1) they have a forum. The forum server they use is not configured correctly. Trying to get them to configure it correctly (with sendmail logs, etc) results in silence, or answers that shows an inability to even understand the simplest of MTA or debugging concepts.
EG, from my MTA (sendmail):
ruleset=check_mail, arg1=, relay=emencia02.ikoula.com [213.246.36.68], reject=553 5.1.8... Domain of sender address www-data@sarge.ikexpress.com does not exist
# host sarge.ikexpress.com Host sarge.ikexpress.com not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
The above is an attempt to send a confirmation email, whenever I try to register an account on their forum.
When it became apparent that their sysadmin was completely incompetent, I emailed every email address at Parrot I could find, that even remotely resembled someone in authority.
Zero response.
That is, so I thought! A *month* later, support responded to me.
Since then, I've done a lot of reading on the Parrot product I have (the mki9200). Support forums, and general responsiveness indicates that releases are rarely tested comprehensively. New releases often reintroduce old, resolved bugs. New releases *always* introduce SIGNIFICANT bugs.
Parrot seems to be an extremely incompetent company, with very poor after sale support.
Yes, they are. That's why on older country roads, which had older 'specs', you will sometimes see them 'straighten' a section of road. That is, if there are too many accidents, or the road has shown that an intersection is designed unsafe, it will be redesigned and upgraded to current engineering specs.
However, what are these specs based on? Are they based upon a top of the line car, with $2000 tires, and a braking distance 1/3 the length of a 1990s Ford Escort?
Or, are they designed for the *worst* cars on the roads?
The original article states that a car inspection would be required before permits could be issued. There is logic to this. There is a wide range of differing vehicle types on the road today, and the best are *easily* able to drive 100mph, and stop in 1/3 of the distance than the worst available.
This is a great ROM, and the whole crowd that put it together does deserve applause.
The only detractor is stability with smaller issues. There is an 'experimental' branch, which is essentially alpha like code, and the stable branch is more like a constantly moving, fairly mature beta.
Part of this, of course, is the speed with which this whole environment is moving. Just when the Cyanogenmod team release a ROM, it seems that a whole whack of changes manifest upstream, with the goal of a whole new Google branded release. So, naturally, the compulsion is to move to that newer codebase..
I'm hoping that for a while at least, Google doesn't fork for another release branch. Hell, there are already issues with phone manufacturers and the fragmentation in the Android market as a result. So, maybe it should be.. oh, I don't know, a YEAR before there is another fork and release on the Google side?
Perhaps then, people will be able to fork 6.1 or 6.2 of Cyanogenmod, and spent about 20 sub-releases just on stability issues.
All and all though, that would just be icing on the cake. And what a sweet cake it is!
Maybe I'm missing something, but Bing and their map product is VERY VERY new. Hell, it's been out of 'beta' for what, a year?
How many people are even using their app? How many apps for mobile phones, exist, that use Bing Maps?
It generally takes time to get these sorts of things worked out. Heck, look at Google! I've tried to have multiple issues fixed in my region. Streets labeled wrong, missing streets, extra streets that don't exist.
Do you think they've bothered fixing any of that.. even though I submitted these changes through a link for just such a purpose? Nope!
So, all that said and done, Microsoft is probably being quite honest in their desire to help down the road -- they may just not have the infrastructure / capacity set up yet.
The worst part of all of this, is that I just had to defend M$. Arg!
I'm not sure why you think 'can not' and 'cannot' are different. They have precisely the same meaning. Can't, can not, and cannot are precisely the same.
From the definition of 'can not' you provided above, it would seem that you are are mistaking the meaning of 'can not' for 'may not' or 'will not'.
Most people use 'can not' when they should be using 'may not' or 'will not'. An example would be asking a question such as, "Bob, can you come here?".
In almost all cases, Bob *can* "come here". There is no physical impediment for him doing so, yet he may *choose* to not come when you call. After all, he is a free man, and may have something he finds more important to do.
For example:
"Bob, can you come here?"
Answer: yes Result: Bob still remains sitting at his desk. Reason: Bob can come 'here', and has answered that he is able to (since there is no force field preventing him from doing so). However, by asking 'Bob, can you come here?", you have not even asked him to come to the location 'here'. You have only queried if he is *able* to approach 'here'!
"Bob, will you come here?"
Answer: yes Result: Bob gets up from his desk, and comes to location 'here'.
Another example:
"While driving this car, can you do 80mph?"
Yes! The car is capable of it, and so are you! It does not matter if you *will* do that speed, you have the capacity to do so, and not answering 'yes' would therefore be incorrect.
"While driving this call, *will* you do 80mph?"
No! I don't want a ticket!
Etc...
Note, I'm only mentioning it because the parent decided to try to educate someone on how 'can not' and 'cannot' are different.. when in fact they are precisely the same.
Define "proper english usage". Seriously, there is no government, corporation or anything else that I know of that even claims to control the English language, so "correct" usage is defined by the native speakers themselves.
I do not see how this disputes what I said above.
I did not state that correct english language usage was not defined by those that natively speak the language. Why would you think I did?
What we are talking about, is who will compile a 'report' of that language, in the form of dictionaries and other guides (grammar usage, etc).. and provide it for public consumption.
It takes *years* to master a language like english. Many users never will. Many of the words are not used by 99.99% of the population, but by those in specialized circumstance. Words specific to certain industries, or climates. Words specific to certain circumstances. "Fluff" words, that are used by certain classes, or regions.
Are we going to compile dictionaries for each class? Should we create a high and low english? Should we have dictionaries for the 100s of varying dialects of english, within a country? Dialects created by region, by culture, and yes -- even dialects created by your crèche, and your family?
We need 'one' english defined, so we can all at least agree on the non-colloquial terms for words.
Your argument seems to be that 'the average joe' should compile references for the language. However, much of the population is not literate. The UN's requirements for literacy are a joke. While there are claims of 99% literacy in the US and Canada, this is a joke. Many of that 99/100, are people that can barely read a newspaper. They are lucky to read STOP signs.
Are these barely literate people engaged in compiling this wiki dictionary too? If not, why not? They have definitions for the words used in the dictionary, too! They use the language every day! They speak it as well, so why are they not working on this wiki as well?
Traditional dictionaries actually spend money, and travel the country to discover new forms of usage, new words, and the like. These dictionaries even compile definitions from people that can not read and write! From people that are barely literate!
Again, how are these people represented in this wiki dictionary?
"In US usage, especially colloquial, of is often omitted, as in "I went there a couple times"."
"Especially colloquial", indeed. From where I sit, this highlights why Wiktionary has failed me at every use. Using this "dictionary" to defend the dropping of "of", is the same as using "Ain't" all over the place, because Wiktionary claims "However, its use is common among all social classes".
Common among all social classes, my ass. Yes, you see the Trumps (or the people they call peers), using ain't regularly.
This dictionary is a FAILURE. It will always be a failure, because most of the people editing it, are not capable of proper english usage!
(and yes, I left "english" lower case on purpose..)
Sure, but if you are left/centrist, this is why you should read them. (re: right wing political views)
I always make sure to read articles / magazines that make me angry. Otherwise, I will insulate myself, and risk becoming religious about my position. I'm more centrist, and tend to read articles from both ends of the political spectrum.
I've read The Economist for a while, and find that yes -- they do indeed tend to lean right. However, they have many articles that do not, and I've found that they do tend to (more often than others) simply attempt to present the facts.
Of course, you must make sure you differentiate between articles of opinion, and articles of news...
Lastly, The Economist tends to target an audience with a bit more intelligence than say.. Fox News... or other tabloid like publications. This makes its articles more palatable.
One last thing. I've often found that the true nutjobs come out at _both_ ends of the political spectrum.. very right or very left of central.
The problem is not the police, hands down. They are there to apply the law, whenever they can.
Frankly, the *last* thing I want to see, is a state where the police do not apply the law, because they don't feel like it. That's damned dangerous, in terms of the stability of the state.
Regardless, again, the problem is the way wacky speeding laws are passed. Here in Canada, we have new, moronic laws which (in some Provinces) can cause an automatic suspension of a license, if you are doing more than 50km/hr (30mph) over the limit.
This law includes towing of the vehicle, and entire families have been left at the side of the road -- with no way to get help.
Now, this sort of law makes sense in a 30km/hr zone. After all, generally all 30km/hr zones (here) are school zones. I don't care what your opinion is, screw you -- if you want to drive over 2 1/2 times the allotted speed, where children are running and playing.
However, we also have roads where the speed limit is 100km/hr, and where the *normal* traffic flow is 130km/hr. So, that means if you deviate by 20km/hr over the flow of traffic, you get your car impounded, and lose your license for a week?!
Proceed up the hill, and notice what you see. That's right, driveways hidden from view on both sides of the road. Now, the speed limit on this road is 90km/hr. Frankly, that's fine! You need to be aware of your surroundings, and provide additional awareness around such corners.
However, if a road like the above is 90km/hr (and trust me, that's a MILD example in this area), why is this road only 100km/hr?:
This is on of the '400' series of highways in Ontario. The speed limit on ALL of them, is 100km/hr. In the above shot, you can see in the distance a mild corner and incline. These roads are all built and designed for speed.
Yet, 100km/hr?!
These roads should be set to 160km/hr at a bare minimum. Or, the 90km/hr road should be set to 40km/hr.
Either way, it makes absolutely no sense.
Further, speed limit should vary defendant upon road conditions, the tires you have, etc.
For example, I live in Quebec, and have spiked tires. I can on icy roads, safely, at a significantly higher speed than people without spikes on their tires.
Why are speed limits so absurd? Well, frankly, it's because most legislators are from a time, when cars were designed quite differently than now.
Have you ever seen someone that is 70 drive a car? Yes, some of that is indeed age, but other parts of it are how the cars were designed, when they were young!
Anyhow... bah.
(sorry about the formatting -- for some reason, my input box is a mere 40 chars wide... someone at/. mangled something)
If there was no reaction time to be had, then the difference between ABS and non-ABS is generally moot.
In your case, you indicate that you braked 100% and 'steered away from him'. Therefore, there was reaction time, as you *steered* away from him... and you braked! That is a reaction, in a panic situation.
Had you tried to steer with non-ABS, your lightning, adrenaline charged reflexes would have removed your foot from the petal. Contrary to what you believe, you were not frozen. You made a fast decision, and part of that decision in a non-ABS world is to not lock up your brakes.
As natural as the "I need to steer around this" thought, would be the "fuck don't lock up the brakes" thought.
One thing I find amusing from pro-ABS pundits, is that all the ABS documentation states that you need to keep full pressure on ABS brakes, in order to use them properly. Well, naturally, of course you do! However, the very fact that this documentation exists, means that people are *trained* and *effectively* using modulated brake pressure! It means that because of this training, they are reducing the effectiveness of ABS.. and they are the sort of person that does not need it!
Again, a lot of this is training. It needs to be drilled into you.
Heck, outside of the whole ABS and non-ABS argument, is just training in general. Every time I buy a new car, I literally spend hours getting used to it. I take it to back roads, and lock up the brakes. I take it rarely used paved roads, and lock up the brakes. I get to see how it reacts in various situations, with the tires I plan to buy for the rest of the life of the car! Heck, how can you *possibly* brake as effectively, if you don't know when the car starts to slide, as a default?!
During the first respectable snow of the winter, I always go to empty parking lots, and slide around a bit. I brake, I yank the emergency brake, I slide around and get my winter legs back.
It's utterly startling to me that other people do not do these things.
Heck, before buying a car, I even spend *weeks* of research on the mechanics of the beast! That's why I know my car has 'electro-mechanical power' steering. The concept scared me quite a bit from the name alone, before I learned precisely what is involved.
So, my point is, I realise that what I do.. sadly, is not the norm. However, back to ABS, my point is that training + standard brakes are better than ABS, if you take into account all of the areas that ABS performs poorly in.
I'd actually be much happier if I could simply disable the ability for the car to ever over-ride my judgment... and safely.
Actually, that was the first thing I checked. The front/rear proportioning value is separate from the ABS pump system in this car, which is quite handy.
In fact, my car has two fuses for ABS. Once controls the ABS computer, the other controls the ABS brake pump. If you unplug the ABS brake pump, the rest of the ABS system still works -- in that it can detect wheel slippage, etc. This allows the proportioning value to function without issue.
And, , yes, I am one who can threshold brake properly in an emergency situation. It would seem that you are a tool of the ABS industry... and you are touting the entire reason that ABS was pushed by those with ABS patents and technologies in the first place. This plays into the whole "everyone is equal" line of bullshit.. in that "I can't do this, therefore you can't do this". We all have differing abilities, including speed of reflexes, you name it.
It is interesting, though, that ABS is now no longer a requirement on new cars in the US. Why do you think that is, when it was mandated before?
Regardless...
This isn't about reflex speed, it is about how you handle yourself in an emergency. Like many things, experience is the key to that, more than anything. I happened to grow up in one of the snowiest parts of Canada.... North of Lake Ontario.
Just Google "lake effect snow" if you are curious.
Further, I grew up in the country, which means I learned to drive on loose gravel dirt roads in the summer, ice and snow covered roads in the winter, and everything else in between. I had few driving surfaces that didn't move under the car as I turned a corner. Everyone I know, when learning to drive in my area, ditched their car multiple times during their first few years. If they didn't, it basically meant that they didn't drive during the winter..
Or...
That they were taught how to drive on frozen lakes, and in farmer's fields.
There is literally no better training tool than bald tires, and a frozen lake to learn how to stop on ice, and to give you confidence. Further, there is no better supplementary tool to that experience, than driving on snow and ice covered dirt laneways in the winter, with the only causality ending up in a farmer's field. A tree looming ahead of your car, is just as good of a test, as a stopped vehicle.
It's quite true with anything requiring quick action. A policeman having to respond to an emergency (robbery). A security guard in a bank. Someone that has experienced military action. Volunteer firemen. Learning to react in an emergency, instead of freezing up, is quite important.
That being said, sure.. there are people that can't learn to react in an emergency. They just freeze up. Some of them don't even apply the brakes... they just freeze and smash into whatever is in front of them.
Oh, and lastly...
As I alluded to in my previous post, braking distance is INCREASED with ABS, compared to LOCKING UP THE BRAKES, in many circumstances.
For example, if you are braking on gravel, it is MUCH better to simply lock up the brakes. Yup, that's right! When you lock up the brakes on gravel, your tires DIG INTO the gravel, and you slow down much faster than with ABS. My own tests do indeed show a 2-3x longer braking distance with ABS on gravel!
The same goes for deep snow (2+ inches or more), which is quite common here. In fact, almost all of the roads have snow on them of that depth, as they are gravel, and you can't plow right down to the road surface. Much like with gravel, applying braking pressure that causes the tires to slide a bit at first, actually helps, because it causes snow to build up IN FRONT OF THE TIRES.
As well, let's say you are sliding on ice! Slam the brakes on, spin the wheel in the direction you want to go, and then let off the brakes. Blamo! You'll take off in that direction!
ABS prevents all of these things from happening, and since there's snow on the road here 6 months a year, I'd prefer no ABS thank you very much.
Again, why do you think ABS is no longer mandatory on cars destined for the US market... when it was a few years back?
ELECTRONIC, DRIVE BY WIRE WILL NEVER EVER EVER BE AS SAFE AS A THROTTLE CABLE!
A throttle cable is 100 years old, has been tested for every contingency, provides completely accurate feedback as to the state of the control (as in, you can tell if it is getting sticky, or if it is stuck with utter accuracy).
Drive by wire? Welcome to millions of lines of code, which changes multiple times per year (updates for various issues flashed at the dealer), and which is completely revamped for every new model of car, and every new generation of a model!
It's *absurd*.
There is *no reason* for drive by wire, except:
1) to save car manufacturers $10 per car 2) to enable remote disabling of cars!
That's it! It's all about saving tiny amounts of money, at massive risk to consumers.
Hell, it's bad enough that ABS is on cars, which increases braking distance (all circumstances!), sometimes by a factor of 3x (gravel, deep snow)! It's bad enough that car manufacturers replace a proper differential, with "electronic differential lock", which means the car wears out your brakes, creating an inferior, fake diff, which can even prevent people from climbing gravel hills a standard diff has no issues with!
I own a $35k VW, and its braking and handling was INFERIOR to a TWENTY YEAR OLDER CAR, until I disabled ABS, and installed a real diff into the same. Worse, that new VW is a turbo, and *TAKES OFF LIKE A ROCKET* when commanded.. but again.. has inferior braking and handling ability?!
There is not one single electronic control system on a car, that provides *ANY* compelling reason to use it, when compared with the disadvantages.
That is, unless you're a GREEDY car company, that wants to REDUCE THEIR COSTS by integrating electronic control systems into cars.
I am already annoyed, pissed off, angry and fed up with having to use lame gmail and other core Google services on my Android device. I have PRIVATE business contacts in there. I have NO PERSONAL CONTACTS.
I do not want them seeing each other, seeing when I am online, what I am doing, where I am, or anything of the sort! I use corporate email, not silly gmail for emailing my clients, both from my phone and from my desktop. The *only* reason I use gmail is for the calendar and contacts that I am *FORCED* to keep there.
If Google makes me, or my company the least bit *more* uncomfortable with this situation, we'll be moving to Blackberries.
BAH!
Google has gone so far downhill, I've actually tried Bing!. I *HATE* Microsoft. I _LOATH_ them. Google is just getting so bad, however, I had to try!
Heck, it's almost impossible to search for what you want on Google now, as it constantly changes your search terms. You pretty much have to add a + in front of every search keyword, in order to get what you want. Shouldn't that be opt-out? You know, an "actually search for things I asked for, not things you suggest" option?
Now they have those idiotic search suggestions, while you are typing. Annoying, and slow. About 1% of the time I search for something (I'm in IT, I search hundreds of times per day), the Google redirect domain they use is slow, and you have to reload to get where you want to go. Now they have personalized searches, which of course just makes things worse.. so now I have to randomize all Google cookies using a Firefox app.
I'm not going to scan the whole comment section, to see if this has been mentioned before.
However, this probably is the best bet of all.
First, donating a week's worth of time, would be useless for almost anything but the most base of manual labour. Anything that requires any form of training would be a show stopper, as you'd waste someone's time training and watching you, only to leave just as you got the hang of it.
Moving a pile of rocks around is one thing, but most jobs require you are up to speed -- manual labour or not.
Second, vacation time is important for you to keep mentally fit. Being fit means you are better able to work, the rest of the year. Being better able to work, means you'll be employed -- and that you'll be paying taxes.
Taxes which go to help places that need help, though foreign aid.
Frankly, while the author may have his heart in the right place, it's a request that turns out to be selfish in the end. Rather than helping, it ends up becoming a place where "those rich guys" can go for a week, to feel that they've done something important during the rest of the year....
Heck, for many jobs, you're not really very productive for the first few weeks -- during that time, you're 'learning the ropes'.
I hope there isn't any pinch zoom.. that's horrid.
Most of the time, I have my phone in one hand. Why would I want it to be a 2 hand experience?! Why would I want to have to hold the phone with one hand, and zoom with the other.
Right now, I can zoom in and out with one hand. Double tap to zoom in, triple to zoom out.
Why does double tap offend you?! Is it because another phone uses pinch zoom, and therefore, Android should have it?
Why?
As far as I'm concerned, I hate gestures. They suck. Further, I've used the iphone. It really isn't all that impressive.
It doesn't multitask, it's locked down three ways sideways, it just seems so behind the times to me.
Please keep your pinch zoom dreams, away from my OS!
The issue with many corporations storing data, is not necessarily what they are doing with that information now. It is:
1) whether or not their servers are infiltrated, and therefore the data is mined by other, untrustworthies
2) what happens when the government decides to demand information
Google has had many break ins. Even the best controlled environment can be compromised, and Google's sheer size and scope, indicates a greater exposed presence. I would suspect that out of their vast number of offices, their vast exposed services, that on some level they are currently, and always will be, compromised.
One also has to consider that in any corporation of Google's size, there will be illegal activities by various employees, primarily for financial gain. There will also be various government agents for the same reason, undercover and otherwise working for Google in good stead.
On top of this, Google has willingly handed over information to governments around the world. They comply with court orders and domestic law, which makes sense for any organization. Such as the case is, you not only have to worry about today's data, but what happens to any data they have ever had, and kept. Law enforcement agencies could simply seize all backups, seize current backups and work on restoring older backups on those same tapes, etc.
One must always be concerned with how data collected today, may be used two years from now. Look at the whole Bush fiasco. Telcos, WITHOUT EVEN ANY LEGAL REASON TO DO SO, simply handed over data illegally to the government. The change happened almost instantly after 9/11, and within a few months, millions of citizens were suddenly being watched by government agencies in the US.
I really don't see how immune Google is to this. How many gag orders are they under right now? How many breaches have there been?
You don't know, I don't know, but it would be foolish to assume that when Google says they only retain for 48 hours, that this doesn't mean records are not kept by other means.. some not even in Google's control...
First, they call publicly, for a beta test of an Android reader. They use Android users, primarily with G1s, to test their new reader software.
Then, after a while, they transition to their lame Nook, proceed with months and months of testing on that platform, then release the Nook.
Where is the software for Android phones? When I emailed, they seemed to think the concept was quite bizarre.
They have software for WM6, and other phones, but when THEY USE READERS TO DEVEL SOFTWARE FOR THEIR NEW HARDWARE PLATFORM, HOW DO THEY REPAY THEM!
With a big finger!!
Frankly, I've stopped using my fictionwise.com account, which is part of B&N now. I'll just pirate books, it's easier.
(I used to buy an ebook a week, so "easy" is quite often "click to buy". It isn't, any more, since I have to undrm, decode and convert books to a txt based reader anyhow!)
I add, to highlight their clownliness, that the very site selling the Nook, has a download link for the PC, Mac, and Blackberry versions of their software.
Meanwhile, the useless Nook is running an Android version of their eReader software, and I CAN NOT DOWNLOAD IT.
These clowns are, essentially, going to lose my business, forever.
I've owned an Android device, since day one. There is not one single good ebook reader on the device. Not one.
(hint: if you don't support raw HTML or TEXT, as well as your proprietary format, you're not a good ebook reader. You also shouldn't crash all the time, as well.).
So, good old Barnes and Noble said a year ago, that they'd be releasing ebook reader software for android. Good news, I thought! Good to hear! After all, Amazon bought out Mobipocket, and instantly ended all releases of that software. There will most likely never be an Android release of Mobipocket, because it conflicts with Amazon's Kindle.
Gee, good to see competition, eh?
Now B&N decide to develop their own device. Well, la-de-da! Instead of releasing for the very OS their device is based upon, they hold back. Worse, they even use Android users as beta testers, but don't release the goods! Where is my ereader software for Android, you useless bastards? WHERE IS IT?!
So, now we have Amazon, preventing generic ebook reader software for Mobipocket being developed, and now we have B&N doing the same, it would seem?!
No, I don't think you are correct in stating that you 'all' know. For starters, there are people here indicating that there should be no expectation for quality of service, since it is a 'free' service. You *are* paying for the service, and in exchange, you should demand a certain level of quality.
"Free" would be a download of Ubuntu. While there are certain social expectations that go along with using open source, none of them are ripped from you, whilst you use that product. The closest I can think of, is Firefox defaulting to Google's home page... which you can change at will.
In other words, you are free not to pay those hidden charges.
I've seen people state that they should buy pizza from company $x, because they give you a second pizza 'free'.
Er. There is no free pizza. You're paying for both of them.
Most people don't realise the true cost of things. They have been bedazzled by the constant corporate speak that pervades our lives. Heck, most people don't even consider the real world cost of *anything*.
So, yes.. some people realise it. For the large part, most don't.
As for yourself? You don't realise it, not really. You're supporting those that define 'free' as 'no government sponsored currency changed hands'. You probably use the word incorrectly... in fact, you advocated just that!
During WWII, for the aeons before the US entered the war, they were 'neutral'. Neutral to all the death and slaughter, and cry for help from their allies.
Uh, sorry.. off track a bit there.:P
Seriously though, it wasn't all bad. For whatever reasons the US remained neutral, they weren't as neutral as could be. One thing they did, was 'accidentally' leave massive quantities of ammunition and weaponry right near the US border. Somehow, the Canadian military would fine out, and would 'steal' this weaponry and ammunition.. which was quickly transported to the UK, and then to the front lines... that is, whatever would make it across the German sub riddled sea.
Point being, there is no reason that this can't be the same way. You write off the equipment, you throw it in a dumpster in the back, and then someone tells someone that there are computers in the garbage.
At that point, they've been trashed. All is well on one side, and the other can act as they wish...
Slashdot Mirror
http://code.google.com/p/droidwall/
Works very well, but you need root.
Parrot has *horrible* customer support. EG:
1) they have a forum. The forum server they use is not configured correctly. Trying to get them to configure it correctly (with sendmail logs, etc) results in silence, or answers that shows an inability to even understand the simplest of MTA or debugging concepts.
EG, from my MTA (sendmail):
ruleset=check_mail, arg1=, relay=emencia02.ikoula.com [213.246.36.68], reject=553 5.1.8 ... Domain of sender address www-data@sarge.ikexpress.com does not exist
# host sarge.ikexpress.com
Host sarge.ikexpress.com not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
The above is an attempt to send a confirmation email, whenever I try to register an account on their forum.
When it became apparent that their sysadmin was completely incompetent, I emailed every email address at Parrot I could find, that even remotely resembled someone in authority.
Zero response.
That is, so I thought! A *month* later, support responded to me.
Since then, I've done a lot of reading on the Parrot product I have (the mki9200). Support forums, and general responsiveness indicates that releases are rarely tested comprehensively. New releases often reintroduce old, resolved bugs. New releases *always* introduce SIGNIFICANT bugs.
Parrot seems to be an extremely incompetent company, with very poor after sale support.
I'd stay clear. Very, very clear.
"Roads are constructed to engineering specs."
Yes, they are. That's why on older country roads, which had older 'specs', you will sometimes see them 'straighten' a section of road. That is, if there are too many accidents, or the road has shown that an intersection is designed unsafe, it will be redesigned and upgraded to current engineering specs.
However, what are these specs based on? Are they based upon a top of the line car, with $2000 tires, and a braking distance 1/3 the length of a 1990s Ford Escort?
Or, are they designed for the *worst* cars on the roads?
The original article states that a car inspection would be required before permits could be issued. There is logic to this. There is a wide range of differing vehicle types on the road today, and the best are *easily* able to drive 100mph, and stop in 1/3 of the distance than the worst available.
All cars are not equal.
This is a great ROM, and the whole crowd that put it together does deserve applause.
The only detractor is stability with smaller issues. There is an 'experimental' branch, which is essentially alpha like code, and the stable branch is more like a constantly moving, fairly mature beta.
Part of this, of course, is the speed with which this whole environment is moving. Just when the Cyanogenmod team release a ROM, it seems that a whole whack of changes manifest upstream, with the goal of a whole new Google branded release. So, naturally, the compulsion is to move to that newer codebase..
I'm hoping that for a while at least, Google doesn't fork for another release branch. Hell, there are already issues with phone manufacturers and the fragmentation in the Android market as a result. So, maybe it should be.. oh, I don't know, a YEAR before there is another fork and release on the Google side?
Perhaps then, people will be able to fork 6.1 or 6.2 of Cyanogenmod, and spent about 20 sub-releases just on stability issues.
All and all though, that would just be icing on the cake. And what a sweet cake it is!
Thanks Cyanogenmod dudes!
Maybe I'm missing something, but Bing and their map product is VERY VERY new. Hell, it's been out of 'beta' for what, a year?
How many people are even using their app? How many apps for mobile phones, exist, that use Bing Maps?
It generally takes time to get these sorts of things worked out. Heck, look at Google! I've tried to have multiple issues fixed in my region. Streets labeled wrong, missing streets, extra streets that don't exist.
Do you think they've bothered fixing any of that.. even though I submitted these changes through a link for just such a purpose? Nope!
So, all that said and done, Microsoft is probably being quite honest in their desire to help down the road -- they may just not have the infrastructure / capacity set up yet.
The worst part of all of this, is that I just had to defend M$. Arg!
I'm not sure why you think 'can not' and 'cannot' are different. They have precisely the same meaning. Can't, can not, and cannot are precisely the same.
From the definition of 'can not' you provided above, it would seem that you are are mistaking the meaning of 'can not' for 'may not' or 'will not'.
Most people use 'can not' when they should be using 'may not' or 'will not'. An example would be asking a question such as, "Bob, can you come here?".
In almost all cases, Bob *can* "come here". There is no physical impediment for him doing so, yet he may *choose* to not come when you call. After all, he is a free man, and may have something he finds more important to do.
For example:
"Bob, can you come here?"
Answer: yes
Result: Bob still remains sitting at his desk.
Reason: Bob can come 'here', and has answered that he is able to (since there is no force field preventing him from doing so). However, by asking 'Bob, can you come here?", you have not even asked him to come to the location 'here'. You have only queried if he is *able* to approach 'here'!
"Bob, will you come here?"
Answer: yes
Result: Bob gets up from his desk, and comes to location 'here'.
Another example:
"While driving this car, can you do 80mph?"
Yes! The car is capable of it, and so are you! It does not matter if you *will* do that speed, you have the capacity to do so, and not answering 'yes' would therefore be incorrect.
"While driving this call, *will* you do 80mph?"
No! I don't want a ticket!
Etc...
Note, I'm only mentioning it because the parent decided to try to educate someone on how 'can not' and 'cannot' are different.. when in fact they are precisely the same.
Define "proper english usage". Seriously, there is no government, corporation or anything else that I know of that even claims to control the English language, so "correct" usage is defined by the native speakers themselves.
I do not see how this disputes what I said above. I did not state that correct english language usage was not defined by those that natively speak the language. Why would you think I did? What we are talking about, is who will compile a 'report' of that language, in the form of dictionaries and other guides (grammar usage, etc).. and provide it for public consumption. It takes *years* to master a language like english. Many users never will. Many of the words are not used by 99.99% of the population, but by those in specialized circumstance. Words specific to certain industries, or climates. Words specific to certain circumstances. "Fluff" words, that are used by certain classes, or regions. Are we going to compile dictionaries for each class? Should we create a high and low english? Should we have dictionaries for the 100s of varying dialects of english, within a country? Dialects created by region, by culture, and yes -- even dialects created by your crèche, and your family? We need 'one' english defined, so we can all at least agree on the non-colloquial terms for words. Your argument seems to be that 'the average joe' should compile references for the language. However, much of the population is not literate. The UN's requirements for literacy are a joke. While there are claims of 99% literacy in the US and Canada, this is a joke. Many of that 99/100, are people that can barely read a newspaper. They are lucky to read STOP signs. Are these barely literate people engaged in compiling this wiki dictionary too? If not, why not? They have definitions for the words used in the dictionary, too! They use the language every day! They speak it as well, so why are they not working on this wiki as well? Traditional dictionaries actually spend money, and travel the country to discover new forms of usage, new words, and the like. These dictionaries even compile definitions from people that can not read and write! From people that are barely literate! Again, how are these people represented in this wiki dictionary?
"In US usage, especially colloquial, of is often omitted, as in "I went there a couple times"."
"Especially colloquial", indeed. From where I sit, this highlights why Wiktionary has failed me at every use. Using this "dictionary" to defend the dropping of "of", is the same as using "Ain't" all over the place, because Wiktionary claims "However, its use is common among all social classes".
Common among all social classes, my ass. Yes, you see the Trumps (or the people they call peers), using ain't regularly.
This dictionary is a FAILURE. It will always be a failure, because most of the people editing it, are not capable of proper english usage!
(and yes, I left "english" lower case on purpose..)
Sure, but if you are left/centrist, this is why you should read them. (re: right wing political views)
I always make sure to read articles / magazines that make me angry. Otherwise, I will insulate myself, and risk becoming religious about my position. I'm more centrist, and tend to read articles from both ends of the political spectrum.
I've read The Economist for a while, and find that yes -- they do indeed tend to lean right. However, they have many articles that do not, and I've found that they do tend to (more often than others) simply attempt to present the facts.
Of course, you must make sure you differentiate between articles of opinion, and articles of news...
Lastly, The Economist tends to target an audience with a bit more intelligence than say.. Fox News... or other tabloid like publications. This makes its articles more palatable.
One last thing. I've often found that the true nutjobs come out at _both_ ends of the political spectrum.. very right or very left of central.
My points are quite clearly listed in my original post, but you missed those.
So, as I said:
"How can it not be, when you ignore all the specifics of my post when replying to it?"
My submission is not mindless.
How can it not be, when you ignore all the specifics of my post when replying to it?
The problem is not the police, hands down. They are there to apply the law, whenever they can.
Frankly, the *last* thing I want to see, is a state where the police do not apply the law, because they don't feel like it. That's damned dangerous, in terms of the stability of the state.
Regardless, again, the problem is the way wacky speeding laws are passed. Here in Canada, we have new, moronic laws which (in some Provinces) can cause an automatic suspension of a license, if you are doing more than 50km/hr (30mph) over the limit.
This law includes towing of the vehicle, and entire families have been left at the side of the road -- with no way to get help.
Now, this sort of law makes sense in a 30km/hr zone. After all, generally all 30km/hr zones (here) are school zones. I don't care what your opinion is, screw you -- if you want to drive over 2 1/2 times the allotted speed, where children are running and playing.
However, we also have roads where the speed limit is 100km/hr, and where the *normal* traffic flow is 130km/hr. So, that means if you deviate by 20km/hr over the flow of traffic, you get your car impounded, and lose your license for a week?!
Absurd!
Back to other absurdities.
Take a look at this road:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=45.453542,-75.925224&spn=0,359.996063&t=k&z=19&layer=c&cbll=45.453619,-75.925304&panoid=qZDB8JSv42kTdg16DizW5g&cbp=12,146.26,,0,1.87
Proceed up the hill, and notice what you see. That's right, driveways hidden from view on both sides of the road. Now, the speed limit on this road is 90km/hr. Frankly, that's fine! You need to be aware of your surroundings, and provide additional awareness around such corners.
However, if a road like the above is 90km/hr (and trust me, that's a MILD example in this area), why is this road only 100km/hr?:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=44.888004,-75.567334&spn=0,359.992125&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=44.888031,-75.568744&panoid=0gn7kAXFZ5xIKPY5t7SANQ&cbp=12,349.6,,0,2.61
This is on of the '400' series of highways in Ontario. The speed limit on ALL of them, is 100km/hr. In the above shot, you can see in the distance a mild corner and incline. These roads are all built and designed for speed.
Yet, 100km/hr?!
These roads should be set to 160km/hr at a bare minimum. Or, the 90km/hr road should be set to 40km/hr.
Either way, it makes absolutely no sense.
Further, speed limit should vary defendant upon road conditions, the tires you have, etc.
For example, I live in Quebec, and have spiked tires. I can on icy roads, safely, at a significantly higher speed than people without spikes on their tires.
Why are speed limits so absurd? Well, frankly, it's because most legislators are from a time, when cars were designed quite differently than now.
Have you ever seen someone that is 70 drive a car? Yes, some of that is indeed age, but other parts of it are how the cars were designed, when they were young!
Anyhow... bah.
(sorry about the formatting -- for some reason, my input box is a mere 40 chars wide... someone at /. mangled something)
Er...
Sorry about the url.. here it is again...
http://vps.l8r.net/Electro-Mechanical_Power_Steering.pdf
If there was no reaction time to be had, then the difference between ABS and non-ABS is generally moot.
In your case, you indicate that you braked 100% and 'steered away from him'. Therefore, there was reaction time, as you *steered* away from him... and you braked! That is a reaction, in a panic situation.
Had you tried to steer with non-ABS, your lightning, adrenaline charged reflexes would have removed your foot from the petal. Contrary to what you believe, you were not frozen. You made a fast decision, and part of that decision in a non-ABS world is to not lock up your brakes.
As natural as the "I need to steer around this" thought, would be the "fuck don't lock up the brakes" thought.
One thing I find amusing from pro-ABS pundits, is that all the ABS documentation states that you need to keep full pressure on ABS brakes, in order to use them properly. Well, naturally, of course you do! However, the very fact that this documentation exists, means that people are *trained* and *effectively* using modulated brake pressure! It means that because of this training, they are reducing the effectiveness of ABS.. and they are the sort of person that does not need it!
Again, a lot of this is training. It needs to be drilled into you.
Heck, outside of the whole ABS and non-ABS argument, is just training in general. Every time I buy a new car, I literally spend hours getting used to it. I take it to back roads, and lock up the brakes. I take it rarely used paved roads, and lock up the brakes. I get to see how it reacts in various situations, with the tires I plan to buy for the rest of the life of the car! Heck, how can you *possibly* brake as effectively, if you don't know when the car starts to slide, as a default?!
During the first respectable snow of the winter, I always go to empty parking lots, and slide around a bit. I brake, I yank the emergency brake, I slide around and get my winter legs back.
It's utterly startling to me that other people do not do these things.
Heck, before buying a car, I even spend *weeks* of research on the mechanics of the beast! That's why I know my car has 'electro-mechanical power' steering. The concept scared me quite a bit from the name alone, before I learned precisely what is involved.
(check it out here: Electro-Mechanical_Power_Steering.pdf, I'll remove it in a few days... it's actually quite cool!)
So, my point is, I realise that what I do .. sadly, is not the norm. However, back to ABS, my point is that training + standard brakes are better than ABS, if you take into account all of the areas that ABS performs poorly in.
I'd actually be much happier if I could simply disable the ability for the car to ever over-ride my judgment... and safely.
Actually, that was the first thing I checked. The front/rear proportioning value is separate from the ABS pump system in this car, which is quite handy.
In fact, my car has two fuses for ABS. Once controls the ABS computer, the other controls the ABS brake pump. If you unplug the ABS brake pump, the rest of the ABS system still works -- in that it can detect wheel slippage, etc. This allows the proportioning value to function without issue.
And, , yes, I am one who can threshold brake properly in an emergency situation. It would seem that you are a tool of the ABS industry... and you are touting the entire reason that ABS was pushed by those with ABS patents and technologies in the first place. This plays into the whole "everyone is equal" line of bullshit.. in that "I can't do this, therefore you can't do this". We all have differing abilities, including speed of reflexes, you name it.
It is interesting, though, that ABS is now no longer a requirement on new cars in the US. Why do you think that is, when it was mandated before?
Regardless...
This isn't about reflex speed, it is about how you handle yourself in an emergency. Like many things, experience is the key to that, more than anything. I happened to grow up in one of the snowiest parts of Canada.... North of Lake Ontario.
Just Google "lake effect snow" if you are curious.
Further, I grew up in the country, which means I learned to drive on loose gravel dirt roads in the summer, ice and snow covered roads in the winter, and everything else in between. I had few driving surfaces that didn't move under the car as I turned a corner. Everyone I know, when learning to drive in my area, ditched their car multiple times during their first few years. If they didn't, it basically meant that they didn't drive during the winter..
Or...
That they were taught how to drive on frozen lakes, and in farmer's fields.
There is literally no better training tool than bald tires, and a frozen lake to learn how to stop on ice, and to give you confidence. Further, there is no better supplementary tool to that experience, than driving on snow and ice covered dirt laneways in the winter, with the only causality ending up in a farmer's field. A tree looming ahead of your car, is just as good of a test, as a stopped vehicle.
It's quite true with anything requiring quick action. A policeman having to respond to an emergency (robbery). A security guard in a bank. Someone that has experienced military action. Volunteer firemen. Learning to react in an emergency, instead of freezing up, is quite important.
That being said, sure .. there are people that can't learn to react in an emergency. They just freeze up. Some of them don't even apply the brakes... they just freeze and smash into whatever is in front of them.
Oh, and lastly...
As I alluded to in my previous post, braking distance is INCREASED with ABS, compared to LOCKING UP THE BRAKES, in many circumstances.
For example, if you are braking on gravel, it is MUCH better to simply lock up the brakes. Yup, that's right! When you lock up the brakes on gravel, your tires DIG INTO the gravel, and you slow down much faster than with ABS. My own tests do indeed show a 2-3x longer braking distance with ABS on gravel!
The same goes for deep snow (2+ inches or more), which is quite common here. In fact, almost all of the roads have snow on them of that depth, as they are gravel, and you can't plow right down to the road surface. Much like with gravel, applying braking pressure that causes the tires to slide a bit at first, actually helps, because it causes snow to build up IN FRONT OF THE TIRES.
As well, let's say you are sliding on ice! Slam the brakes on, spin the wheel in the direction you want to go, and then let off the brakes. Blamo! You'll take off in that direction!
ABS prevents all of these things from happening, and since there's snow on the road here 6 months a year, I'd prefer no ABS thank you very much.
Again, why do you think ABS is no longer mandatory on cars destined for the US market... when it was a few years back?
Well here's a hint.
ELECTRONIC, DRIVE BY WIRE WILL NEVER EVER EVER BE AS SAFE AS A THROTTLE CABLE!
A throttle cable is 100 years old, has been tested for every contingency, provides completely accurate feedback as to the state of the control (as in, you can tell if it is getting sticky, or if it is stuck with utter accuracy).
Drive by wire? Welcome to millions of lines of code, which changes multiple times per year (updates for various issues flashed at the dealer), and which is completely revamped for every new model of car, and every new generation of a model!
It's *absurd*.
There is *no reason* for drive by wire, except:
1) to save car manufacturers $10 per car
2) to enable remote disabling of cars!
That's it! It's all about saving tiny amounts of money, at massive risk to consumers.
Hell, it's bad enough that ABS is on cars, which increases braking distance (all circumstances!), sometimes by a factor of 3x (gravel, deep snow)! It's bad enough that car manufacturers replace a proper differential, with "electronic differential lock", which means the car wears out your brakes, creating an inferior, fake diff, which can even prevent people from climbing gravel hills a standard diff has no issues with!
I own a $35k VW, and its braking and handling was INFERIOR to a TWENTY YEAR OLDER CAR, until I disabled ABS, and installed a real diff into the same. Worse, that new VW is a turbo, and *TAKES OFF LIKE A ROCKET* when commanded.. but again.. has inferior braking and handling ability?!
There is not one single electronic control system on a car, that provides *ANY* compelling reason to use it, when compared with the disadvantages.
That is, unless you're a GREEDY car company, that wants to REDUCE THEIR COSTS by integrating electronic control systems into cars.
NO!
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
Did I mention, NO?
I am already annoyed, pissed off, angry and fed up with having to use lame gmail and other core Google services on my Android device. I have PRIVATE business contacts in there. I have NO PERSONAL CONTACTS.
I do not want them seeing each other, seeing when I am online, what I am doing, where I am, or anything of the sort! I use corporate email, not silly gmail for emailing my clients, both from my phone and from my desktop. The *only* reason I use gmail is for the calendar and contacts that I am *FORCED* to keep there.
If Google makes me, or my company the least bit *more* uncomfortable with this situation, we'll be moving to Blackberries.
BAH!
Google has gone so far downhill, I've actually tried Bing!. I *HATE* Microsoft. I _LOATH_ them. Google is just getting so bad, however, I had to try!
Heck, it's almost impossible to search for what you want on Google now, as it constantly changes your search terms. You pretty much have to add a + in front of every search keyword, in order to get what you want. Shouldn't that be opt-out? You know, an "actually search for things I asked for, not things you suggest" option?
Now they have those idiotic search suggestions, while you are typing. Annoying, and slow. About 1% of the time I search for something (I'm in IT, I search hundreds of times per day), the Google redirect domain they use is slow, and you have to reload to get where you want to go. Now they have personalized searches, which of course just makes things worse.. so now I have to randomize all Google cookies using a Firefox app.
What is wrong with these people?
I'm not going to scan the whole comment section, to see if this has been mentioned before.
However, this probably is the best bet of all.
First, donating a week's worth of time, would be useless for almost anything but the most base of manual labour. Anything that requires any form of training would be a show stopper, as you'd waste someone's time training and watching you, only to leave just as you got the hang of it.
Moving a pile of rocks around is one thing, but most jobs require you are up to speed -- manual labour or not.
Second, vacation time is important for you to keep mentally fit. Being fit means you are better able to work, the rest of the year. Being better able to work, means you'll be employed -- and that you'll be paying taxes.
Taxes which go to help places that need help, though foreign aid.
Frankly, while the author may have his heart in the right place, it's a request that turns out to be selfish in the end. Rather than helping, it ends up becoming a place where "those rich guys" can go for a week, to feel that they've done something important during the rest of the year....
Heck, for many jobs, you're not really very productive for the first few weeks -- during that time, you're 'learning the ropes'.
I hope there isn't any pinch zoom.. that's horrid.
Most of the time, I have my phone in one hand. Why would I want it to be a 2 hand experience?! Why would I want to have to hold the phone with one hand, and zoom with the other.
Right now, I can zoom in and out with one hand. Double tap to zoom in, triple to zoom out.
Why does double tap offend you?! Is it because another phone uses pinch zoom, and therefore, Android should have it?
Why?
As far as I'm concerned, I hate gestures. They suck. Further, I've used the iphone. It really isn't all that impressive.
It doesn't multitask, it's locked down three ways sideways, it just seems so behind the times to me.
Please keep your pinch zoom dreams, away from my OS!
The issue with many corporations storing data, is not necessarily what they are doing with that information now. It is:
1) whether or not their servers are infiltrated, and therefore the data is mined by other, untrustworthies
2) what happens when the government decides to demand information
Google has had many break ins. Even the best controlled environment can be compromised, and Google's sheer size and scope, indicates a greater exposed presence. I would suspect that out of their vast number of offices, their vast exposed services, that on some level they are currently, and always will be, compromised.
One also has to consider that in any corporation of Google's size, there will be illegal activities by various employees, primarily for financial gain. There will also be various government agents for the same reason, undercover and otherwise working for Google in good stead.
On top of this, Google has willingly handed over information to governments around the world. They comply with court orders and domestic law, which makes sense for any organization. Such as the case is, you not only have to worry about today's data, but what happens to any data they have ever had, and kept. Law enforcement agencies could simply seize all backups, seize current backups and work on restoring older backups on those same tapes, etc.
One must always be concerned with how data collected today, may be used two years from now. Look at the whole Bush fiasco. Telcos, WITHOUT EVEN ANY LEGAL REASON TO DO SO, simply handed over data illegally to the government. The change happened almost instantly after 9/11, and within a few months, millions of citizens were suddenly being watched by government agencies in the US.
I really don't see how immune Google is to this. How many gag orders are they under right now? How many breaches have there been?
You don't know, I don't know, but it would be foolish to assume that when Google says they only retain for 48 hours, that this doesn't mean records are not kept by other means.. some not even in Google's control...
B&N are quite lame.
First, they call publicly, for a beta test of an Android reader. They use Android users, primarily with G1s, to test their new reader software.
Then, after a while, they transition to their lame Nook, proceed with months and months of testing on that platform, then release the Nook.
Where is the software for Android phones? When I emailed, they seemed to think the concept was quite bizarre.
They have software for WM6, and other phones, but when THEY USE READERS TO DEVEL SOFTWARE FOR THEIR NEW HARDWARE PLATFORM, HOW DO THEY REPAY THEM!
With a big finger!!
Frankly, I've stopped using my fictionwise.com account, which is part of B&N now. I'll just pirate books, it's easier.
(I used to buy an ebook a week, so "easy" is quite often "click to buy". It isn't, any more, since I have to undrm, decode and convert books to a txt based reader anyhow!)
I add, to highlight their clownliness, that the very site selling the Nook, has a download link for the PC, Mac, and Blackberry versions of their software.
Meanwhile, the useless Nook is running an Android version of their eReader software, and I CAN NOT DOWNLOAD IT.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE NORKS?
These clowns are, essentially, going to lose my business, forever.
I've owned an Android device, since day one. There is not one single good ebook reader on the device. Not one.
(hint: if you don't support raw HTML or TEXT, as well as your proprietary format, you're not a good ebook reader. You also shouldn't crash all the time, as well.).
So, good old Barnes and Noble said a year ago, that they'd be releasing ebook reader software for android. Good news, I thought! Good to hear! After all, Amazon bought out Mobipocket, and instantly ended all releases of that software. There will most likely never be an Android release of Mobipocket, because it conflicts with Amazon's Kindle.
Gee, good to see competition, eh?
Now B&N decide to develop their own device. Well, la-de-da! Instead of releasing for the very OS their device is based upon, they hold back. Worse, they even use Android users as beta testers, but don't release the goods! Where is my ereader software for Android, you useless bastards? WHERE IS IT?!
So, now we have Amazon, preventing generic ebook reader software for Mobipocket being developed, and now we have B&N doing the same, it would seem?!
WTF?!
These people are CLOWNS.
No, I don't think you are correct in stating that you 'all' know. For starters, there are people here indicating that there should be no expectation for quality of service, since it is a 'free' service. You *are* paying for the service, and in exchange, you should demand a certain level of quality.
"Free" would be a download of Ubuntu. While there are certain social expectations that go along with using open source, none of them are ripped from you, whilst you use that product. The closest I can think of, is Firefox defaulting to Google's home page... which you can change at will.
In other words, you are free not to pay those hidden charges.
I've seen people state that they should buy pizza from company $x, because they give you a second pizza 'free'.
Er. There is no free pizza. You're paying for both of them.
Most people don't realise the true cost of things. They have been bedazzled by the constant corporate speak that pervades our lives. Heck, most people don't even consider the real world cost of *anything*.
So, yes.. some people realise it. For the large part, most don't.
As for yourself? You don't realise it, not really. You're supporting those that define 'free' as 'no government sponsored currency changed hands'. You probably use the word incorrectly... in fact, you advocated just that!
That's easy to handle.
Example.
During WWII, for the aeons before the US entered the war, they were 'neutral'. Neutral to all the death and slaughter, and cry for help from their allies.
Uh, sorry.. off track a bit there. :P
Seriously though, it wasn't all bad. For whatever reasons the US remained neutral, they weren't as neutral as could be. One thing they did, was 'accidentally' leave massive quantities of ammunition and weaponry right near the US border. Somehow, the Canadian military would fine out, and would 'steal' this weaponry and ammunition.. which was quickly transported to the UK, and then to the front lines... that is, whatever would make it across the German sub riddled sea.
Point being, there is no reason that this can't be the same way. You write off the equipment, you throw it in a dumpster in the back, and then someone tells someone that there are computers in the garbage.
At that point, they've been trashed. All is well on one side, and the other can act as they wish...