a worse result for a serious PSA than the crowd it's trying to appeal to pealing out in laughter at its ridiculousness. Sometimes it was the best laugh of the movie. And this wasn't just action movies with a young crowd, this was at adult movies (not porn!) where the median age would be, well, middle aged.
I think we can call that PSA an epic Fail, another war on drugs indeed.
This is basically a cheesy action movie. A very well done cheesy action movie. Mixing it with the Star Trek universe gave it a bit more heft, but it is still a cheesy action movie.
Although don't get me wrong, I like cheesy action movies and this is a good cheesy action film with a bunch of Star Trek humor thrown in to boot. If you are up for that, this movie is worth watching. And particularly, the visuals in the movie are quite good, so watching it on a big screen will definitely add to it. The dialog is quipy funny.
I definitely enjoyed the film, but I also left rather disappointed. The people creating the film are obviously highly skilled. They could create stunning visuals and they could write amusing dialog. But they didn't seem to really care about the universe they were writing about. To me, it really seemed to have no heart and only a passing consideration for the universe it was operating within (and mostly just to use it for humorous affect). As far as the Star Trek universe goes, the holes in the movie were pretty bad. The movie didn't even seem to be consistent within its 'own' universe. As with most cheesy action movies, this is unfortunately (IMO) pretty normal.
OKAY NOW FOR SPOILERS COMMENTS, RANTS, AND GENERAL COMPLAINTS
I JUST SAID ***SPOILERS***.
DON'T READ FARTHER AND THEN COMPLAIN THAT YOU'VE READ SPOILERS. IF YOU DO (AND I NOTICE) YOU WILL JUST GET LAUGHTER BACK.
And not the 'heh' or 'hah-hah' sort of laughter but the 'Bawahahahaha, you read past all those really annoying capital letters and still got mad and fell for my evil plot...' sort of laughter.
I'm a miner and a foreign ambassador is trying to save my planet by turning a sun going super nova into a black hole. Hmmm, he didn't get there in time. hmm, but it couldn't have been the sun in my planet's solar system because a black hole there would have just wasted the planet anyway. hmmm, so it must have been light years away, but there wasn't any time to evacuate the planet? or anything else in those years?, hmm, they were just instantly toast anyway? hmm, cough, well never mind, lets keep the plot moving.
Okay so this guy failed to save my planet killing my wife, children and, well, the whole planet. What should I do? What should I do? Well, kill the guy, of course! That bastard! what was he thinking trying to save my planet!. It's a good thing my entire crew (and I have an awful lot crew for a mining ship, but whatever) thinks this is a good enough idea to go along with it instead of, I don't know, helping survivors and locking me up in loony bin somewhere.
Oops, I got sucked into that black hole he created too late. Good thing the gravity in that black whole didn't crush me like a grape. Also, it's a good the guy I'm trying to kill got sucked into it too, so I can keep trying to kill him. "Hey crew, you're still with me on this right?".
I just realized that instead of being crushed like a grape by that black hole, I got sent back in time. Cool, here comes an old Federation Star Ship, let's waste 'em for, um, kicks? and I'm just in a bad mood anyway. Crew? you guys still good right? It's a good thing my mining vessel has sooo much fire power too. Those asteroids and planets often fight back pretty hard when I mine them. It's also a good thing my mining crew is made up of gun toting warriors that live for attacking military vessels instead of, um, mining.
And just as an aside, it's also pretty nifty that my ship has such a cool evil looking shape to it, to go along with all the fire power. Because when you're mining, you need a bunch of spiky things sticking out the front and your ships to look like the bad guys from Babylon-5.
Sweet, I just caught that guy that failed at trying to save my planet. I don't feel like killing him now though. What should I do?, What should I do?. I know!, I'll use the stuff he's got that can turn a sun into a black hole to save my planet by turning that sun into a black hole in this time period, long b
It is not "normal". But waterboarding (a procedure, that leaves no long-lasting damage to the body) a few people is permissible â€" and always has been throughout history
You must have heard this since it's been mentioned all over the place, but if you mean "always has been" to include the Germans and Japanese to which we (the U.S.) applied the death penalty after World War II for practicing this kind of torture, then we are in full agreement. We should take the people who have been responsible for water boarding currently and put them on trial for torture (Personally, I don't think the death penalty should be applied in these cases, but let a judge and jury decide).
But also the argument 'always have' is flawed in the sense that I'm sure we both can think of many things that 'were always done' that we would now think of as wrong (e.g. slavery, genocide, torture *cough*, etc...).
Well, if you're basing 'reality' on historically what types of government lasted, um, forever. Reality is anti-everything (at least as far as human social constructs are concerned). This may, in fact, be true, kind of pointless, but true. I guess the reasoning is that since all other civilizations have changed, we shouldn't care about or try to improve ours.
More amusing, following your logic, we (as a nation, society, and race I guess?) really should be moving away from Democratic Republics and towards Monarchy as Monarchy was the most, um, 'real'. Do you truly believe we should have a Monarchy (aka King Bush, King Oboma, King McCain, Queen Clinton, pick your poison), or have you gotten so far off the deep end defending the current administration that perhaps you should sit back and re-think some of your beliefs.
There are also a number of LLP of which I have no idea whether they are related to communications companies.
Admittedly this is legal and is this the well known case of U.S. politics being, to a large degree although not completely by any means, controlled by corporations. I could argue either way that this is good or bad. My opinion is bad just because of I don't think creating a society based on the short term profit of companies is a good idea, but go figure.
But the problem here, I think, is that George Ou is assuming that Comcast is deliberately targeting P2P, and moreover, that they have no choice but to deliberately target P2P. I'd assumed that they were simply targeting any application that uses too many TCP connections -- thus, BitTorrent can still work, and still be reasonably fast, by decreasing the number of connections. Make too many connections and Comcast starts dropping them, no matter what the protocol.
My limited experience with comcast problems (in Northern California coffee shops since I don't use comcast at home) is that when their pipe fills up, they start sending 'host unreachable' messages to random connections. My guess is that instead of shaping and using the TCP backoff mechanism that their NAT'ing router just says I have X TCP connections going through me, any new ones get 'host unreachable' until I have less than X. They also use an Asian net block for their NAT'd IP's instead of the say 10.x or the 172 and 192 ranges, I don't know what's up with that. But without knowing more (and they seem to prefer truthiness over truth), I'm frankly, um, under impressed with their competency in running networks.
Believing, that the government is secretive, does not equate to being bothered by it plenty of people think, the government should be more secretive in its fight against our enemies (whether they are right is besides the point).
And 44% 22% a year ago? is still less than a half...
'Plurality' is a word you may want to consider. Although the numbers given still show the number of people doubling in a year.
Sigh, RTA. Yes the summary quote was an awful choice. Right next to it in the actual article is, "nearly nine in 10 say it's important to know presidential and congressional candidates' positions on open government when deciding who to vote for", which indicates that people do care. If you read more of the article, there are plenty of other polls quoted indicating the majority and plurality of people don't like warrantless wiretapping either.
For the original article, the reason people don't mind "Domestic surveillance" is because they see right through the slanted polls.
Wow, did you read the article? (ubiquitous I-know-this-is-slashdot comment here). The original article gave no evidence that people don't mind "domestic surveillance" other than vague mentions by the author of "polls". The commenting article mentions numerous specific polls which showed the majority and plurality of U.S. citizens care.
When you ask most people about the "Domestic Spying Program" most people know you are talking about the Terrorist Surveillance Act. Since they disagree with the premise that it is "domestic spying", they answer that they have no problems with it. Thus you get an article like the Time's article.
Since the Time article didn't actually back up it's claims, it appears to be only the opinion of the author (and probably the editors) that people (him apparently) don't care about warrantless spying. Judging from the commenting article's referenced polls, people do actually care. And as long as we're talking about the Terrorist Surveillance Act, since there are no warrants required (i.e. no supposed objective third party making sure rules are being followed), then the tapping is for general purposes not limited to foreign calls. It's limited to whomever the person calling for tap feels like tapping.
For those that don't get it yet: this breaks every other protocol that isn't HTTP.
Sigh, and for those who still don't get it: HTTP is what your web browser uses to get web pages.
All those who are spouting "it's useful" or "I don't understand what the fuss is" or "why can't they do it?"... you simply don't understand the issues and shouldn't be commenting.
I wish I had mod points for you. HTTP is not the only thing on the internet. There are other things flowing over those tubes. I'm not sure about the not commenting (commenting when you don't understand the issues is what slashdot is about isn't it?), but let me just say one word
email,
you're using opendns?, hmm, well all you email may be going through one of their servers, or not, who knows? We do know OpenDNS returns the incorrect IP of DNS lookups, IP's to their machines. I hope anyone who uses them, encrypts any email they deem private. Or IM, or pretty much everything you send on the web, including http. good times. Okay, I said way more than one word, I've got my rant on a bit.
And yes that is a bit paranoid, but there is no reason to think they wouldn't do this if they can make a profit from it. Profit is what they are in business to do. They have shown that integrity and properly supporting DNS is not a greater priority to profit for them.
But for more immediate problems if I was, say, trying to solve a problem with a server. hmm, I can ping the server, but I can't connect to it with ssh. I'm not sure how long it'd take me to figure out I was being directed to a opensdns server because the box (and DNS server running on it) was down. Not this has ever happened to me, nooo, let me just say *&)*&, &*#%@$ and @#$%@$# to OpenDNS. May they burn in whatever hell is provided for those that abuse protocols (not to mention the word 'Open').
Yes, by the year 2020, there will be no LANs left on the planet. A giant switch is about to be built by the NSA at a secret locale somewhere in the Pacific (or maybe in Texas, it hasn't quite been decided yet) and all computers on Earth will be plugged into it, as required by U.S. law. It will be known as the Bailwick of Information George Bush Response Operations Technical Hub and E-formation Repository. It will do for the internet what we (the U.S.) has done for terrorism reduction, economic prosperity, and New Orleans. It will be awesome. It is what IPv6 is all about. Doesn't anyone ever read the Documentation!?
We thought you had that worked out, we thought there was a plan. Obviously there wasn't.
If I remember correctly (and, yeah, I might not), the military did have some plans. But they involved troop numbers and a level of commitment which I don't believe the administration thought was politically feasible. So, those were dropped early on. After all, we had to go in and get those WMD's before Sadam could pass them on to terrorist groups.
Dumb queston, we've always been at war with terrorasia.
Re:the C. P. Snow Divide of Sciences and Humanitie
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1
"They feel they've been raped."
So they a) either have no f*cking idea what that's like b) are prone to serious exaggeration or c)You're making it up and are one of those people that think 'George Lucas raped your childhood'.
so either:
A: You should look at a dictionary, rape doesn't just mean forced sex.
B: insert ubiquitous, "um, yeah, welcome to slashdot."
C: see B.
Come on, calm down a tad... I use Windows and MS products as well as a lot of OS (Eclipse, Laszlo, PHP etc. etc. ) products every day and really.. I'm not fuming, I'm not frothing... I really am quite happily getting along with my work... and so are all my colleages... and those in the companies we do work in... and everyone else I know.
Seriously though, by definiton of majority use, MS is definitely the most popular. A lot of people don't like it, I don't like it, but there it is. Personally (and totally anecdotally) the only people I know that don't have a more than general dislike for MS/Windows are those that either don't use computers or haven't used anything else regularly (possibly looked at Mac or Unix, but never used them long enough to get comfortable). This indicates to me that MS may wain, but people generally don't like change and I certainly wouldn't give any odds on it happening fast.
Re:How can you vouche for the security of this?
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1
"historical performance is a reasonable basis for prediction."
Ah, this is an interesting rule. Well, in that case, I'd like to point out that next year will not be the year for Linux on the desktop.
Lynn worked for Cisco. He did not work for the public. His loyalty should have been with protecting the interests of Cisco. With that said I think that the interest of Cisco would be served best by protecting its customers. That includes pushing for a fix to this.
I thought your post was well reasoned and interesting, but I had a problem with this part. You might want to consider that as a member of a society, particularly a democratic one, where in theory we're all (US citizens for US, but if you believe in a democratic world governance then as a citizen of the world as well) the top level of government. As such you have a responsibility or loyalty to the society you belong (family, friends, neighbors, etc...) before a loyalty to an employer. Exaggerated out, your statement makes the appropriate response when a company has you physically damage people (poison the water or even out right murder) be loyalty to the company first.
It just seems like I am getting the shaft when it comes to insurance. Anyone else have any insights?
Insurance is architected not to work. By that I mean, it's in the companies best interest to not provide the service they offer. There are two ways for an insurance company to increase revenue: take more money in and pay less money out. Their business goals, therefore, are twofold. The first is to get the highest value of number of people insured multiplied by their premium. This includes advertising, various pricing techniques, etc.... The second is to pay out the smallest amount possible. This includes dropping claimants and having clauses to not cover as much as possible.
With most services, the service provided is relatively immediate. If the service isn't provided, you can demand your money back and/or never use that service again. This is affective for immediate services. I buy bread. If I don't get bread, I say, "give me my #%*&$ money back" and I'm not going to let the door hit me on the way out. Since insurance is based on statistically small occurrences, I buy insurance. If I don't have anything to cover, I keep paying. If I have something to cover and they don't cover me, I stop buying insurance from them. They laugh all the way to the bank.
My main point/complaint being, the goal of insurance companies is to not provide insurance or, in other words, insurance as a business is architected not to work for the insured.
To conclude my rant;), this means when we decide to legally require insurance provided by unregulated or poorly regulated companies we are hosing ourselves badly.
It's a bad analogy. The guy wasn't going 'in' to a physical property. In that sense, it's much like someone running an ethernet cable out of their house, into the street, and connecting a large hub to it. And when they walk outside and see passersby plugging into it, they are shocked!, shocked!, that internet browsing is going on here.
Still doesn't negate the fact that you have no right to the content in question. If I write the world's best computer Still doesn't negate the fact that you have no right to the content in question. If I write the world's best computer game, I don't have to let anyone play it, or I can be very selective in who plays it, or how much it costs to play. It's my right as creator/owner of said creative content.
This would be different if it weren't a luxury item, but because it is, you don't have much of a leg to stand on.
On the other hand, I think part of what the earlier poster was getting is the following (although, this is somewhat U.S. centric). If you believe that copyright is supposed to cause creations to enter the public domain in a reasonable amount of time (I think it was 7 years originally) and that these companies have bought off politicians to affectively steal from all of us, then downloading older (and I don't know, 7 years sounds good or a nice round figure like a decade maybe) music, movies, or whatever is just taking back what has been stolen from you.
I mean , singing 'Happy Birthday' in a restaurant is illegal!?, ludicrous.
Sorry people, you can't blame the church. The problem is that people can't keep it in their pants. Blame those who are sleeping with people they aren't married to.
Yes those people are responsible for their actions. Just like the church is responsible for its actions. The church can be celebrated for pushing abstinence. It is the safest practice to avoid STD's.
The church can also be blamed for it's action of demonzing condom use. Not using a condom is perhaps the best ways to get an STD. I'd say that the church breaks morally even on these two policies. And IMO, for an organization that is suposed to provide moral leadership, breaking even is a failure.
Or, liberal leanings are consistant with being brainwaOr, liberal leanings are consistant with being brainwashed by the crazies at Universities these days.
You mean brainwashed like thinking there may be more than two options to any problem:
A. ignoring a problem. e.g. Bush, even before his initial election, spoke of hands off in Isreal, hands off in the middle-east, and in general, followed this policy and completely ignored terrorism until 9/11 (didn't have meetings about it didn't do anything about it).
B. use armed force. Bush, invaded two countries within two years after 9/11. Suddenly it's hands on all the way baby.
Call me crazy and brainwashed, but perhaps there was a middle ground in there somehere.
Slashdot Mirror
The DHS has a total of around 200,000 employees. The number of those who are actually armed (as opposed to sitting on their butts in an air conditioned office in D.C.) is significantly less. In a cursory search, I couldn't turn up any concrete numbers, but I imagine it's safe to say that probably 10% of DHS employees are actually "agents" of some type (Border Patrol, ATF, Air Marshals, etc). So that's 20,000 armed employees.
I don't see a 1% loss rate as "statistically insignificant" when you're talking about firearms lost through negligence.
Really? How about one of those 1% guns was used in a crime that killed you, or your wife/husband/kid/mom?
Its not about statistics, it's about reality.
Homeland Security is supposed to be protecting us, yet they can NOT even secure their own guns. don't care if it's just 1% of the guns that went missing. I'm sure there was a 1% chance that the World Tradecenter would get ran into by an airplane.
lets look at it this way, way less then 1% of america died on 9/11. Guess we should just chalk it up to life and move on, huh?
Certainly any loss is bad, but the reality is humans won't be
perfect and there will be loss/theft issues with anything, weapons
included. It should also be noted that ~3/4 (179) of the loss was
due to 'weapons not being properly secured' (i.e. the officer's
fault). It would be nice if law enforcement didn't need firearms,
but that isn't realistic in the U.S. either. I did want to add some
more numbers to the discussion. The only numbers I could find in a
quick search are from CBS in 2008,
http://www.etsy.com/confirm.php?email=order%40mikesoffice.com&user_name=&code=486659&action=register&utm_source=welcome&utm_medium=trans_email&utm_campaign=welcome_txt&from_page=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.etsy.com%2Fconvo_main.php
which shows weapons loss per year per 1000 employees:
ATF .52 .29 .28
FBI
DEA
Using the 188.5k employee HSA, 243 lost weapons over three years
(although it is hard to tell from the article, this could be two or
one year depending on whether 'between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal
year 2008' is inclusive or exclusive or both:
HSA .43 (or .64, or 1.29)
I would say, at best, this shows that they need to improve there
handling of weapons (via policy/punishment something) and, at worse,
this is plain awful and maybe a few heads should roll. Both the DEA
and FBI are able to do better and perhaps their policies could be
used at the HSA? (The ATF also, um, sucks.)
"'... storage on the iPhone is typically filled with music...'
... Lots of games use large amounts of memory, and I think a fair chunk of that is used by two GPS apps I have with cached offline maps - AccuTerra and iTopoMaps.
;)
How do you know what is typical?
But the real point is that if you need more space for apps, you can just slim down the number of songs or videos until you get the number of apps you want. As nice as it is to be able to expand via SD it's kind of pointless if said expansion doesn't really give you any more space for one key aspect of the device. The main problem with the Android space limitation means that whole classes of applications will simply never be developed for Android, even if some users can hack around the restriction with an altered filesystem..."
YOUR COMPLAINT IS TOO LATE!
Those types of applications already exist on the Android OS.
The executable app size is limited, the data size is not and is generally supposed to be stored on the SD card. I have offline mapping software on my G1 (and have had it for quite awhile) that works just fine. I've had first person shooter games that worked just fine. And if you root the phone, you can have app storage on the SD card as well if you really have the need (there's talk on this coming to unrooted phones, I'm not sure how likely that is).
Oh, by the by, most of my sd card space is filled with music....
Um, then you might want to make sure you're on wi-if for the first run. You went to the trouble of downloading at home, but can't be bothered to run it once there? Although, most of the apps I've used download it all as one chunk and then split the app and data during unpacking (i.e. so all the data is downloaded before the first run)
This is only a non issue if the app itself is tiny. What about if the app is graphics intensive? I think "Defender Chronices" for the iPhone is 125Mb all by itself and Dungeon Hunter is 225Mb.
So to get around this stupid limitation an app would need to come with a loader that would then download the remaining data to the SD card.
Over hyped? Not if you play games. Either way it's a pretty stupid and a major design limitation.
Well, I'm not the biggest fan of the memory design, but the current android OS already handles this (and has since I bough the G1 last year (well two years ago technically
And when microsd size moves to 32GB, my phone memory can double with a purchase of a card. With the iphone, it'll be time to by a new phone, Admittedly 16GB is way more than I need or can imagining needing in the near future. But memory card switching and expansion is a nice advantage (as is replaceable batteries, but I'm digressing)
Oh, and if you root the phones, which isn't that difficult, you can have app space on the microsd card as well (i.e. limited to whatever partition size you want to create)
rant
Let me first say, Fuck!, do I hate slashdot at this point. Can they make it harder to load or comment on this site than they do. Let's wait for ever for the scripting crap to load, let's watch firefox spin and do all kind of weird shit before being able to do anything, and don't consider for even a minute looking at it on your phone's web browser, I think last time I did flames started to shoot and out and I had to dowse it with my coffee. Really?, floating window!?, I really really don't need slashdot's clippy around, thank you
Sorry , back to your normal station, this is a horrible analogy
Home address, you either are moving around a lot and the address is a poor indicator of I.D. or you,
Rent: and have been credit checked, pay monthly, and tend to live at a location for years at a time. Extremely connected to you
Buy, you have a mortgage, even more connected to you.
Car, you purchased a car, probably have a loan, the car is registered with the state based on your I.D, car's Vin# , licence #, etc... If you live in a state with regular car examinations (i.e. smog checks here), this info is also periodically checked. Extremely connected to you.
IP address, if I have a static address, it is connected to me in some way. See wireless networks and NAT however for how I may be only remotely and unknowingly connected personally to whatever is going on. More often though, these are dynamic and again you may have wireless and NAT. Or I pop into a coffee shop and what address did I just get?, or I use a different network card in my notebook, or wait... I just changed the MAC address on one of the cards or.... you get the idea. As other's have mentioned, IP's only really reference a network node for a certain period of time. This could be very identifiable: static IP to a DNS'd address that's consistent for years or it could be almost completely anonymous: some various network card with a handset MAC at a coffee shop.
If you want an analogy, how about your current location? If you're at home, it might be good indicator of who you are (although it could be anyone who lives with you or is visiting), If you're some place crowded or that you've never been to before, it's a horrible indicator.
I haven't seen that PSA in quite awhile but all of the last times I remember seeing it in the theatre, people in the audience just laughed at it. I can't imagine a worse result for a serious PSA than the crowd it's trying to appeal to pealing out in laughter at its ridiculousness. Sometimes it was the best laugh of the movie. And this wasn't just action movies with a young crowd, this was at adult movies (not porn!) where the median age would be, well, middle aged.
I think we can call that PSA an epic Fail, another war on drugs indeed.
This is basically a cheesy action movie. A very well done cheesy action movie. Mixing it with the Star Trek universe gave it a bit more heft, but it is still a cheesy action movie.
Although don't get me wrong, I like cheesy action movies and this is a good cheesy action film with a bunch of Star Trek humor thrown in to boot. If you are up for that, this movie is worth watching. And particularly, the visuals in the movie are quite good, so watching it on a big screen will definitely add to it. The dialog is quipy funny.
I definitely enjoyed the film, but I also left rather disappointed. The people creating the film are obviously highly skilled. They could create stunning visuals and they could write amusing dialog. But they didn't seem to really care about the universe they were writing about. To me, it really seemed to have no heart and only a passing consideration for the universe it was operating within (and mostly just to use it for humorous affect). As far as the Star Trek universe goes, the holes in the movie were pretty bad. The movie didn't even seem to be consistent within its 'own' universe. As with most cheesy action movies, this is unfortunately (IMO) pretty normal.
OKAY NOW FOR SPOILERS COMMENTS, RANTS, AND GENERAL COMPLAINTS
I JUST SAID ***SPOILERS***.
DON'T READ FARTHER AND THEN COMPLAIN THAT YOU'VE READ SPOILERS. IF YOU DO (AND I NOTICE) YOU WILL JUST GET LAUGHTER BACK.
And not the 'heh' or 'hah-hah' sort of laughter but the 'Bawahahahaha, you read past all those really annoying capital letters and still got mad and fell for my evil plot...' sort of laughter.
I'm a miner and a foreign ambassador is trying to save my planet by turning a sun going super nova into a black hole. Hmmm, he didn't get there in time. hmm, but it couldn't have been the sun in my planet's solar system because a black hole there would have just wasted the planet anyway. hmmm, so it must have been light years away, but there wasn't any time to evacuate the planet? or anything else in those years?, hmm, they were just instantly toast anyway? hmm, cough, well never mind, lets keep the plot moving.
Okay so this guy failed to save my planet killing my wife, children and, well, the whole planet. What should I do? What should I do? Well, kill the guy, of course! That bastard! what was he thinking trying to save my planet!. It's a good thing my entire crew (and I have an awful lot crew for a mining ship, but whatever) thinks this is a good enough idea to go along with it instead of, I don't know, helping survivors and locking me up in loony bin somewhere.
Oops, I got sucked into that black hole he created too late. Good thing the gravity in that black whole didn't crush me like a grape. Also, it's a good the guy I'm trying to kill got sucked into it too, so I can keep trying to kill him. "Hey crew, you're still with me on this right?".
I just realized that instead of being crushed like a grape by that black hole, I got sent back in time. Cool, here comes an old Federation Star Ship, let's waste 'em for, um, kicks? and I'm just in a bad mood anyway. Crew? you guys still good right? It's a good thing my mining vessel has sooo much fire power too. Those asteroids and planets often fight back pretty hard when I mine them. It's also a good thing my mining crew is made up of gun toting warriors that live for attacking military vessels instead of, um, mining.
And just as an aside, it's also pretty nifty that my ship has such a cool evil looking shape to it, to go along with all the fire power. Because when you're mining, you need a bunch of spiky things sticking out the front and your ships to look like the bad guys from Babylon-5.
Sweet, I just caught that guy that failed at trying to save my planet. I don't feel like killing him now though. What should I do?, What should I do?. I know!, I'll use the stuff he's got that can turn a sun into a black hole to save my planet by turning that sun into a black hole in this time period, long b
It is not "normal". But waterboarding (a procedure, that leaves no long-lasting damage to the body) a few people is permissible â€" and always has been throughout history
You must have heard this since it's been mentioned all over the place, but if you mean "always has been" to include the Germans and Japanese to which we (the U.S.) applied the death penalty after World War II for practicing this kind of torture, then we are in full agreement. We should take the people who have been responsible for water boarding currently and put them on trial for torture (Personally, I don't think the death penalty should be applied in these cases, but let a judge and jury decide).
But also the argument 'always have' is flawed in the sense that I'm sure we both can think of many things that 'were always done' that we would now think of as wrong (e.g. slavery, genocide, torture *cough*, etc...).
Well, if you're basing 'reality' on historically what types of government lasted, um, forever. Reality is anti-everything (at least as far as human social constructs are concerned). This may, in fact, be true, kind of pointless, but true. I guess the reasoning is that since all other civilizations have changed, we shouldn't care about or try to improve ours.
More amusing, following your logic, we (as a nation, society, and race I guess?) really should be moving away from Democratic Republics and towards Monarchy as Monarchy was the most, um, 'real'. Do you truly believe we should have a Monarchy (aka King Bush, King Oboma, King McCain, Queen Clinton, pick your poison), or have you gotten so far off the deep end defending the current administration that perhaps you should sit back and re-think some of your beliefs.
Well, I think what the parent should have said was check his campaign contributors,
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424
AT&T is his 5th highest contributor at $157,487
Univision Communications is also in for $75,700
There are also a number of LLP of which I have no idea whether they are related to communications companies.
Admittedly this is legal and is this the well known case of U.S. politics being, to a large degree although not completely by any means, controlled by corporations. I could argue either way that this is good or bad. My opinion is bad just because of I don't think creating a society based on the short term profit of companies is a good idea, but go figure.
Mike
But the problem here, I think, is that George Ou is assuming that Comcast is deliberately targeting P2P, and moreover, that they have no choice but to deliberately target P2P. I'd assumed that they were simply targeting any application that uses too many TCP connections -- thus, BitTorrent can still work, and still be reasonably fast, by decreasing the number of connections. Make too many connections and Comcast starts dropping them, no matter what the protocol.
My limited experience with comcast problems (in Northern California coffee shops since I don't use comcast at home) is that when their pipe fills up, they start sending 'host unreachable' messages to random connections. My guess is that instead of shaping and using the TCP backoff mechanism that their NAT'ing router just says I have X TCP connections going through me, any new ones get 'host unreachable' until I have less than X. They also use an Asian net block for their NAT'd IP's instead of the say 10.x or the 172 and 192 ranges, I don't know what's up with that. But without knowing more (and they seem to prefer truthiness over truth), I'm frankly, um, under impressed with their competency in running networks.
Believing, that the government is secretive, does not equate to being bothered by it plenty of people think, the government should be more secretive in its fight against our enemies (whether they are right is besides the point).
And 44% 22% a year ago? is still less than a half...
'Plurality' is a word you may want to consider. Although the numbers given still show the number of people doubling in a year.
Sigh, RTA. Yes the summary quote was an awful choice. Right next to it in the actual article is, "nearly nine in 10 say it's important to know presidential and congressional candidates' positions on open government when deciding who to vote for", which indicates that people do care. If you read more of the article, there are plenty of other polls quoted indicating the majority and plurality of people don't like warrantless wiretapping either.
For the original article, the reason people don't mind "Domestic surveillance" is because they see right through the slanted polls.
Wow, did you read the article? (ubiquitous I-know-this-is-slashdot comment here). The original article gave no evidence that people don't mind "domestic surveillance" other than vague mentions by the author of "polls". The commenting article mentions numerous specific polls which showed the majority and plurality of U.S. citizens care.
When you ask most people about the "Domestic Spying Program" most people know you are talking about the Terrorist Surveillance Act. Since they disagree with the premise that it is "domestic spying", they answer that they have no problems with it. Thus you get an article like the Time's article.
Since the Time article didn't actually back up it's claims, it appears to be only the opinion of the author (and probably the editors) that people (him apparently) don't care about warrantless spying. Judging from the commenting article's referenced polls, people do actually care. And as long as we're talking about the Terrorist Surveillance Act, since there are no warrants required (i.e. no supposed objective third party making sure rules are being followed), then the tapping is for general purposes not limited to foreign calls. It's limited to whomever the person calling for tap feels like tapping.
For those that don't get it yet: this breaks every other protocol that isn't HTTP.
Sigh, and for those who still don't get it: HTTP is what your web browser uses to get web pages.
All those who are spouting "it's useful" or "I don't understand what the fuss is" or "why can't they do it?"... you simply don't understand the issues and shouldn't be commenting.
I wish I had mod points for you. HTTP is not the only thing on the internet. There are other things flowing over those tubes. I'm not sure about the not commenting (commenting when you don't understand the issues is what slashdot is about isn't it?), but let me just say one word
email,
you're using opendns?, hmm, well all you email may be going through one of their servers, or not, who knows? We do know OpenDNS returns the incorrect IP of DNS lookups, IP's to their machines. I hope anyone who uses them, encrypts any email they deem private. Or IM, or pretty much everything you send on the web, including http. good times. Okay, I said way more than one word, I've got my rant on a bit.
And yes that is a bit paranoid, but there is no reason to think they wouldn't do this if they can make a profit from it. Profit is what they are in business to do. They have shown that integrity and properly supporting DNS is not a greater priority to profit for them.
But for more immediate problems if I was, say, trying to solve a problem with a server. hmm, I can ping the server, but I can't connect to it with ssh. I'm not sure how long it'd take me to figure out I was being directed to a opensdns server because the box (and DNS server running on it) was down. Not this has ever happened to me, nooo, let me just say *&)*&, &*#%@$ and @#$%@$# to OpenDNS. May they burn in whatever hell is provided for those that abuse protocols (not to mention the word 'Open').
The internet really, really is not just the web.
Yes, by the year 2020, there will be no LANs left on the planet. A giant switch is about to be built by the NSA at a secret locale somewhere in the Pacific (or maybe in Texas, it hasn't quite been decided yet) and all computers on Earth will be plugged into it, as required by U.S. law. It will be known as the Bailwick of Information George Bush Response Operations Technical Hub and E-formation Repository. It will do for the internet what we (the U.S.) has done for terrorism reduction, economic prosperity, and New Orleans. It will be awesome. It is what IPv6 is all about. Doesn't anyone ever read the Documentation!?
Perhaps I've said too much.
If I remember correctly (and, yeah, I might not), the military did have some plans. But they involved troop numbers and a level of commitment which I don't believe the administration thought was politically feasible. So, those were dropped early on. After all, we had to go in and get those WMD's before Sadam could pass them on to terrorist groups.
Dumb queston, we've always been at war with terrorasia.
so either:
A: You should look at a dictionary, rape doesn't just mean forced sex.
B: insert ubiquitous, "um, yeah, welcome to slashdot."
C: see B.
Seriously though, by definiton of majority use, MS is definitely the most popular. A lot of people don't like it, I don't like it, but there it is. Personally (and totally anecdotally) the only people I know that don't have a more than general dislike for MS/Windows are those that either don't use computers or haven't used anything else regularly (possibly looked at Mac or Unix, but never used them long enough to get comfortable). This indicates to me that MS may wain, but people generally don't like change and I certainly wouldn't give any odds on it happening fast.
And I'd say your likely correct...
Lynn worked for Cisco. He did not work for the public. His loyalty should have been with protecting the interests of Cisco. With that said I think that the interest of Cisco would be served best by protecting its customers. That includes pushing for a fix to this.
I thought your post was well reasoned and interesting, but I had a problem with this part. You might want to consider that as a member of a society, particularly a democratic one, where in theory we're all (US citizens for US, but if you believe in a democratic world governance then as a citizen of the world as well) the top level of government. As such you have a responsibility or loyalty to the society you belong (family, friends, neighbors, etc...) before a loyalty to an employer. Exaggerated out, your statement makes the appropriate response when a company has you physically damage people (poison the water or even out right murder) be loyalty to the company first.
It just seems like I am getting the shaft when it comes to insurance. Anyone else have any insights?
Insurance is architected not to work. By that I mean, it's in the companies best interest to not provide the service they offer. There are two ways for an insurance company to increase revenue: take more money in and pay less money out. Their business goals, therefore, are twofold. The first is to get the highest value of number of people insured multiplied by their premium. This includes advertising, various pricing techniques, etc.... The second is to pay out the smallest amount possible. This includes dropping claimants and having clauses to not cover as much as possible.
With most services, the service provided is relatively immediate. If the service isn't provided, you can demand your money back and/or never use that service again. This is affective for immediate services. I buy bread. If I don't get bread, I say, "give me my #%*&$ money back" and I'm not going to let the door hit me on the way out. Since insurance is based on statistically small occurrences, I buy insurance. If I don't have anything to cover, I keep paying. If I have something to cover and they don't cover me, I stop buying insurance from them. They laugh all the way to the bank.
My main point/complaint being, the goal of insurance companies is to not provide insurance or, in other words, insurance as a business is architected not to work for the insured.
To conclude my rant
It's a bad analogy. The guy wasn't going 'in' to a physical property. In that sense, it's much like someone running an ethernet cable out of their house, into the street, and connecting a large hub to it. And when they walk outside and see passersby plugging into it, they are shocked!, shocked!, that internet browsing is going on here.
Still doesn't negate the fact that you have no right to the content in question. If I write the world's best computer Still doesn't negate the fact that you have no right to the content in question. If I write the world's best computer game, I don't have to let anyone play it, or I can be very selective in who plays it, or how much it costs to play. It's my right as creator/owner of said creative content.
This would be different if it weren't a luxury item, but because it is, you don't have much of a leg to stand on.
On the other hand, I think part of what the earlier poster was getting is the following (although, this is somewhat U.S. centric). If you believe that copyright is supposed to cause creations to enter the public domain in a reasonable amount of time (I think it was 7 years originally) and that these companies have bought off politicians to affectively steal from all of us, then downloading older (and I don't know, 7 years sounds good or a nice round figure like a decade maybe) music, movies, or whatever is just taking back what has been stolen from you.
I mean , singing 'Happy Birthday' in a restaurant is illegal!?, ludicrous.
Sorry people, you can't blame the church. The problem is that people can't keep it in their pants. Blame those who are sleeping with people they aren't married to.
Yes those people are responsible for their actions. Just like the church is responsible for its actions. The church can be celebrated for pushing abstinence. It is the safest practice to avoid STD's.
The church can also be blamed for it's action of demonzing condom use. Not using a condom is perhaps the best ways to get an STD. I'd say that the church breaks morally even on these two policies. And IMO, for an organization that is suposed to provide moral leadership, breaking even is a failure.
PS: 's/STD/abortion/g' above for similar results.
Or, liberal leanings are consistant with being brainwaOr, liberal leanings are consistant with being brainwashed by the crazies at Universities these days.
You mean brainwashed like thinking there may be more than two options to any problem:
A. ignoring a problem. e.g. Bush, even before his initial election, spoke of hands off in Isreal, hands off in the middle-east, and in general, followed this policy and completely ignored terrorism until 9/11 (didn't have meetings about it didn't do anything about it).
B. use armed force. Bush, invaded two countries within two years after 9/11. Suddenly it's hands on all the way baby.
Call me crazy and brainwashed, but perhaps there was a middle ground in there somehere.