Please cite examples of pilots who have temporarily been "blinded" by a laser.
A very good point, and I agree. What has increased is reports of laser attacks, not laser attacks themselves. How does the pilot know that he source of whatever he perceives is a laser? How many attacks have been confirmed?
It's hard to believe many people have the resources, motivation, and aim to pull it off. When is the last time you saw a laser illuminating anything anywhere? A cloud? A bird? A tall building?
Sorry, but I've already had to fend off one attempted home invasion (in Phoenix) with my shotgun, so unless you have first-hand experience with violent criminals, I think your opinion is worthless.
I don't buy that one experience, if true, gives you superior qualifications or knowledge. I've spent much of my life in downtowns of major cities with much higher crime rates than Phoenix, but that doesn't make me an expert. I do know that criminals almost always want easy money, not conflict -- they want your money, not you. Pointing a gun at a criminal greatly increases your chance of getting shot; the mentally unstable (either natural or drug-assisted) may freak out and shoot. A tip for the inexperienced: If they want your money, give it to them; it's just money, it's not worth your life or health.
Your experience coincidentally fits the same old rhetoric from right wing fringe:
The "rest of you" don't have the same situation we do. If you're in Europe, you live in small, homogeneous countries, so you don't have all the race and poverty problems we do. It's a lot easier to get along when you don't have giant groups of people mired in poverty for whatever reason.
These assertions are bizarre. Europe is small, homogenous countries? With no poverty problems? Really? In fact, their race problems are worse than the U.S. right now and have the same cause, lots of bigots who react like animals to anything different than them and inflict suffering on innocent people. It's not race that causes conflict, it's the racists. Aren't centuries of slavery; another of segregation, oppression, and lynchings; and continuing discrimination enough to demonstrate that? And that's just the blacks; don't forget the Catholics (yes, there used to be riots against Catholics!), Native Americans, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, and currently Latinos, gays, and Muslims, etc etc. The bigots simply hate everyone not like them -- and then blame the victims for the problems!
Finally, even here, criminals don't always have guns, because they're not THAT easy to get (thanks to background check laws).
Maybe in Phoenix, though that's not what I understand. Elsewhere, many studies report that it's very easy for anyone to obtain a gun in major cities. Many city governments periodically have gun buy-back programs, where the government buys guns, no questions asked, just to get a few off the streets. Many reports attribute the large numbers of homicides in cities to the easy availability of guns; dumb disputes end in death rather than a black eye because a gun is at hand. Gun rights advocates fight any hint of an attempt to regulate guns, obsessing over one legalistic issue, the Second Amendment of the Constitution (which is vague about personal ownership of firearms), at the expense of many others, including the lives of people dying each year from gun violence. The U.S. has one of the highest murder rates among rich countries, and most of it is poor people killing other poor people of the same race (they live in the same neighborhood).
Both the racist and some (not all) of the gun rights arguments are rationalizations for people to follow their most base instincts, hatred and violence, without responsibility toward the people and society around them. They aren't serious ideas but more a demonstration of political aggression, to threaten anyone how disagrees. And they have a history of backing up those threats with violence.
The toolbar isn't silently turned off; there's nothing that nefarious going on. Users are notified about what is happening, and as the post says, can re-enable the toolbar if they choose.
That said, I'm not thrilled about anyone remotely doing anything on my computer without my explicit permission ahead of time.
The point isn't that a beta has bugs. It's the fact that despite claiming they are going to push this to RC and release soon it still has 100 hardblocking bugs. THAT is the news.
So people are criticizing Mozilla for something that the critics think will hypothetically happen in the future? Hmmm...
Mozilla didn't say they were going to push it whether or not the bugs were fixed. They haven't done that before and they are calling them hard blocking bugs for a reason. This isn't Google with their perpetual beta programs.
The story is a little bizarre for a front page/. post: Beta software has bugs? That's news? Though I have to say, I use Beta 8 right now and it certainly works well enough to be my main browser.
But why was this story posted? Because it's trendy to badmouth Firefox. Chrome is wired, Firefox is tired; I get it, though that's about as far as the discussion really goes. It's just fashion, which has nothing to do with reality. Firefox is a great, world-changing product. When did Slashdot become the place where people like to take down FOSS projects for fun?
Could someone fluent in Mandarin comment on the translation? I'm especially interested in this translation: "The goal of the project is to boost our economy, not theirs." Is the implication that the Chinese gov't wants their trading partners to suffer, or that their partners' situation just isn't important?
China's economy benefits when their trading partners economies benefit. If it's the former (or even the latter, to a degree), that suggests they have other priorities in mind.
Except that on past experience, nonsense like this will soon be mandated by the government whether or not we want it.
I know what you mean. Why can't we dump as much carbon as we want into the atmosphere, just like we should be free to dump raw sewage wherever we please? This 'germ theory' is a conspiracy of doctors and scientists to sell disinfectant!
As I've sometimes tried to start my car a dozen times or more at a time because of one problem or another, I suspect he's full of it. Not to mention it would be easy enough to implement a battery voltage detection system that disable the system if their is not sufficient charge.
Both good points. I'd also consider that 'Start-Stop' would have to be able to restart the car much more than a dozen times in a trip around the city.
Automakers have been reluctant to add the feature to cars in the U.S. because the testing method that the Environmental Protection Agency uses to determine fuel efficiency ratings doesn't include many stops and thus doesn't recognize the technology's effectiveness.
When I asked the question several years ago, a Ford engineer told me that they didn't implement it because non-hybrid cars didn't have enough battery capacity. I know that each start drains a car battery, and then the battery recharges as you drive (even in standard, all-gas-powered, non-hybrid cars). I inferred from his statement that standard car batteries wouldn't recharge quickly enough to provide capacity for frequent restarts. That would make sense; designing that much capacity into standard batteries would be a waste.
Does anyone know the truth? Was the engineer full of it? Is Ford using higher-capacity and/or faster-charging batteries? Don't tell me to RTFA, because I did and know enough not to take everything at face value.
I know it's a crazy thing to say around here, but owners of the telecommunication companies are just as deserving of having their needs served by government as the consumers of telecommunications services. Government doesn't exist to protect the rights of citizens who are consuming over those who are producing. I don't know much about this ruling, but in general a compromise between those interests is a good thing.
I know the corporations are the 'bad' guys, but you don't want government playing favorites. Maybe it will make you feel better to know that pension funds, which keep a great many of our elderly working class and middle class housed and fed, are among the largest owners of those corporations.
Again, maybe this ruling is different, but it wouldn't be a compromise if everyone was happy.
Here's an addon that claims to do just that. It's at version 0.2 and hasn't been updated in a year, but maybe worth a try (or worth helping the developer):
If Wikileaks can get this stuff, imagine what foreign intelligence agencies can do. The U.S. government needs security proportional to the value of the data.
And if we're lucky families in the US, EU, AU and Asian communities will all enact the practice of killing less valuable babies like girls and those with disabilities in hopes of trying again until they get their one alloted good baby. Just like China!
Considering that there are more women in the U.S. workforce than men, and that there are many more women in college, and that men commit a disproportionate number of crimes, it's questionable who is more valuable. Also, women are necessary for reproduction, but men are not.
The two features I'm most hoping to see in WP7 is privacy and end-user control. iPhones and Droids are very poor in this regard: They control what you can install, they can uninstall software without your consent, and goodness knows how much your usage is tracked. Does anyone know how WP7 fares?
Another poster compared privacy today and in the pre-Internet world, which got me to thinking: Until now, innovations in information technology have generally reduced privacy by making it easier, by many orders of magnitude, to copy, distribute, and find information. Any info about you that's on the Web, for example, can be immediately distributed across the world, copied by whoever wants it, and found via Google.
But information technology could also be used to improve our privacy over the pre-Internet world: Encryption, of course, but also anonymization, DRM (for your personal info, such as copy restrictions and expiration dates), and using search engines to automatically find other data, including the pattern recognition engines that can find photos. Some of these could be regulatory requirements (businesses must anonymize personal info as much as possible, must use DRM with copy restrictions and an expiration date, encrypted it, and the business is responsible for monitoring the web for errant copies). Businesses already use these tools to protect their data and online identity; there's no reason private citizens can't use them too.
In some ways, private citizens could have more control, not less, of their privacy and identity if they use the tools in their favor.
I voted almost entirely GOP, knowing that gridlock is the only thing preventing either party from further spending away our long-term future on futile attempts to reinflate economic bubbles (e.g. housing) and prop up Ponzi schemes (e.g. Social Security). We can only hope that they do not attempt compromise and bipartisanship
I've had enough of ignorant outrage. To base our economic policy on a slogan like 'no more debt' is absurd. It reflects an ignorance about debt, which is the fuel of any economy, and about macroeconomics. How do you propose to resolve our economic problems, other than hyperbole, outrage, and ignorance?
I doubt it's intentional, but if Microsoft wanted to use their patent portfolio to scare businesses away from Linux (and I don't know that it's true), they probably would fantasize about reading this on the front page of Slashdot:
Does this mean that if I build PCs with Linux (Ubuntu/ChromeOS/Fedora) and sell them I am at risk of getting sued by Microsoft?
Slashdot Mirror
Please cite examples of pilots who have temporarily been "blinded" by a laser.
A very good point, and I agree. What has increased is reports of laser attacks, not laser attacks themselves. How does the pilot know that he source of whatever he perceives is a laser? How many attacks have been confirmed?
It's hard to believe many people have the resources, motivation, and aim to pull it off. When is the last time you saw a laser illuminating anything anywhere? A cloud? A bird? A tall building?
Sorry, but I've already had to fend off one attempted home invasion (in Phoenix) with my shotgun, so unless you have first-hand experience with violent criminals, I think your opinion is worthless.
I don't buy that one experience, if true, gives you superior qualifications or knowledge. I've spent much of my life in downtowns of major cities with much higher crime rates than Phoenix, but that doesn't make me an expert. I do know that criminals almost always want easy money, not conflict -- they want your money, not you. Pointing a gun at a criminal greatly increases your chance of getting shot; the mentally unstable (either natural or drug-assisted) may freak out and shoot. A tip for the inexperienced: If they want your money, give it to them; it's just money, it's not worth your life or health.
Your experience coincidentally fits the same old rhetoric from right wing fringe:
The "rest of you" don't have the same situation we do. If you're in Europe, you live in small, homogeneous countries, so you don't have all the race and poverty problems we do. It's a lot easier to get along when you don't have giant groups of people mired in poverty for whatever reason.
These assertions are bizarre. Europe is small, homogenous countries? With no poverty problems? Really? In fact, their race problems are worse than the U.S. right now and have the same cause, lots of bigots who react like animals to anything different than them and inflict suffering on innocent people. It's not race that causes conflict, it's the racists. Aren't centuries of slavery; another of segregation, oppression, and lynchings; and continuing discrimination enough to demonstrate that? And that's just the blacks; don't forget the Catholics (yes, there used to be riots against Catholics!), Native Americans, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, and currently Latinos, gays, and Muslims, etc etc. The bigots simply hate everyone not like them -- and then blame the victims for the problems!
Finally, even here, criminals don't always have guns, because they're not THAT easy to get (thanks to background check laws).
Maybe in Phoenix, though that's not what I understand. Elsewhere, many studies report that it's very easy for anyone to obtain a gun in major cities. Many city governments periodically have gun buy-back programs, where the government buys guns, no questions asked, just to get a few off the streets. Many reports attribute the large numbers of homicides in cities to the easy availability of guns; dumb disputes end in death rather than a black eye because a gun is at hand. Gun rights advocates fight any hint of an attempt to regulate guns, obsessing over one legalistic issue, the Second Amendment of the Constitution (which is vague about personal ownership of firearms), at the expense of many others, including the lives of people dying each year from gun violence. The U.S. has one of the highest murder rates among rich countries, and most of it is poor people killing other poor people of the same race (they live in the same neighborhood).
Both the racist and some (not all) of the gun rights arguments are rationalizations for people to follow their most base instincts, hatred and violence, without responsibility toward the people and society around them. They aren't serious ideas but more a demonstration of political aggression, to threaten anyone how disagrees. And they have a history of backing up those threats with violence.
The toolbar isn't silently turned off; there's nothing that nefarious going on. Users are notified about what is happening, and as the post says, can re-enable the toolbar if they choose.
That said, I'm not thrilled about anyone remotely doing anything on my computer without my explicit permission ahead of time.
The point isn't that a beta has bugs. It's the fact that despite claiming they are going to push this to RC and release soon it still has 100 hardblocking bugs. THAT is the news.
So people are criticizing Mozilla for something that the critics think will hypothetically happen in the future? Hmmm ...
Mozilla didn't say they were going to push it whether or not the bugs were fixed. They haven't done that before and they are calling them hard blocking bugs for a reason. This isn't Google with their perpetual beta programs.
The story is a little bizarre for a front page /. post: Beta software has bugs? That's news? Though I have to say, I use Beta 8 right now and it certainly works well enough to be my main browser.
But why was this story posted? Because it's trendy to badmouth Firefox. Chrome is wired, Firefox is tired; I get it, though that's about as far as the discussion really goes. It's just fashion, which has nothing to do with reality. Firefox is a great, world-changing product. When did Slashdot become the place where people like to take down FOSS projects for fun?
Could someone fluent in Mandarin comment on the translation? I'm especially interested in this translation: "The goal of the project is to boost our economy, not theirs." Is the implication that the Chinese gov't wants their trading partners to suffer, or that their partners' situation just isn't important?
China's economy benefits when their trading partners economies benefit. If it's the former (or even the latter, to a degree), that suggests they have other priorities in mind.
Except that on past experience, nonsense like this will soon be mandated by the government whether or not we want it.
I know what you mean. Why can't we dump as much carbon as we want into the atmosphere, just like we should be free to dump raw sewage wherever we please? This 'germ theory' is a conspiracy of doctors and scientists to sell disinfectant!
As I've sometimes tried to start my car a dozen times or more at a time because of one problem or another, I suspect he's full of it. Not to mention it would be easy enough to implement a battery voltage detection system that disable the system if their is not sufficient charge.
Both good points. I'd also consider that 'Start-Stop' would have to be able to restart the car much more than a dozen times in a trip around the city.
Well, Volkswagen made the Lupo back in the 90s. It was able to achieve 78 miles to the US gallon with a 1.2L diesel engine
Did the Lupo use 'Start-Stop'? And how big was its battery?
Automakers have been reluctant to add the feature to cars in the U.S. because the testing method that the Environmental Protection Agency uses to determine fuel efficiency ratings doesn't include many stops and thus doesn't recognize the technology's effectiveness.
When I asked the question several years ago, a Ford engineer told me that they didn't implement it because non-hybrid cars didn't have enough battery capacity. I know that each start drains a car battery, and then the battery recharges as you drive (even in standard, all-gas-powered, non-hybrid cars). I inferred from his statement that standard car batteries wouldn't recharge quickly enough to provide capacity for frequent restarts. That would make sense; designing that much capacity into standard batteries would be a waste.
Does anyone know the truth? Was the engineer full of it? Is Ford using higher-capacity and/or faster-charging batteries? Don't tell me to RTFA, because I did and know enough not to take everything at face value.
I know it's a crazy thing to say around here, but owners of the telecommunication companies are just as deserving of having their needs served by government as the consumers of telecommunications services. Government doesn't exist to protect the rights of citizens who are consuming over those who are producing. I don't know much about this ruling, but in general a compromise between those interests is a good thing.
I know the corporations are the 'bad' guys, but you don't want government playing favorites. Maybe it will make you feel better to know that pension funds, which keep a great many of our elderly working class and middle class housed and fed, are among the largest owners of those corporations.
Again, maybe this ruling is different, but it wouldn't be a compromise if everyone was happy.
When NASA announces in 20 minutes that they've found life on Mars, then we'll see who's laughing.
Deadly wasteland is land I want to obtain for free and destroy for a big profit. Ecosystem or home is what everyone else calls it.
Here's an addon that claims to do just that. It's at version 0.2 and hasn't been updated in a year, but maybe worth a try (or worth helping the developer):
PluginChecker
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/46214/
Exactly, lock the plug-ins with a password. This is something I'm waiting since a long time ago.
It's my browser and I don't like changes being made without my explicit confirmation.
Good idea, but impossible to enforce. If you give a program rights to install local code, it can modify or bypass any security Mozilla implements.
If Wikileaks can get this stuff, imagine what foreign intelligence agencies can do. The U.S. government needs security proportional to the value of the data.
Deep Packet Inspection Set To Return
I didn't know Deep Packet Inspection ever went away. Did I miss something?
The source is an opinion piece that is quoting the TSA, both of which have reasons to release numbers that serve their purposes.
And if we're lucky families in the US, EU, AU and Asian communities will all enact the practice of killing less valuable babies like girls and those with disabilities in hopes of trying again until they get their one alloted good baby. Just like China!
Considering that there are more women in the U.S. workforce than men, and that there are many more women in college, and that men commit a disproportionate number of crimes, it's questionable who is more valuable. Also, women are necessary for reproduction, but men are not.
The two features I'm most hoping to see in WP7 is privacy and end-user control. iPhones and Droids are very poor in this regard: They control what you can install, they can uninstall software without your consent, and goodness knows how much your usage is tracked. Does anyone know how WP7 fares?
Another poster compared privacy today and in the pre-Internet world, which got me to thinking: Until now, innovations in information technology have generally reduced privacy by making it easier, by many orders of magnitude, to copy, distribute, and find information. Any info about you that's on the Web, for example, can be immediately distributed across the world, copied by whoever wants it, and found via Google.
But information technology could also be used to improve our privacy over the pre-Internet world: Encryption, of course, but also anonymization, DRM (for your personal info, such as copy restrictions and expiration dates), and using search engines to automatically find other data, including the pattern recognition engines that can find photos. Some of these could be regulatory requirements (businesses must anonymize personal info as much as possible, must use DRM with copy restrictions and an expiration date, encrypted it, and the business is responsible for monitoring the web for errant copies). Businesses already use these tools to protect their data and online identity; there's no reason private citizens can't use them too.
In some ways, private citizens could have more control, not less, of their privacy and identity if they use the tools in their favor.
I voted almost entirely GOP, knowing that gridlock is the only thing preventing either party from further spending away our long-term future on futile attempts to reinflate economic bubbles (e.g. housing) and prop up Ponzi schemes (e.g. Social Security). We can only hope that they do not attempt compromise and bipartisanship
I've had enough of ignorant outrage. To base our economic policy on a slogan like 'no more debt' is absurd. It reflects an ignorance about debt, which is the fuel of any economy, and about macroeconomics. How do you propose to resolve our economic problems, other than hyperbole, outrage, and ignorance?
I doubt it's intentional, but if Microsoft wanted to use their patent portfolio to scare businesses away from Linux (and I don't know that it's true), they probably would fantasize about reading this on the front page of Slashdot:
Does this mean that if I build PCs with Linux (Ubuntu/ChromeOS/Fedora) and sell them I am at risk of getting sued by Microsoft?
making life rather uncomfortable for those who don't integrate.
No, just for Muslims. There are plenty of others who don't integrate, and are not abused. It's just religious oppression, just like always.