If you're talking about the military, you have no idea what you're talking about, and you clearly haven't looked at the equipment which the US military currently owns.
Like standard issue M-4s using 5.56 ammunition, with an effective range of roughly 300 yards being used in Afghanistan, where average engagements take place at ranges of 400 yards and up(And the documented reluctance of DoD to go to much more capable calibers such as 6.5mm, and the massive amount iof time it took for SCARs and ACRs to even get into the hands of troops)? Or planning to use F-35s in close air support missions, when a small, inexpensive turboprop plane is both more efficient and much cheaper? MRAPs for Iraq that have virtually no other use than in Iraq-style conflicts? The whole Littoral Combat Ship fiasco, with the munitions packages not even close to being workable? The KC-X mess? Do I have to go on?
There are also successes, such as the M1 Abrams and the M25 rifle (just off the top of my head). It's disingenuous to claim that the military is unable to deliver any workable combat systems to the troops. It is accurate to say that they don't do so consistently.
They aren't working. They aren't earning money, therefore they aren't depositing cash into an SSI account yet. Not until the kid starts working (age 16; 18; whatever) do they need to apply for an SSN.
They need one if you want to set up a 529 education investment account, or if you want to claim the deduction on your tax returns. They also need one for a bank account, and kids should learn about managing money as early as possible.
Not to mention he wasn't the genius behind Apple. Steve Wozniak was. In fact in numerous interviews about all Steve Jobs had a hand in in actually designing the original Apple computers was insisting that the power supply be a certain color for aesthetics. The real work was done by a man whom half the nation probably has no idea exists.
Woz is the genius behind the original Apple products from decades past, and Jobs is the genius behind the consumer electronics and publishing juggernaut that Apple is today.
"The Kings Speech" is another example of just how ludicrous the movie ratings system is. It got an R rating simply because the doctor was trying to get the king angry and asked him if he could say the "F" word. Of course the response was a few sentences of vulgarity. There was nothing in the movie that could be described as sex scenes and the vulgarity was short in critical to the overall theme of the movie. A R rating just for a short scene where the "F" bomb is thrown? WTF?
There's a scene in Be Cool where Travolta is talking about how you can only say the f-bomb once and retain a PG-13 rating, to which he says "Fuck that. I'm done." I always thought that was a clever bit of writing.
That's because it was an actual movie with a plot. Idiots don't like plot, they like predictable. A good plot means you have to think, and people don't want to think, because then they aren't enjoying themselves. They want to laugh at a few jokes and blunders by the main character, and have themselves led down the same familiar plot over and over again, albeit in a slightly different setting or circumstance each time. Those are the movies that tend to do well. That does not make them good.
Uh, this wasn't exactly a thinking man's movie, you know? I'm not saying it wasn't entertaining. It was, because of the reasons you listed.
When will they just discard with the formalities and just say that every goverment agency can do anything whatsoever with no warrants and paperwork required. It would simplify the law too, they could sum it up in one sentence: "Everything is illegal".
Most folks around here forget all about the problems with federal agency policy as de facto law whenever the FCC or Library of Congress do something they like.
I'd wager it's not the device... or the table space that a laptop takes up... It's way more physical than that...
It's about CHAIRS and WIFI.
No one wants to go sit in a coffee shop and when you get there, there are no seats because people have 'set up shop' and are there for the long haul. They want you to enjoy your coffee, and LEAVE. Same goes for WIFI. What once was a sales feature to get you INTO the store: Free WiFi, is now something that KEEPS you in the store, but doesn't make any more money for the shops. How many people drink cup after cup of coffee the entire 2-3 hours they're sitting there? nope. they got one $2 cup of coffee, and then tie up the seats and the wifi for hours. And their WiFi is probably over taxed because of it...
Books don't consume WiFi, and most people don't read a book for hours.
Your entire argument assumes that the largest coffee chain in the US can't do simple math. *$ offers free, unlimited wifi for a reason. What do you think that reason is?
This is one move I don't understand.... Nokia has been fumbling for so long I guess this is one more fumble closer to the grave. I loved their phones especially when you de-branded them.
Nokia your mistake was allowing carriers to degrade your product with their junkware.
Their mistake was failure to innovate in their OS. S30 does not stack up well to the other major phone OS players. I would choose an Android, Microsoft, HP, RIM or even Apple ahead of Symbian. It was great for smartphones three years ago, but who would choose it today?
It's also the citizens of Texas who did not pay use tax, as they are lawfully required, who are "assholes". Anyone who buys anything from anyone, anywhere, is required to pay tax on the transaction, unless you live in one of the few states with no sales tax.
Have you paid sales or use tax on everything you've purchased? No? Then you're an asshole, too.
You're saying depletion but actually talking about recapturing already-deployed addresses. Trying to recapture and reallocate address space is prohibitively expensive. I'm not sure what your ISP would hope to gain from that scenario.
I can't speak for your ISP but, assuming they like making money, they'll be ready to start handing out v6 addresses right around the same time they hand out their last remaining v4 addresses. I wouldn't be too concerned in your position.
If you're on a dynamic v4 address, why would you care about what kind of address you have today? Presumably the ISP will start handing out v6 addresses when they're ready. Also presuming that their TOS doesn't permit you to host services on a service plan that is handing out dynamic addresses. Are we talking about some kind of residential or low-end business broadband connection? If so, I completely agree with your ISP.
Tomayto, tomahto. If it were your credit card number being passed around and being used to buy goat porn, you'd probably tell your credit card company it was stolen. Even if some self-rationalizing freeloader came along and pointed it that it can't be stolen since it's still in your wallet. Semantics, at least in this case, really are unimportant.
... and they told me, quite plainly, that they have absolutely no intention to start deploying IPv6 address blocks to customers until they run completely out of IPv4 addresses.
I was floored. "Until"??? That's like not bothering to buy toilet paper until you need to use the restroom *after* you've already run out.
That's probably reasonable. There are a number of ways to address IPv4/6 interoperability.
the powers to classify communication has been granted to FCC by LAW. its appalling that the morons who are arguing AGAINST fcc reclassifying internet, had not opposed to FCC classifying it as what it is now in the first place. it was LAW before that allowed it to classify internet, and now, the same law that allows it to classify things gone where ? to dust ?
so, its all legal and good when something is done in the way you like it, you dont object, and it turns exactly the other way, when its not to liking of some private parties ?
screw that.
I think what I took away from your semi-coherent rant is that you adamantly believe the FCC is entitled under existing law to do whatever they like with the Internet, and anyone that doesn't agree with you must be stupid.
I'm probably just feeding a troll, but while I do wholeheartedly support net neutrality, I do not support a carte blanche for the FCC as the right path towards that goal. I want a clear law, voted for by Congress and signed by the President.
If it were law protecting net neutrality instead of agency policy, there would be no concern about the policy changing anytime the administration felt like it. Ask yourself if you'd be making the exact same argument, if I can call what you wrote an argument, if the FCC were anti-neutrality.
The same power that allows the FCC to decide that it should arbitrarily implement some sort of policy which may or may not end up being net neutrality, allows it to screw over you in many ways.
This is a really important point. Allowing a federal government agency, any agency, to assume powers not specifically granted under law, is a bad, bad idea. Just because the FCC is doing things we like today does not mean that will be the case 10 years from now. Allowing them to assume this power now means they could just as easily change their minds later.
Net neutrality must be a decision of law, not policy.
Cops know that most people speed, but they also know that if they don't write any traffic tickets then everyone will speed.
That logic only goes so far though. Sure, speeding presents an inherent danger in places like residential and commercial districts, but there are plenty of speed traps on rural highways as well, which means the deciding factor is not safety, but money. Safety is just a nice externality.
I never said it was about safety. I said it was about deterrence, and used a speeding ticket as a simple example of a deterrent.
True, but if they fail to get anybody in jail, all it's gonna do is provide definite proof that Anonymous is untouchable by the world's governments, helping them attract more people into their ranks.
I'd say I'd hope the government planned this well beforehand, but I'd rather they lose and Anonymous get even larger. Which is what'll likely happen, given how effective these "public displays" tend to be.
That's a highly unlikely scenario. There are existing laws covering DDoS, and I'm sure of three things: (1) the targets have forensic logs recording, at a minimum, timestamps with source IP addresses, (2) the ISPs have names and street addresses associated with those IP addresses and (3) there will be lots of folks who used their own systems for the attacks.
It's difficult, maybe impossible, to draw a direct correlation, but the popularity of legitimate media sources has been increasing dramatically. Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Vudu, etc. are all doing quite well. Were the civil lawsuits an influencer? Maybe, maybe not. I sure as hell don't know, but it's interesting to consider.
Cops know that most people speed, but they also know that if they don't write any traffic tickets then everyone will speed.
Do they not realize the dynamic structure of anonymous? That an activist involved in one campaign might not be involved, or indeed care about, the next?
The hint is in the article: "loosely organized".
This isn't about punishment, it's about deterrence. Remove the sense of anonymous invulnerability and some will think twice about engaging in the activity, even if they got away with it before. It moves from a mindset of "there can't be consequences" to a mindset of "there could be consequences". It's the same tactic the RIAA uses.
If you want to display data in a table, use table tags. That's fine. That's what they're there for. They're NOT there for general block-level content layout.
I hear this all the time, but what I never hear is WHY. Table layouts existed long before CSS and worked just fine.
In the sense that it can be made to work in all the major browsers, yes.
The GP is right - tables are for tables of data, not for laying out content that is not actually tabular. You wouldn't write a document in a spreadsheet just because that would mean not having to worry about tabstops, would you?
I would if it took less time and the desired result was the same. I'm no masochist.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're talking about the military, you have no idea what you're talking about, and you clearly haven't looked at the equipment which the US military currently owns.
Like standard issue M-4s using 5.56 ammunition, with an effective range of roughly 300 yards being used in Afghanistan, where average engagements take place at ranges of 400 yards and up(And the documented reluctance of DoD to go to much more capable calibers such as 6.5mm, and the massive amount iof time it took for SCARs and ACRs to even get into the hands of troops)? Or planning to use F-35s in close air support missions, when a small, inexpensive turboprop plane is both more efficient and much cheaper? MRAPs for Iraq that have virtually no other use than in Iraq-style conflicts? The whole Littoral Combat Ship fiasco, with the munitions packages not even close to being workable? The KC-X mess? Do I have to go on?
There are also successes, such as the M1 Abrams and the M25 rifle (just off the top of my head). It's disingenuous to claim that the military is unable to deliver any workable combat systems to the troops. It is accurate to say that they don't do so consistently.
They aren't working. They aren't earning money, therefore they aren't depositing cash into an SSI account yet. Not until the kid starts working (age 16; 18; whatever) do they need to apply for an SSN.
They need one if you want to set up a 529 education investment account, or if you want to claim the deduction on your tax returns. They also need one for a bank account, and kids should learn about managing money as early as possible.
Woz hasn't been part of Apple since 1987.
Not true. Woz said just a couple weeks ago that he still gets a small paycheck and has a key card. Sounds like an employee to me.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/31/the-engadget-show-017-steve-wozniak-sony-ngp-playstation-ph/
Not to mention he wasn't the genius behind Apple. Steve Wozniak was. In fact in numerous interviews about all Steve Jobs had a hand in in actually designing the original Apple computers was insisting that the power supply be a certain color for aesthetics. The real work was done by a man whom half the nation probably has no idea exists.
Woz is the genius behind the original Apple products from decades past, and Jobs is the genius behind the consumer electronics and publishing juggernaut that Apple is today.
"The Kings Speech" is another example of just how ludicrous the movie ratings system is. It got an R rating simply because the doctor was trying to get the king angry and asked him if he could say the "F" word. Of course the response was a few sentences of vulgarity. There was nothing in the movie that could be described as sex scenes and the vulgarity was short in critical to the overall theme of the movie. A R rating just for a short scene where the "F" bomb is thrown? WTF?
There's a scene in Be Cool where Travolta is talking about how you can only say the f-bomb once and retain a PG-13 rating, to which he says "Fuck that. I'm done." I always thought that was a clever bit of writing.
That's because it was an actual movie with a plot. Idiots don't like plot, they like predictable. A good plot means you have to think, and people don't want to think, because then they aren't enjoying themselves. They want to laugh at a few jokes and blunders by the main character, and have themselves led down the same familiar plot over and over again, albeit in a slightly different setting or circumstance each time. Those are the movies that tend to do well. That does not make them good.
Uh, this wasn't exactly a thinking man's movie, you know? I'm not saying it wasn't entertaining. It was, because of the reasons you listed.
Would have probably been cheaper than a $500 hitman and would have had fewer legal entanglements than sexual assault.
Rape isn't about sex.
When will they just discard with the formalities and just say that every goverment agency can do anything whatsoever with no warrants and paperwork required. It would simplify the law too, they could sum it up in one sentence: "Everything is illegal".
Most folks around here forget all about the problems with federal agency policy as de facto law whenever the FCC or Library of Congress do something they like.
I'd wager it's not the device... or the table space that a laptop takes up... It's way more physical than that...
It's about CHAIRS and WIFI.
No one wants to go sit in a coffee shop and when you get there, there are no seats because people have 'set up shop' and are there for the long haul. They want you to enjoy your coffee, and LEAVE. Same goes for WIFI. What once was a sales feature to get you INTO the store: Free WiFi, is now something that KEEPS you in the store, but doesn't make any more money for the shops. How many people drink cup after cup of coffee the entire 2-3 hours they're sitting there? nope. they got one $2 cup of coffee, and then tie up the seats and the wifi for hours. And their WiFi is probably over taxed because of it...
Books don't consume WiFi, and most people don't read a book for hours.
Your entire argument assumes that the largest coffee chain in the US can't do simple math. *$ offers free, unlimited wifi for a reason. What do you think that reason is?
This is one move I don't understand.... Nokia has been fumbling for so long I guess this is one more fumble closer to the grave. I loved their phones especially when you de-branded them.
Nokia your mistake was allowing carriers to degrade your product with their junkware.
Their mistake was failure to innovate in their OS. S30 does not stack up well to the other major phone OS players. I would choose an Android, Microsoft, HP, RIM or even Apple ahead of Symbian. It was great for smartphones three years ago, but who would choose it today?
Pay your fucking fair share, assholes!
It's also the citizens of Texas who did not pay use tax, as they are lawfully required, who are "assholes". Anyone who buys anything from anyone, anywhere, is required to pay tax on the transaction, unless you live in one of the few states with no sales tax.
Have you paid sales or use tax on everything you've purchased? No? Then you're an asshole, too.
Hopefully gas station pumps can continue to ask for a ZIP rather than a PIN. Just a personal preference.
Yes, it's definitely better to ask for information that can be easily obtained in a number of ways than something you carry around in your head.
You're saying depletion but actually talking about recapturing already-deployed addresses. Trying to recapture and reallocate address space is prohibitively expensive. I'm not sure what your ISP would hope to gain from that scenario.
I can't speak for your ISP but, assuming they like making money, they'll be ready to start handing out v6 addresses right around the same time they hand out their last remaining v4 addresses. I wouldn't be too concerned in your position.
If you're on a dynamic v4 address, why would you care about what kind of address you have today? Presumably the ISP will start handing out v6 addresses when they're ready. Also presuming that their TOS doesn't permit you to host services on a service plan that is handing out dynamic addresses. Are we talking about some kind of residential or low-end business broadband connection? If so, I completely agree with your ISP.
Tomayto, tomahto. If it were your credit card number being passed around and being used to buy goat porn, you'd probably tell your credit card company it was stolen. Even if some self-rationalizing freeloader came along and pointed it that it can't be stolen since it's still in your wallet. Semantics, at least in this case, really are unimportant.
I was floored. "Until"??? That's like not bothering to buy toilet paper until you need to use the restroom *after* you've already run out.
That's probably reasonable. There are a number of ways to address IPv4/6 interoperability.
the powers to classify communication has been granted to FCC by LAW. its appalling that the morons who are arguing AGAINST fcc reclassifying internet, had not opposed to FCC classifying it as what it is now in the first place. it was LAW before that allowed it to classify internet, and now, the same law that allows it to classify things gone where ? to dust ?
so, its all legal and good when something is done in the way you like it, you dont object, and it turns exactly the other way, when its not to liking of some private parties ?
screw that.
I think what I took away from your semi-coherent rant is that you adamantly believe the FCC is entitled under existing law to do whatever they like with the Internet, and anyone that doesn't agree with you must be stupid.
I'm probably just feeding a troll, but while I do wholeheartedly support net neutrality, I do not support a carte blanche for the FCC as the right path towards that goal. I want a clear law, voted for by Congress and signed by the President.
If it were law protecting net neutrality instead of agency policy, there would be no concern about the policy changing anytime the administration felt like it. Ask yourself if you'd be making the exact same argument, if I can call what you wrote an argument, if the FCC were anti-neutrality.
The same power that allows the FCC to decide that it should arbitrarily implement some sort of policy which may or may not end up being net neutrality, allows it to screw over you in many ways.
This is a really important point. Allowing a federal government agency, any agency, to assume powers not specifically granted under law, is a bad, bad idea. Just because the FCC is doing things we like today does not mean that will be the case 10 years from now. Allowing them to assume this power now means they could just as easily change their minds later.
Net neutrality must be a decision of law, not policy.
Cops know that most people speed, but they also know that if they don't write any traffic tickets then everyone will speed.
That logic only goes so far though. Sure, speeding presents an inherent danger in places like residential and commercial districts, but there are plenty of speed traps on rural highways as well, which means the deciding factor is not safety, but money. Safety is just a nice externality.
I never said it was about safety. I said it was about deterrence, and used a speeding ticket as a simple example of a deterrent.
Any news on those involved in the DDoS attacks against wikileaks? No arrest yet?
Yeah, I'm sure Wikileaks is cooperating with law enforcement by giving them their data logs. Yup, that's certainly taking place.
True, but if they fail to get anybody in jail, all it's gonna do is provide definite proof that Anonymous is untouchable by the world's governments, helping them attract more people into their ranks.
I'd say I'd hope the government planned this well beforehand, but I'd rather they lose and Anonymous get even larger. Which is what'll likely happen, given how effective these "public displays" tend to be.
That's a highly unlikely scenario. There are existing laws covering DDoS, and I'm sure of three things: (1) the targets have forensic logs recording, at a minimum, timestamps with source IP addresses, (2) the ISPs have names and street addresses associated with those IP addresses and (3) there will be lots of folks who used their own systems for the attacks.
Yeah, that sure has slowed down piracy, lulz.
It's difficult, maybe impossible, to draw a direct correlation, but the popularity of legitimate media sources has been increasing dramatically. Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Vudu, etc. are all doing quite well. Were the civil lawsuits an influencer? Maybe, maybe not. I sure as hell don't know, but it's interesting to consider.
Cops know that most people speed, but they also know that if they don't write any traffic tickets then everyone will speed.
Do they not realize the dynamic structure of anonymous? That an activist involved in one campaign might not be involved, or indeed care about, the next?
The hint is in the article: "loosely organized".
This isn't about punishment, it's about deterrence. Remove the sense of anonymous invulnerability and some will think twice about engaging in the activity, even if they got away with it before. It moves from a mindset of "there can't be consequences" to a mindset of "there could be consequences". It's the same tactic the RIAA uses.
If you want to display data in a table, use table tags. That's fine. That's what they're there for. They're NOT there for general block-level content layout.
I hear this all the time, but what I never hear is WHY. Table layouts existed long before CSS and worked just fine.
In the sense that it can be made to work in all the major browsers, yes.
The GP is right - tables are for tables of data, not for laying out content that is not actually tabular. You wouldn't write a document in a spreadsheet just because that would mean not having to worry about tabstops, would you?
I would if it took less time and the desired result was the same. I'm no masochist.