Where do you think the Vikings kidnapped their women from?
"The ancestry of the settlers is more controversial. Historical evidence suggests that not all of the settlers in Iceland originated from Scandinavia (Jones 1984). At the very least, it is believed that the settlers included a number of women and slaves from Norse settlements in the British Isles. There are numerous references in Icelandic medieval writings to the keeping of slaves, many of whom were obtained through raids on settlements in the British Isles (Jones 1984). Thus, the Icelandic founding gene pool may have received a substantial maternal contribution from the British Isles."
Number one rule of programming is you never rely on external libraries being hosted somewhere else. You can't rely on those libraries being available for the lifetime of the project. It is the same using for example Maven to rely on external libraries. This is something you should never do. Always have the libraries local.
And that is exactly why America is messed up. Either the 2nd amendment needs to be revoked or it should be clarified to only allow muskets as it was originally intended.
What? Did you just use a stupid Breitbart article where bicycle deaths and falling down are lumped together and compared them to mass shootings?
1) The mass shootings are just a tip of the iceberg. You can't just single those instances out and compare them with ridiculous things. You have to compare it at least with gun killings in general. 2) How in the world are we supposed to stop falling down accidents? Ban gravity? 3) You do realize that most bicycle deaths are because those on the bicycle where hit by a car. So you really should be use a comparison with car related deaths.
They are obviously not regulated enough when people who should not have guns get their hands on them and there are gun show loopholes around any regulations.
Guns are dangerous and everyone knows it. Pools are even more dangerous but too few people seem to care. That's why far more children drown to death in the US every year than in accidents with weapons.
All the gun nuts always bring up the "swimming pool argument" whenever someone brings up gun control. Here is why this argument is stupid:
1) There is actually a lot of regulation for having a swimming pool. In Europe at least there are building regulations that require among other things that private swimming pools be elevated from the ground specially so that young children don't fall in. 2) You can't fly the swimming pool or stick it in your pocket when going outside. It is restricted to a certain location. Usually private. 3) Swimming pools actually have a valid purpose. They are used for swimming lessons and are not designed to kill people. you might argue that they are dangerous when used for recreation, but then you always have to option of choosing of not going to a swimming pool. With guns you can't do that.
This just shows exactly how America is really messed up. There is going to be massive regulation framework for the operation of a 2 kilo drone. But the operation of a gun with massive more kinetic energy doesn't require any regulation.
All accidents are individual. Licenses do not convey driving ability upon people.
What? All accidents are individual? A single car crash can kill a lot of people. But I talking in general terms here. Yes accident will happen but there is a way to minimize them.
Most adults have one, so most adults could clearly be trusted to drive (at least as much as they already are trusted) even if they didn't have one.
What? I think your statement here is falling into the logical fallacy land. People have X which means they can do Y, so people can do Y even if they don't have X?
It hasn't been shown that a licensing scheme increases safety or prevents accidents. People who want to police everyone all the time will tell you it does, but they don't have any facts to back it up.
Are you really saying teaching people to drive doesn't increase safety in any way? Are you serious?
Why should there be consequences? Are you a criminal? Why should you be treated like one for acting like anyone else would in an emergency?
Since it is against the law it is possible there could be consequences but most likely the judge would dismiss it if it was a real emergency.
If you can drive without a license in an emergency, why not all the time? Are you a better driver in an emergency?
No but there is not emergency going on all the time for all people. This is about preventing accidents for the whole population in general not individual instances.
Government power gets used against people. Always. It's not a "different problem", it's the problem.
Then you have the wrong goverment. You should not vote those people into power.
There's no explicitly enumerated Constitutional right to drive a car. The right to bear arms is enumerated clearly.
Yes and that is stupid. Just like if it was a constitutional right to drive a car it would be stupid.
But here's something to think about:. What problems were solved by requiring him to have a license to drive a car?
It solves two problems. First it requires all cars to have identifications that the can be checked at any time. Second it means that the person has gone through the required training and background checks.
What problems do drivers licenses solve for anyone? Do they ensure that all licensed drivers are good drivers?
Not all but most. Just like a strict license for guns would do. And that is the point.
Do they keep unlicensed drivers off the roads? Do criminals and other lawless people obey drivers license laws? If you lost your drivers license would you drive without one if a dire emergency required it?
Yes it keeps unlicensed driver off the road to an extend. Yes criminals mostly obey drivers licence law because being caught witout on can get you in trouble. No I would drive without a license in an emergency and I would face the consequences but what has that to do with anything?
Licensing requirements for driving mostly provide the government with an excuse and a mechanism to bully and control and tax ordinary citizens.
Yes and that is a good thing. The government needs power to enforce regulations like policing and taxing.
And also note: there would be a lot fewer "driving while black" police stops without this excuse to bully people.
That is a completely different problem not related to drivers licenses.
Ummm... Sounds like you just bolstered the argument for intelligent design, not evolution.
Ummm... no because we know how evolution works and it is an unguided process. Just because you can use the same mechanic to evolve creatures doesn't invalidate evolution in any way. It's like examining how water freezes in nature and then freezing water in a lab. That doesn't mean God is directly freezing the water in nature.
And that shows that by the very simple process of letting those with a favorible trait live and terminating those with unfavorible traits you can create a radically different animal in a very small time span. Now Imagine what you could do if you had a 4 billions years.
What difference does it make? If you store unlimited data instead of unlimited photos it is still unlimited so as for Amazon it makes no difference. Unless of course Amazon really doesn't want you to actually use your "unlimited" storage, but then they should not call it "unlimited".
So, you're saying you wouldn't help your sister, mom, or grandma with this? I know I would, as wold most technical people who wish to encourage their friends and family to be more secure.
I will help them as much as I can but I refuse to be a technical support for Google just because they are incompetient and don't care.
You mean it's something Google cold easily do if they would just stop write-locking/system/ during the boot process to prevent malware from completely pwning Android devices. You must not realize that this is a security measure, and a very strong one at that; it's literally as simple as it could possibly be without opening the door to all kinds of nasty malware we currently don't have to deal with. The only thing that might make it easier is a GUI, but that would also make it easier for people to install malicious ROMs without really thinking about it; having to type it out makes you think about what you're about to do before you press enter.
No Google controls the system. They already have a lot of system apps that can whatever they want. This is just a simple implentation of crypto signing the app. If the app is signed by a specific key by Google then they can give the app access to stuff like this. You talk about like this is something impossible to do? If you control the system like Google does you can have it any way you like.
You talk about Apple but Apple is not an excuse because they are bad themselves, yes Apple also sucks.
Do you really think a normal user will be able to unlock or install Marshmallow on his phone with these unnecessary complex instructions? I have rooted and installed a few Android mods myself and I can tell you that it is very easy to make a small mistake or that the third party instructions are not clear enough so you end up with a bricked phone. I am not talking about myself, you or other technical people. My sister, mom or my grandma will not be able to install this crap.
If the company can't support a highly expensive device for more than 2 years then the install process should be as simple as dowloading a Google app that will update the phone. This is something that Google could easily do if they would just get of their asses and stop being evil.
That is one of the problems with Android your phone can only be used for 2 years until it is completely outdated and can't be updated any more. Now that wouldn't be a problem if Google wasn't constantly changing Android and coming up with newer and newer versions making it impossible to install new/updated apps from app store. The problem is that Google doesn't care about backward compatability and is constantly deprecating and messing up things for no reason. I understand if the newer phone has some new hardware that your phone doesn't have but this is software we are talking about there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be able to install a new version on older phone. Google is just lazy.
Slashdot Mirror
Spagehetti yes. A spaghetti monster? I have never seen any evidence for a spaghetti monster.
Chinese antivirus. That's like a nuclear waste company making food products or hiring a child molester as your babysitter.
Where do you think the Vikings kidnapped their women from?
"The ancestry of the settlers is more controversial. Historical evidence suggests that not all of the settlers in Iceland originated from Scandinavia (Jones 1984). At the very least, it is believed that the settlers included a number of women and slaves from Norse settlements in the British Isles. There are numerous references in Icelandic medieval writings to the keeping of slaves, many of whom were obtained through raids on settlements in the British Isles (Jones 1984). Thus, the Icelandic founding gene pool may have received a substantial maternal contribution from the British Isles."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
It's a trap
It's a trap
Number one rule of programming is you never rely on external libraries being hosted somewhere else. You can't rely on those libraries being available for the lifetime of the project. It is the same using for example Maven to rely on external libraries. This is something you should never do. Always have the libraries local.
And that is exactly why America is messed up. Either the 2nd amendment needs to be revoked or it should be clarified to only allow muskets as it was originally intended.
even with regulations in place, there are still more accidents with pools than with guns,
Then what is needed is more regulation and more monitoring. We still need to have swimming pools for teaching but we don't need more guns for killing.
There is no problem if drone regulation comes before gun regulation in the US.
The problem is that there will never be any gun regulation in the US. In 50 years there will still be regular mass shooting in the US.
That's why using a cell phone while driving is banned. And it is for the same reason carrying a gun should be banned.
You are the one who is seriously misinformed:
https://www.faa.gov/news/press...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As it currently is you need to register to own a hobby drone, but not to own a gun.
What? Did you just use a stupid Breitbart article where bicycle deaths and falling down are lumped together and compared them to mass shootings?
1) The mass shootings are just a tip of the iceberg. You can't just single those instances out and compare them with ridiculous things. You have to compare it at least with gun killings in general.
2) How in the world are we supposed to stop falling down accidents? Ban gravity?
3) You do realize that most bicycle deaths are because those on the bicycle where hit by a car. So you really should be use a comparison with car related deaths.
They are obviously not regulated enough when people who should not have guns get their hands on them and there are gun show loopholes around any regulations.
Are you telling me that people riding bicycles actually hit and kill more people than all of the gun killing? I seriously doubt that. Citation needed.
Guns are dangerous and everyone knows it. Pools are even more dangerous but too few people seem to care. That's why far more children drown to death in the US every year than in accidents with weapons.
All the gun nuts always bring up the "swimming pool argument" whenever someone brings up gun control. Here is why this argument is stupid:
1) There is actually a lot of regulation for having a swimming pool. In Europe at least there are building regulations that require among other things that private swimming pools be elevated from the ground specially so that young children don't fall in.
2) You can't fly the swimming pool or stick it in your pocket when going outside. It is restricted to a certain location. Usually private.
3) Swimming pools actually have a valid purpose. They are used for swimming lessons and are not designed to kill people. you might argue that they are dangerous when used for recreation, but then you always have to option of choosing of not going to a swimming pool. With guns you can't do that.
This just shows exactly how America is really messed up. There is going to be massive regulation framework for the operation of a 2 kilo drone. But the operation of a gun with massive more kinetic energy doesn't require any regulation.
All accidents are individual. Licenses do not convey driving ability upon people.
What? All accidents are individual? A single car crash can kill a lot of people. But I talking in general terms here. Yes accident will happen but there is a way to minimize them.
Most adults have one, so most adults could clearly be trusted to drive (at least as much as they already are trusted) even if they didn't have one.
What? I think your statement here is falling into the logical fallacy land. People have X which means they can do Y, so people can do Y even if they don't have X?
It hasn't been shown that a licensing scheme increases safety or prevents accidents. People who want to police everyone all the time will tell you it does, but they don't have any facts to back it up.
Are you really saying teaching people to drive doesn't increase safety in any way? Are you serious?
Why should there be consequences? Are you a criminal? Why should you be treated like one for acting like anyone else would in an emergency?
Since it is against the law it is possible there could be consequences but most likely the judge would dismiss it if it was a real emergency.
If you can drive without a license in an emergency, why not all the time? Are you a better driver in an emergency?
No but there is not emergency going on all the time for all people. This is about preventing accidents for the whole population in general not individual instances.
Government power gets used against people. Always. It's not a "different problem", it's the problem.
Then you have the wrong goverment. You should not vote those people into power.
There's no explicitly enumerated Constitutional right to drive a car. The right to bear arms is enumerated clearly.
Yes and that is stupid. Just like if it was a constitutional right to drive a car it would be stupid.
But here's something to think about:. What problems were solved by requiring him to have a license to drive a car?
It solves two problems. First it requires all cars to have identifications that the can be checked at any time. Second it means that the person has gone through the required training and background checks.
What problems do drivers licenses solve for anyone? Do they ensure that all licensed drivers are good drivers?
Not all but most. Just like a strict license for guns would do. And that is the point.
Do they keep unlicensed drivers off the roads? Do criminals and other lawless people obey drivers license laws? If you lost your drivers license would you drive without one if a dire emergency required it?
Yes it keeps unlicensed driver off the road to an extend. Yes criminals mostly obey drivers licence law because being caught witout on can get you in trouble. No I would drive without a license in an emergency and I would face the consequences but what has that to do with anything?
Licensing requirements for driving mostly provide the government with an excuse and a mechanism to bully and control and tax ordinary citizens.
Yes and that is a good thing. The government needs power to enforce regulations like policing and taxing.
And also note: there would be a lot fewer "driving while black" police stops without this excuse to bully people.
That is a completely different problem not related to drivers licenses.
Ummm... Sounds like you just bolstered the argument for intelligent design, not evolution.
Ummm... no because we know how evolution works and it is an unguided process. Just because you can use the same mechanic to evolve creatures doesn't invalidate evolution in any way. It's like examining how water freezes in nature and then freezing water in a lab. That doesn't mean God is directly freezing the water in nature.
And that shows that by the very simple process of letting those with a favorible trait live and terminating those with unfavorible traits you can create a radically different animal in a very small time span. Now Imagine what you could do if you had a 4 billions years.
What difference does it make? If you store unlimited data instead of unlimited photos it is still unlimited so as for Amazon it makes no difference.
Unless of course Amazon really doesn't want you to actually use your "unlimited" storage, but then they should not call it "unlimited".
So, you're saying you wouldn't help your sister, mom, or grandma with this? I know I would, as wold most technical people who wish to encourage their friends and family to be more secure.
I will help them as much as I can but I refuse to be a technical support for Google just because they are incompetient and don't care.
You mean it's something Google cold easily do if they would just stop write-locking /system/ during the boot process to prevent malware from completely pwning Android devices. You must not realize that this is a security measure, and a very strong one at that; it's literally as simple as it could possibly be without opening the door to all kinds of nasty malware we currently don't have to deal with. The only thing that might make it easier is a GUI, but that would also make it easier for people to install malicious ROMs without really thinking about it; having to type it out makes you think about what you're about to do before you press enter.
No Google controls the system. They already have a lot of system apps that can whatever they want. This is just a simple implentation of crypto signing the app. If the app is signed by a specific key by Google then they can give the app access to stuff like this. You talk about like this is something impossible to do? If you control the system like Google does you can have it any way you like.
You talk about Apple but Apple is not an excuse because they are bad themselves, yes Apple also sucks.
Do you really think a normal user will be able to unlock or install Marshmallow on his phone with these unnecessary complex instructions? I have rooted and installed a few Android mods myself and I can tell you that it is very easy to make a small mistake or that the third party instructions are not clear enough so you end up with a bricked phone. I am not talking about myself, you or other technical people. My sister, mom or my grandma will not be able to install this crap.
If the company can't support a highly expensive device for more than 2 years then the install process should be as simple as dowloading a Google app that will update the phone. This is something that Google could easily do if they would just get of their asses and stop being evil.
That is one of the problems with Android your phone can only be used for 2 years until it is completely outdated and can't be updated any more. Now that wouldn't be a problem if Google wasn't constantly changing Android and coming up with newer and newer versions making it impossible to install new/updated apps from app store. The problem is that Google doesn't care about backward compatability and is constantly deprecating and messing up things for no reason. I understand if the newer phone has some new hardware that your phone doesn't have but this is software we are talking about there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be able to install a new version on older phone. Google is just lazy.
This page only lists that the Nexus 4 has 5.1.1 not 6.0, so no it doesn't have the latest updates.