By reducing your ammo count to a small fraction in a zombie environment you are betting your life. And by using louder ammo you are further betting your life. Seems riskier than losing the time it takes to manually cycle a 10/22. Plus there is the time/mobility you lose carrying all that weight.;-)
Is 22LR good enough for zombies? I'm thinking double aught buck.
The movies also teach that cardio is important, so I'm thinking a ten pound budget on rifle, five 10 round magazines, and 500 rounds of ammunition. Oh, the movies also teach about noise, so less noise too.:-)
Have scientists not seen zombie movies? Because this sort of stuff is often what we see in the opening scenes before something unexpected happens and the zombie apocalypse results. Time to guy buy some 22LR and breakfree I suppose.
So was I. Under international law, it is illegal to target civilians, first responders and journalists. And the war was illegal in the first place as well.
Then you do not understand international law. Men openly carrying arms in an area of active combat are not civilians. Wearing civilian clothes does not make them civilians. In fact wearing civilian clothes may make them illegal combatants under international law. Making them legal targets, making them ineligible for treatment as POWs, making them subject to the laws of the occupying power they are fighting against, etc. Some sort of distinctive markings visible at a distance is required for militias, partisans, etc when wearing civilian clothing rather than military uniforms.
Regarding first responders and journalists, none were identifying themselves as such with any sort of distinctive markings visible at a distance as required. The journalist was indistinguishable from the armed men in the group. The van was indistinguishable from vehicles armed men had used in the region. Regrettable misidentification, one which proper marking are supposed to help prevent. Again, sadly, the journalists and first responders were legal targets due to their lack of compliance with the laws of war.
Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws.
Foreign citizenship and a foreign locale does not provide immunity for hacking into US computers. You might have noticed how Mueller had indicted Russians in Russia. Same thing here. Assange is accused of assisting Manning in the collection of classified data. Such assistance crosses the line and takes him outside of journalistic shielding, he did not merely publish if the accusations are accurate.
Actually ZERO war crimes. Just bad decisions on BOTH sides and the fog of war.
Targeting civilians
Civilians carrying arms (rifles and RPG) in an active combat zone, in an area where American forces had received fire from, an area where Americans were approaching. The arms and context make the group a legal target.
Targeting journalists
The journalists embedded themselves with a group of civilians carrying arms in a combat zone, the journalists were not wearing distinctive clothing identifying themselves. Additionally a shadow of the camera lens was mistakenly believed to be another RPG. The journalists were collateral damage. Regrettable but legal.
Targeting first responders
The van was not marked as a first responders vehicle. The civilians in a civilian van were mistakenly believed to be additional insurgents collecting insurgent wounded/dead *and weapons*. Very regrettable but legal.
Again, patents also lose their value through non-infringing workarounds and the underlying technology (hybrids in this case, overshadowed by new EVs) loosing market appeal.
These, and aging, have likely devalued many of their patents. Again, we are likely seeing a PR move, one that gets the greater value from these patents.
Yeah, "The feature is coming only to Android devices versions 7 and up" is confusing for those of us already using 2FA. I've been using 2FA via Google Authenicator for some google accounts since Android 5. 2SV is not the only option, we already have a 2FA option. Or did we lose that 2FA option in recent history and now its returning? I am only using 2FA on a somewhat "old" account.
Mussolini was the fascist and he even wrote a book (mostly plagerized from older fascists) all about it. Hitler was a socialist and only reluctantly accepted fascism. Those are historical facts, deal with it libtard.
Dear Anonymous "Genius",
When I wrote
"You don't understand fascism. Under fascism both the people and the corporations are under state/party control directly or indirectly. The two are often played off against each other to keep each other weak, to maintain government control of both."
I was mostly thinking of Mussolini. Although it applies to Hitler as well.
FYI, Hitler looked to Mussolini as a role model for many of the early years. There was nothing "reluctant" about Hitler's embrace of fascism.
Also there is nothing inconsistent between fascism and socialism. Fascists will cherry pick bits and pieces of socialism, conservatism, capitalism, etc... as long as the bit and pieces consolidate party control. For example labor organizations existed under Mussolini and Hitler, they were required, but most importantly they were organized under and through the party. A labor union being just an element of the party apparatus.
My gmail account is not, or should not be, considered public.
Nor should it be considered private. You did after all consent to google scanning your emails for keywords to better target advertisements towards you.
Government + corporations working together = fascism. The real fascism, not the bullshit nonsense where idiots scream nazi at anyone who disagrees with them.
What about the bullshit nonsense where idiots scream fascism anytime a corporation is involved?
You don't understand fascism. Under fascism both the people and the corporations are under state/party control directly or indirectly. The two are often played off against each other to keep each other weak, to maintain government control of both.
Thanks to OTA updates, the car gets regular upgrades even a year after purchase
I won't buy a car that needs "updates". Anything that needs software updates needs them because it was written badly to begin with.
Getting updates and "needing" updates are two very different things. As for the current software in your car, it is probably not better written than EV vehicle software, you merely are stuck with what you have and can't get an update. Or you only get an upgrade when the severity of the problem reaches the "recall" level. Small problem fixes or product improvements not available to you, but are available to the EV owners whose system were built to be more easily updated.
Yes, because manufacturing cannot keep up with demand so the EV market can get away with only shipping higher end luxury vehicles. Most of my hybrid owning friends have expressed the sentiment that they wish they could afford a Tesla.
Wow. What will the stock holders going to say? Wow, this seems extremely generous. Perhaps a little too generous. What's the catch here?
Perhaps the stockholders are likely to say "good job at getting marketing value out of expiring or otherwise obsolete patents"?
The Prius launched 22 years ago. Some patents are likely older than that. Patents only last 20 years.
Besides expiration we also have patents that have been worked around via a different approach to a problem, patents covering a now obsolete approach, etc. The "marketing value" of sharing these patents may very well be greater than "commercial value" of the patent itself.
Hmm... no mention of the political party he and his senator are members of. They must be democrats then. If they were Republicans the media and summaries would surely be pointing that out.
Google may be interested in moving to China, but they seem perfectly happy to working on censorship and population control tools for China but not reconnaissance software for the US. That is quite the inconsistency, claims of a moral stand debunked.
"You need a diversity of opinions, not a diversity of genders and skin tones." You need a diversity of both to achieve either.
A diversity of opinions is likely to give you a diversity of genders and skin tones and experiences.
And google's diversity of genders and skin tones is proving you don't necessarily get a diversity of opinions, we are seeing quite the ideological monoculture among Google's "diversity".
Engineers with ethics? Will the wonders never cease?
No, actually a lack of ethics. Ethical individuals listen to others with diverse or opposite opinions, hear them out, and honestly weigh both side's arguments. It is unethical individuals that presume others are wrong and bar them from participating in the discussion. They are practicing the ethics of fascists, quite ironic.
In any case the goog staff are wrong. You need a diversity of opinions, not a diversity of genders and skin tones. AI will happen, do they want to do it right or let someone else do it badly?
You are absolutely correct. Groups of people with different perspectives often make better decisions than groups of monoculture thought. However we live in an age where results do not matter, where signaling "good intentions" is more important. And again like the hyper partisan politicals they are only "their side" could possibly have "good intentions", thus their ideal of one party control is justified.
IQ's may not be exaggerated but competence almost certainly is. Keep in mind that people who have superior performance in one area may also be below average performers in other areas. This is more likely the case here. Superior skills in coding not translating over to organizational behavior and psychology.
Those familiar with organizational behavior and psychology would understand that a group of diverse perspectives would most likely make better decisions than a group with a monoculture perspective. IQs cannot overcome this phenomenon.
If we had functioning courts a court order would be required. Information about associations people have reveals a ton of personal information that is normally protected. The NSA had no legal right to the information without oversight.
Court orders for this are easily obtained. The FBI used similar collection and analysis in the 1990s when trying to determine the organization of and membership in an organized crime family. The court had no problem with analyzing some number of "hops" from a known suspect.
The NSA is normally prohibited from collecting data with the US but I believe "authorization" came into play when a call existed with a foreign "suspect", then some number of hops were allowed even if domestic. Call a family owned restaurant to make a reservation, if that restaurant had also received a call lets say from syria last year, then there might very well be "authorization" and "oversight". The court allowed exactly such a scenario in the FBI organized crime investigation, knowing many innocents would be part of the call network under analysis.
Bulk collection of all calls, that is a different story and that is all that is likely will be prohibited.
Collecting, indexing, and cross indexing the data.
My phone bill doesn't have that feature.
If you want to know what's going on and not be a pleb maybe you should check out the NSA leaks yourself.
Work on your reading comprehension. I wrote about collecting the data not processing it. Pointing out it is *not* collected for the NSA's benefit. That the NSA is receiving corporate data collected for valid internal corporate reasons (ie phone bill). So wanting to punish people for collecting the data in the first place is a nonsensical idea.
I know what is going on. Long before it came to your attention that the NSA was doing this I was reading publicly disclosed information where the FBI was explaining how they used the same technique to determine membership in and the organization of organized crime families. This was in the 90s.
It doesn't matter what it is. The NSA has absolutely no business spying on me. But then I wouldn't expect a little millennial shit like you to understand the ramifications of giving up your privacy/security. So long as you have your Facebook/Twitter and your video games, you're willing to sacrifice all of your principles.
Work on your reading comprehension. I wrote about collecting the data not turning it over to the NSA. Pointing out it is *not* collected for the NSA's benefit. That the NSA is receiving corporate data collected for valid internal corporate reasons.
Once you get your reading comprehension up to speed we can work on your misperceptions regarding privacy, security, principles, etc.
get out the guillotines and execute anyone involved in collecting data or helping the NSA
"Collecting data"? You realize the data is basically your phone bill? This information exists and will persists until the day your phone/mobile company thinks you will no longer possibly dispute your bill.
Well that and the phone/mobile companies use this data for internal modeling of call networks for their own design purposes.
Anyone else wondering why Nasa was collecting metadata?
They need to build a model of call networks. This will help them better design the communications infrastructure for the moon and mars colonies. Long distance call latency will be a bit worse than earthly international calls so they need to plan accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
By reducing your ammo count to a small fraction in a zombie environment you are betting your life. And by using louder ammo you are further betting your life. Seems riskier than losing the time it takes to manually cycle a 10/22. Plus there is the time/mobility you lose carrying all that weight. ;-)
Is 22LR good enough for zombies? I'm thinking double aught buck.
The movies also teach that cardio is important, so I'm thinking a ten pound budget on rifle, five 10 round magazines, and 500 rounds of ammunition. Oh, the movies also teach about noise, so less noise too. :-)
Have scientists not seen zombie movies? Because this sort of stuff is often what we see in the opening scenes before something unexpected happens and the zombie apocalypse results. Time to guy buy some 22LR and breakfree I suppose.
The GP is referring to international law.
So was I. Under international law, it is illegal to target civilians, first responders and journalists. And the war was illegal in the first place as well.
Then you do not understand international law. Men openly carrying arms in an area of active combat are not civilians. Wearing civilian clothes does not make them civilians. In fact wearing civilian clothes may make them illegal combatants under international law. Making them legal targets, making them ineligible for treatment as POWs, making them subject to the laws of the occupying power they are fighting against, etc. Some sort of distinctive markings visible at a distance is required for militias, partisans, etc when wearing civilian clothing rather than military uniforms.
Regarding first responders and journalists, none were identifying themselves as such with any sort of distinctive markings visible at a distance as required. The journalist was indistinguishable from the armed men in the group. The van was indistinguishable from vehicles armed men had used in the region. Regrettable misidentification, one which proper marking are supposed to help prevent. Again, sadly, the journalists and first responders were legal targets due to their lack of compliance with the laws of war.
Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws.
Foreign citizenship and a foreign locale does not provide immunity for hacking into US computers. You might have noticed how Mueller had indicted Russians in Russia. Same thing here. Assange is accused of assisting Manning in the collection of classified data. Such assistance crosses the line and takes him outside of journalistic shielding, he did not merely publish if the accusations are accurate.
You have three war crimes in that video:
Actually ZERO war crimes. Just bad decisions on BOTH sides and the fog of war.
Targeting civilians
Civilians carrying arms (rifles and RPG) in an active combat zone, in an area where American forces had received fire from, an area where Americans were approaching. The arms and context make the group a legal target.
Targeting journalists
The journalists embedded themselves with a group of civilians carrying arms in a combat zone, the journalists were not wearing distinctive clothing identifying themselves. Additionally a shadow of the camera lens was mistakenly believed to be another RPG. The journalists were collateral damage. Regrettable but legal.
Targeting first responders
The van was not marked as a first responders vehicle. The civilians in a civilian van were mistakenly believed to be additional insurgents collecting insurgent wounded/dead *and weapons*. Very regrettable but legal.
Again, patents also lose their value through non-infringing workarounds and the underlying technology (hybrids in this case, overshadowed by new EVs) loosing market appeal.
These, and aging, have likely devalued many of their patents. Again, we are likely seeing a PR move, one that gets the greater value from these patents.
OK. It was a bad slashdot article title. Its not you can now use 2FA, its you now have a second way to use 2FA. Thanks for clarifying things.
Google complied with Chinese law by ceasing to do business in China. I imagine that opponents of censorship would prefer that Apple follow suit.
And then Google changed its mind and started making surveilance/censorship software for China. Google has also partnered with the Chinese government.
Yeah, "The feature is coming only to Android devices versions 7 and up" is confusing for those of us already using 2FA. I've been using 2FA via Google Authenicator for some google accounts since Android 5. 2SV is not the only option, we already have a 2FA option. Or did we lose that 2FA option in recent history and now its returning? I am only using 2FA on a somewhat "old" account.
Mussolini was the fascist and he even wrote a book (mostly plagerized from older fascists) all about it. Hitler was a socialist and only reluctantly accepted fascism. Those are historical facts, deal with it libtard.
Dear Anonymous "Genius", When I wrote
... as long as the bit and pieces consolidate party control. For example labor organizations existed under Mussolini and Hitler, they were required, but most importantly they were organized under and through the party. A labor union being just an element of the party apparatus.
"You don't understand fascism. Under fascism both the people and the corporations are under state/party control directly or indirectly. The two are often played off against each other to keep each other weak, to maintain government control of both."
I was mostly thinking of Mussolini. Although it applies to Hitler as well.
FYI, Hitler looked to Mussolini as a role model for many of the early years. There was nothing "reluctant" about Hitler's embrace of fascism.
Also there is nothing inconsistent between fascism and socialism. Fascists will cherry pick bits and pieces of socialism, conservatism, capitalism, etc
My gmail account is not, or should not be, considered public.
Nor should it be considered private. You did after all consent to google scanning your emails for keywords to better target advertisements towards you.
Government + corporations working together = fascism. The real fascism, not the bullshit nonsense where idiots scream nazi at anyone who disagrees with them.
What about the bullshit nonsense where idiots scream fascism anytime a corporation is involved?
You don't understand fascism. Under fascism both the people and the corporations are under state/party control directly or indirectly. The two are often played off against each other to keep each other weak, to maintain government control of both.
Thanks to OTA updates, the car gets regular upgrades even a year after purchase I won't buy a car that needs "updates". Anything that needs software updates needs them because it was written badly to begin with.
Getting updates and "needing" updates are two very different things. As for the current software in your car, it is probably not better written than EV vehicle software, you merely are stuck with what you have and can't get an update. Or you only get an upgrade when the severity of the problem reaches the "recall" level. Small problem fixes or product improvements not available to you, but are available to the EV owners whose system were built to be more easily updated.
Few are buying EVs ...
Yes, because manufacturing cannot keep up with demand so the EV market can get away with only shipping higher end luxury vehicles. Most of my hybrid owning friends have expressed the sentiment that they wish they could afford a Tesla.
Wow. What will the stock holders going to say? Wow, this seems extremely generous. Perhaps a little too generous. What's the catch here?
Perhaps the stockholders are likely to say "good job at getting marketing value out of expiring or otherwise obsolete patents"?
The Prius launched 22 years ago. Some patents are likely older than that. Patents only last 20 years.
Besides expiration we also have patents that have been worked around via a different approach to a problem, patents covering a now obsolete approach, etc. The "marketing value" of sharing these patents may very well be greater than "commercial value" of the patent itself.
Hmm ... no mention of the political party he and his senator are members of. They must be democrats then. If they were Republicans the media and summaries would surely be pointing that out.
Google may be interested in moving to China, but they seem perfectly happy to working on censorship and population control tools for China but not reconnaissance software for the US. That is quite the inconsistency, claims of a moral stand debunked.
"You need a diversity of opinions, not a diversity of genders and skin tones." You need a diversity of both to achieve either.
A diversity of opinions is likely to give you a diversity of genders and skin tones and experiences.
And google's diversity of genders and skin tones is proving you don't necessarily get a diversity of opinions, we are seeing quite the ideological monoculture among Google's "diversity".
Engineers with ethics? Will the wonders never cease?
No, actually a lack of ethics. Ethical individuals listen to others with diverse or opposite opinions, hear them out, and honestly weigh both side's arguments. It is unethical individuals that presume others are wrong and bar them from participating in the discussion. They are practicing the ethics of fascists, quite ironic.
In any case the goog staff are wrong. You need a diversity of opinions, not a diversity of genders and skin tones. AI will happen, do they want to do it right or let someone else do it badly?
You are absolutely correct. Groups of people with different perspectives often make better decisions than groups of monoculture thought. However we live in an age where results do not matter, where signaling "good intentions" is more important. And again like the hyper partisan politicals they are only "their side" could possibly have "good intentions", thus their ideal of one party control is justified.
A shitfest of overblown egos and exaggerated IQ.
IQ's may not be exaggerated but competence almost certainly is. Keep in mind that people who have superior performance in one area may also be below average performers in other areas. This is more likely the case here. Superior skills in coding not translating over to organizational behavior and psychology.
Those familiar with organizational behavior and psychology would understand that a group of diverse perspectives would most likely make better decisions than a group with a monoculture perspective. IQs cannot overcome this phenomenon.
If we had functioning courts a court order would be required. Information about associations people have reveals a ton of personal information that is normally protected. The NSA had no legal right to the information without oversight.
Court orders for this are easily obtained. The FBI used similar collection and analysis in the 1990s when trying to determine the organization of and membership in an organized crime family. The court had no problem with analyzing some number of "hops" from a known suspect.
The NSA is normally prohibited from collecting data with the US but I believe "authorization" came into play when a call existed with a foreign "suspect", then some number of hops were allowed even if domestic. Call a family owned restaurant to make a reservation, if that restaurant had also received a call lets say from syria last year, then there might very well be "authorization" and "oversight". The court allowed exactly such a scenario in the FBI organized crime investigation, knowing many innocents would be part of the call network under analysis.
Bulk collection of all calls, that is a different story and that is all that is likely will be prohibited.
Collecting, indexing, and cross indexing the data. My phone bill doesn't have that feature. If you want to know what's going on and not be a pleb maybe you should check out the NSA leaks yourself.
Work on your reading comprehension. I wrote about collecting the data not processing it. Pointing out it is *not* collected for the NSA's benefit. That the NSA is receiving corporate data collected for valid internal corporate reasons (ie phone bill). So wanting to punish people for collecting the data in the first place is a nonsensical idea.
I know what is going on. Long before it came to your attention that the NSA was doing this I was reading publicly disclosed information where the FBI was explaining how they used the same technique to determine membership in and the organization of organized crime families. This was in the 90s.
It doesn't matter what it is. The NSA has absolutely no business spying on me. But then I wouldn't expect a little millennial shit like you to understand the ramifications of giving up your privacy/security. So long as you have your Facebook/Twitter and your video games, you're willing to sacrifice all of your principles.
Work on your reading comprehension. I wrote about collecting the data not turning it over to the NSA. Pointing out it is *not* collected for the NSA's benefit. That the NSA is receiving corporate data collected for valid internal corporate reasons.
Once you get your reading comprehension up to speed we can work on your misperceptions regarding privacy, security, principles, etc.
get out the guillotines and execute anyone involved in collecting data or helping the NSA
"Collecting data"? You realize the data is basically your phone bill? This information exists and will persists until the day your phone/mobile company thinks you will no longer possibly dispute your bill.
Well that and the phone/mobile companies use this data for internal modeling of call networks for their own design purposes.
Anyone else wondering why Nasa was collecting metadata?
They need to build a model of call networks. This will help them better design the communications infrastructure for the moon and mars colonies. Long distance call latency will be a bit worse than earthly international calls so they need to plan accordingly.