Mod parent up! This is exactly the same situation as with International House of Pancakes, who likewise will be letting go millions of waitstaff and cooks this year, instead hiring people in India and China to do the same work, at a fraction of the cost. Sure, you'll have to yell your order a little louder so they can hear you in India, and wait 7-14 days for your pancakes to be shipped to you from China, but the 2% cut in prices will be worth it.
'Islamic terrorism' not being a real thing - I'm guessing this is a perversion of the Bush and Obama administration's refusal to call IS* or Al Qaeda terrorism "Radical Islamic Terror". But neither regime has said "'Islamic terrorism' not being a real thing", they've said that it's unhelpful and likely to help the terrorists' own campaign if you link the words "Islamic" and "Terrorism" because you're implying that IS*/AQ's linking of the two is legitimate, and because many, including Muslims, will take the phrasing as implying we're at war with Islam rather than at war with terrorists.
or like that we can pull out of Iraq and be free of our involvement there - Nobody has ever claimed this, ever.
or like that we can let Russia come in and take control and that won't have a bad impact on the US or our allies - Where? Syria? Because that's not what I've heard at all. Most politicians on both sides of the fence are deeply troubled by Russia's involvement in Syria. Hence the support for a no-fly zone.
or how if we just build schools, hospitals and give them jobs, everybody who would have become a terrorist will instead live a happy productive life without perpetrating any violence, - nobody has ever made that argument in the history of the universe.
or how we should release the bad people from Gitmo because they aren't really bad people they're just misunderstood - nobody has ever made that argument in the history of the universe. The complaint about Gitmo is two fold: one, there are a lot of innocent people there, and two: it's unconstitutional and illegal to hold people without due process (see (1) for the reason why.) Obama was making plans to move prisoners at Gitmo to the US in the early days of his administration, to US prisons, to be processed by constitutional authorities. After Congress effectively made that option impossible, he did the exact opposite of what you claim: he kept Gitmo open, rather than releasing people being held illegally there.
or going back to the Clinton administration how we don't have a problem with terrorists that requires a military solution, we have a problem that requires a criminal justice solution? - congrats, you found something that's correct, but alas, still not something the Obama administration has ever claimed. Terrorism is indeed best treated as a criminal, rather than military, problem. Turning Terrorists from murderous scum into heroic soldiers is the worst thing the Bush administration ever did, and is probably why we've seen an uptick in terror in general, not just in the creation of IS*, but also in groups not associated with Arabs or Radicalized Religious fanatics such as white supremacists.
The list goes on, but you get the idea. All of those 'alternative facts' from Democrat administrations have resulted in the direct and indirect violent deaths of many Americans and other westerners. The Republicans have their fair share, but you can't lay the blame for the problem solely one party.
None of those "Alternative facts" exists. The nearest you got to, that a twenty year old Democratic government might have had a different view of terrorists to the heroic soldiers view you subscribe to, saved lives - it was a conventional law enforcement operation that prevented the NYE attack on LAX from being better known than 9/11. And it was Bush's refusal to take seriously those policies that lead to 9/11.
And, even if any of those alternative facts did "exist", ie Democrats were actually saying them, none of them would ever cause lives to be lost.
I'm of the opinion that Hyperloop is a bad idea, but the Chunnel costs, which are relatively reasonable, isn't one of them. The Chunnel was for three tunnels, two of which were designed to accommodate, with plenty of space around them for walking, air flow, etc, two 20' high freight trains with catenaries two feet above them. The tunnels in the Hyperloop case will be a small fraction of this size - uncomfortably small if you follow Musk's proposal, but hopefully at least 12' if created by a company that doesn't think humans are sardines.
You're not using "Google Voice VoIP" because that doesn't exist. You're using Google Talk/Hangouts/whatever it's called today. The relationship between the two is that GV can route calls to Google Talk, and Google Talk will use your GV number when making outgoing calls.
So, as this is a story about Google Voice, not Google Talk (or Hangouts etc) you can safely assume your setup is not affected by this at all. That doesn't mean it'll continue to work, just that this doesn't impact it.
Still, at least he didn't think it was Google's VoIP service...
(Which was more difficult to explain to people because if you use Hangouts, or previously used Google Talk before that was replaced by Hangouts, it integrated with Google Voice.)
I wouldn't say they're simple steps, and Crouton suffers from trying to run both operating systems at once, which can only be done by heavily patching the "guest" operating system, which in turn means only supported revisions of specific distributions are supported - and the only in some configurations. Want to run Cinnamon? Don't even try.
(There's also very little reason to suppose this provides any real benefits to users either. Why would you want ChromeOS if you're already running Ubuntu? ChromeOS is bare bones GNU/Linux with Chrome as the UI, and Chrome runs fine under Ubuntu.)
Crouton exists mostly because it's awkward to install a "real" Ubuntu instance on a Chromebook, and so the authors figured that maybe getting bits to Ubuntu to work under the already running ChromeOS kernel might be "good enough". It's an illustration of the problems with Chromebooks, not indicative that Google has some kind of solution to "Linux on the desktop".
I'm not saying Chromebooks are bad, or even that you shouldn't buy one to run Ubuntu/etc (but use chrx, and be aware that the experience of installation is suboptimal, requiring BIOS patches and barely documented control key combinations at boot) - they can run more open distributions of GNU/Linux, and if you like the hardware, then go for it. But this "Crouton proves its awesome" stuff is overblown. Crouton is a smart, interesting, hack to workaround a problem, but it's probably not going to deliver what the average "I want to run Fedora/Ubuntu/Mint/Debian/CentOS" Slashdot GNU/Linux user wants.
I'm generally finding little difference in price between Chromebooks and low end Windows laptops - compare HP's "Stream" series, for example.
It's also a lot simpler to install Ubuntu et al on a cheap laptop built for Windows than on a Chromebook. I've done the latter, and it's an, uh, interesting experience. Having to patch the BIOS was my favorite part I think. Also awesome was the fact it forgets there's a partition with a non-ChromeOS operating system on it if the battery runs out, so you have to boot into ChromeOS and set a flag to remind it its there.
Yeah, last few devices I've bought had something very close to AOSP with only a minimum of extra apps installed, apps that aren't causing me any problems. Android itself doesn't vary a lot between versions any more, the chances are the version you have varies little - from a user's point of view - from the latest greatest. This is a far cry from the early days of Android where:
1. Every phone had a heavily customized version of Android, in part because stock Android wasn't very pretty, but those customizations were usually horrible and bug ridden. As an example, my T-Mobile Slide 3G's dialer would crash if you changed from portrait to landscape.
2. Android itself was barely feature complete. Third party tools were needed to provide a decent launcher, decent keyboard, and so on, as well as tethering and other features carriers were nervous about.
This is regulation of regular privately owned utilities. They're called "Public Utilities" because they provide utility services to the public, not because they're government owned.
That's pretty expensive. There may be some prepaid plans that are worse ($30 for 1Gb+unlimited V&T is probably hard to beat), but once you get to the regular subscriptions from the big four, especially family plans, it's really poor value.
I was always surprised Google structured Fi that way, it struck me that building a phone service around a price schedule is doomed to failure. Sooner or later everyone else changes their prices (or what you get for those prices) and suddenly your innovative pricing doesn't look so great any more.
They're saying that technically accurate or not, the article is misleading and doesn't give context. In particular, this supposed threat is almost impossible to exploit in practice, as it requires the attacker:
1. Knows exactly when you're going to swap a SIM card over or otherwise change phones
2. Also knows you simultaneously have a bunch of messages waiting to be sent, that the attacker actually cares about.
3. Also knows that you have gone into settings, and unchecked a setting that would normally be checked that warns you if a change in encryption keys has occurred
4. Has access to all the infrastructure in the middle.
That's a tall order. It'd be easier to just steal your phone, or hit you on the head with a blunt instrument XKCD style until you talk.
The letter also points out that the article discourages people from using a popular messaging platform over this issue whose security is generally first rate, encouraging them to seek alternatives that either may be insecure, or may be taken as a sign of guilt (eg Signal), making it easier to pinpoint dissidents with something to hide.
So, yeah, the article may be technically correct, the best kind of correct, but if it leaves people with a false impression, then it's probably right to withdraw it.
Yeah, I must admit I'm on the impulsive side though. The entire conspiracy theory that, for example, he tweets to draw attention away from the crap he's doing has two fatal flaws: he's always tweeted like that, and he doesn't actually apparently give a rat's ass if anyone knows he's corrupt and racist.
He's essentially had some luck in his life, but doesn't strike me as particularly smart or calculating. He apparently based his election campaign by studying Mussolini, apparently oblivious to the long term damage such a strategy will cause to, well, pretty much everyone.
I'm not seeing it. I see someone impulsive and thin skinned, who takes the easy route when offered, and has little imagination or understanding of people.
To be specific, it's what some movie directors, including James Cameron and even Martin Scorcese wanted, but as you say, that's not really what people watching their creations wanted.
If existing self-driving car technology is unable to cope with the concept of reversible lanes, then it suggests they cannot read road signs, in which case reversible lanes is the least of anyone's worries - road works, temporary diversions, etc, are also going to be a problem.
1995 called, they want their description of Amazon.com back.
(You should visit their website one day, they sell pretty much everything these days, and have quite a few interesting products and projects that have little to do with retail, such as AWS. But as a reader of Slashdot.org, I'm sure you've never heard of this whole "cloud computing" thing they're famous for in some circles...)
For a lot of us, choosing between Google Now (or Hey Google or whatever the kids call it these days) and Cortana is a choice like that between having your left big toe removed, or your right.
To be fair, at least Google (and thus by implication Android) lets you turn it off. I wish Windows 10 AE had a way to replace Cortana with regular old search.
Assange did not use the word "Pardon" in the latest offers. He simply asked for clemency. A commutation is a form of clemency.
To be honest though, it was always a joke. His offer is to allow himself to be extradited to the US. The US isn't seeking Assange's extradition. Sweden is.
"Only" 7 years? Especially when that 7 years included torture?
Honestly, be human for a moment and ask yourself how seven years in prison could not possibly be considered severe punishment merely because it could have been "35 years"?
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up! This is exactly the same situation as with International House of Pancakes, who likewise will be letting go millions of waitstaff and cooks this year, instead hiring people in India and China to do the same work, at a fraction of the cost. Sure, you'll have to yell your order a little louder so they can hear you in India, and wait 7-14 days for your pancakes to be shipped to you from China, but the 2% cut in prices will be worth it.
'Islamic terrorism' not being a real thing - I'm guessing this is a perversion of the Bush and Obama administration's refusal to call IS* or Al Qaeda terrorism "Radical Islamic Terror". But neither regime has said "'Islamic terrorism' not being a real thing", they've said that it's unhelpful and likely to help the terrorists' own campaign if you link the words "Islamic" and "Terrorism" because you're implying that IS*/AQ's linking of the two is legitimate, and because many, including Muslims, will take the phrasing as implying we're at war with Islam rather than at war with terrorists.
or like that we can pull out of Iraq and be free of our involvement there - Nobody has ever claimed this, ever.
or like that we can let Russia come in and take control and that won't have a bad impact on the US or our allies - Where? Syria? Because that's not what I've heard at all. Most politicians on both sides of the fence are deeply troubled by Russia's involvement in Syria. Hence the support for a no-fly zone.
or how if we just build schools, hospitals and give them jobs, everybody who would have become a terrorist will instead live a happy productive life without perpetrating any violence, - nobody has ever made that argument in the history of the universe.
or how we should release the bad people from Gitmo because they aren't really bad people they're just misunderstood - nobody has ever made that argument in the history of the universe. The complaint about Gitmo is two fold: one, there are a lot of innocent people there, and two: it's unconstitutional and illegal to hold people without due process (see (1) for the reason why.) Obama was making plans to move prisoners at Gitmo to the US in the early days of his administration, to US prisons, to be processed by constitutional authorities. After Congress effectively made that option impossible, he did the exact opposite of what you claim: he kept Gitmo open, rather than releasing people being held illegally there.
or going back to the Clinton administration how we don't have a problem with terrorists that requires a military solution, we have a problem that requires a criminal justice solution? - congrats, you found something that's correct, but alas, still not something the Obama administration has ever claimed. Terrorism is indeed best treated as a criminal, rather than military, problem. Turning Terrorists from murderous scum into heroic soldiers is the worst thing the Bush administration ever did, and is probably why we've seen an uptick in terror in general, not just in the creation of IS*, but also in groups not associated with Arabs or Radicalized Religious fanatics such as white supremacists.
None of those "Alternative facts" exists. The nearest you got to, that a twenty year old Democratic government might have had a different view of terrorists to the heroic soldiers view you subscribe to, saved lives - it was a conventional law enforcement operation that prevented the NYE attack on LAX from being better known than 9/11. And it was Bush's refusal to take seriously those policies that lead to 9/11.
And, even if any of those alternative facts did "exist", ie Democrats were actually saying them, none of them would ever cause lives to be lost.
I'm of the opinion that Hyperloop is a bad idea, but the Chunnel costs, which are relatively reasonable, isn't one of them. The Chunnel was for three tunnels, two of which were designed to accommodate, with plenty of space around them for walking, air flow, etc, two 20' high freight trains with catenaries two feet above them. The tunnels in the Hyperloop case will be a small fraction of this size - uncomfortably small if you follow Musk's proposal, but hopefully at least 12' if created by a company that doesn't think humans are sardines.
You're not using "Google Voice VoIP" because that doesn't exist. You're using Google Talk/Hangouts/whatever it's called today. The relationship between the two is that GV can route calls to Google Talk, and Google Talk will use your GV number when making outgoing calls.
So, as this is a story about Google Voice, not Google Talk (or Hangouts etc) you can safely assume your setup is not affected by this at all. That doesn't mean it'll continue to work, just that this doesn't impact it.
Still, at least he didn't think it was Google's VoIP service...
(Which was more difficult to explain to people because if you use Hangouts, or previously used Google Talk before that was replaced by Hangouts, it integrated with Google Voice.)
I wouldn't say they're simple steps, and Crouton suffers from trying to run both operating systems at once, which can only be done by heavily patching the "guest" operating system, which in turn means only supported revisions of specific distributions are supported - and the only in some configurations. Want to run Cinnamon? Don't even try.
(There's also very little reason to suppose this provides any real benefits to users either. Why would you want ChromeOS if you're already running Ubuntu? ChromeOS is bare bones GNU/Linux with Chrome as the UI, and Chrome runs fine under Ubuntu.)
Crouton exists mostly because it's awkward to install a "real" Ubuntu instance on a Chromebook, and so the authors figured that maybe getting bits to Ubuntu to work under the already running ChromeOS kernel might be "good enough". It's an illustration of the problems with Chromebooks, not indicative that Google has some kind of solution to "Linux on the desktop".
I'm not saying Chromebooks are bad, or even that you shouldn't buy one to run Ubuntu/etc (but use chrx, and be aware that the experience of installation is suboptimal, requiring BIOS patches and barely documented control key combinations at boot) - they can run more open distributions of GNU/Linux, and if you like the hardware, then go for it. But this "Crouton proves its awesome" stuff is overblown. Crouton is a smart, interesting, hack to workaround a problem, but it's probably not going to deliver what the average "I want to run Fedora/Ubuntu/Mint/Debian/CentOS" Slashdot GNU/Linux user wants.
I'm generally finding little difference in price between Chromebooks and low end Windows laptops - compare HP's "Stream" series, for example.
It's also a lot simpler to install Ubuntu et al on a cheap laptop built for Windows than on a Chromebook. I've done the latter, and it's an, uh, interesting experience. Having to patch the BIOS was my favorite part I think. Also awesome was the fact it forgets there's a partition with a non-ChromeOS operating system on it if the battery runs out, so you have to boot into ChromeOS and set a flag to remind it its there.
Without 1, 2, or 3, you have problems bypassing the peer to peer encryption, so yes, you need 1, 2, and 3, for 4.
Yeah, last few devices I've bought had something very close to AOSP with only a minimum of extra apps installed, apps that aren't causing me any problems. Android itself doesn't vary a lot between versions any more, the chances are the version you have varies little - from a user's point of view - from the latest greatest. This is a far cry from the early days of Android where:
1. Every phone had a heavily customized version of Android, in part because stock Android wasn't very pretty, but those customizations were usually horrible and bug ridden. As an example, my T-Mobile Slide 3G's dialer would crash if you changed from portrait to landscape.
2. Android itself was barely feature complete. Third party tools were needed to provide a decent launcher, decent keyboard, and so on, as well as tethering and other features carriers were nervous about.
It just isn't as important any more.
Absolutely, he should have encrypted his car like reel computur profeshionals.
This is regulation of regular privately owned utilities. They're called "Public Utilities" because they provide utility services to the public, not because they're government owned.
That's pretty expensive. There may be some prepaid plans that are worse ($30 for 1Gb+unlimited V&T is probably hard to beat), but once you get to the regular subscriptions from the big four, especially family plans, it's really poor value.
I was always surprised Google structured Fi that way, it struck me that building a phone service around a price schedule is doomed to failure. Sooner or later everyone else changes their prices (or what you get for those prices) and suddenly your innovative pricing doesn't look so great any more.
For what? The $70 buys unlimited everything - voice, text, unthrottled data. What are you getting for $8 a month?
It does some interesting things to your (or Julian Assange's) selfies.
They're saying that technically accurate or not, the article is misleading and doesn't give context. In particular, this supposed threat is almost impossible to exploit in practice, as it requires the attacker:
1. Knows exactly when you're going to swap a SIM card over or otherwise change phones
2. Also knows you simultaneously have a bunch of messages waiting to be sent, that the attacker actually cares about.
3. Also knows that you have gone into settings, and unchecked a setting that would normally be checked that warns you if a change in encryption keys has occurred
4. Has access to all the infrastructure in the middle.
That's a tall order. It'd be easier to just steal your phone, or hit you on the head with a blunt instrument XKCD style until you talk.
The letter also points out that the article discourages people from using a popular messaging platform over this issue whose security is generally first rate, encouraging them to seek alternatives that either may be insecure, or may be taken as a sign of guilt (eg Signal), making it easier to pinpoint dissidents with something to hide.
So, yeah, the article may be technically correct, the best kind of correct, but if it leaves people with a false impression, then it's probably right to withdraw it.
Yeah, I must admit I'm on the impulsive side though. The entire conspiracy theory that, for example, he tweets to draw attention away from the crap he's doing has two fatal flaws: he's always tweeted like that, and he doesn't actually apparently give a rat's ass if anyone knows he's corrupt and racist.
He's essentially had some luck in his life, but doesn't strike me as particularly smart or calculating. He apparently based his election campaign by studying Mussolini, apparently oblivious to the long term damage such a strategy will cause to, well, pretty much everyone.
I'm not seeing it. I see someone impulsive and thin skinned, who takes the easy route when offered, and has little imagination or understanding of people.
To be specific, it's what some movie directors, including James Cameron and even Martin Scorcese wanted, but as you say, that's not really what people watching their creations wanted.
Or maybe he finds glasses uncomfortable? I know I do.
If existing self-driving car technology is unable to cope with the concept of reversible lanes, then it suggests they cannot read road signs, in which case reversible lanes is the least of anyone's worries - road works, temporary diversions, etc, are also going to be a problem.
1995 called, they want their description of Amazon.com back.
(You should visit their website one day, they sell pretty much everything these days, and have quite a few interesting products and projects that have little to do with retail, such as AWS. But as a reader of Slashdot.org, I'm sure you've never heard of this whole "cloud computing" thing they're famous for in some circles...)
For a lot of us, choosing between Google Now (or Hey Google or whatever the kids call it these days) and Cortana is a choice like that between having your left big toe removed, or your right.
To be fair, at least Google (and thus by implication Android) lets you turn it off. I wish Windows 10 AE had a way to replace Cortana with regular old search.
Then you'd introduce a new loophole: "I said immediate release, but Obama waited over a week before commuting her sentence, haha, I win."
I'm not sure that's a bigger loophole than the promise to be extradited to a country that isn't seeking an extradition though...
Assange did not use the word "Pardon" in the latest offers. He simply asked for clemency. A commutation is a form of clemency.
To be honest though, it was always a joke. His offer is to allow himself to be extradited to the US. The US isn't seeking Assange's extradition. Sweden is.
"Only" 7 years? Especially when that 7 years included torture?
Honestly, be human for a moment and ask yourself how seven years in prison could not possibly be considered severe punishment merely because it could have been "35 years"?
Urgh,
I shall now go and take a lie down somewhere. Again, apologies.