Not anymore...not with surveillance cameras everywhere, and facial recognition software tied to every airport and port. His only chance is a small private boat or private airplane from a private airport. Guess you've never read 1984 nor seen Brazil.
Or he could walk across the Canadian or Mexican boarder.
Common advice for getting that big social networking site to respond to requests is to mail a paper letter to their HQ, possibly attn: legal affairs. Apparently the success rate is very high.
another good way is if there is a place to put age set is as under 12 many will delete it immediately due to law concerning keeping data about children.
History namely the Boston bombing also show that the government surveillance is utterly useless when applied to terrorism even when it is given plenty of warning by other nations. So if said surveillance is ineffectual against terrorism why is it still need.
what is it useful for? creating a police state.
those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither
No where in the constitution does it say that it is governments job to keep me safe, it is my job to keep me safe, it is the governments job to ensure my freedoms and liberties are preserved not to infringe upon freedoms themselves.
It would be easy to do but you would need access to the internet backbones blank ssl certs and much more you can't get without either owning the infrastructure or having the force of the government on your side. Oh and you would need to have the equipment manufactures give you backdoors as well as the owners of the major propriety OS's. So unless you are the government or own everything its not going to happen.
While I have the option of disabling ads I don't and still will click them, especially MS ones since I find making MS pay/. some what amusing.
hmm how hard would it be to make a adblocker that "clicks" links in ads then closes the tabs they open and still never displays the ads to me. So it would still help the sites i like without me having to actually see the cluter.
But yanking the Google Glass off of her face, dropping it to the ground, and stomping it into a twisted, useless jumble of tangled metal? Don't see a problem with that.
So you are going to assault someone and commit distruction on private property because you don't like a app they may or may not be using? Prepare for them to own your ass(ets) after the lawyers get involved.
Thats why we all need to start using TOR Freenet I2P GNUnet Retroshare and other darknets I have been looking into seting up a freenet node on my personal server and trying to tell people about retroshare. While we also need to encrypt the data at the end points (your harddrive) and the message payloads(pgp encrypted and signed emails, texts, messages, etc) the origin and endpoint need to be run through these so they can't collect any metadata.
You're missing the point. Yes hauling them back is useless. They would be used in space.
For what exactly? By who? And with what technology? All I'm seeing is a bunch of ill informed hand waving about the economics and technology involved. You're just assuming everything would make economic sense and that the technology will somehow be viable. Yes, getting out of a gravity well is expensive. However it is not the only economic issue in play here.
How do you propose the person doing it get an economic return if they return no product to Earth? Even if you somehow do manage to mine and process materials in space (which is a HUGE if) you still need to return *something* to Earth in order to make it economically attractive unless you are actually engaged in a colonization project with a completely independent economy.
Getting materials to orbit is incredibly expensive.
Sure, it is expensive to get materials out of a gravity well but it is not remotely clear that it would be any cheaper to process them in space especially since essentially 100% of the technology to mine and manufacture materials in space is, for all practical purposes, science fiction. While our scientists and engineers are pretty damn clever, this is a MUCH harder problem than most people realize. Seldom do people think about the supply chains that are required for all products. You have to have mining, refining, processing, transport, engineering, assembly, and quality controls for every single product and repeat it all for every material and every subcomponent in the item being made. You don't just have to send up a single device, you have to send up an entire supply chain to make space manufacturing technologically viable.
You're missing the point. Yes hauling them back is useless. They would be used in space.
For what exactly? By who? And with what technology? All I'm seeing is a bunch of ill informed hand waving about the economics and technology involved. You're just assuming everything would make economic sense and that the technology will somehow be viable. Yes, getting out of a gravity well is expensive. However it is not the only economic issue in play here.
How do you propose the person doing it get an economic return if they return no product to Earth? Even if you somehow do manage to mine and process materials in space (which is a HUGE if) you still need to return *something* to Earth in order to make it economically attractive unless you are actually engaged in a colonization project with a completely independent economy.
Getting materials to orbit is incredibly expensive.
Sure, it is expensive to get materials out of a gravity well but it is not remotely clear that it would be any cheaper to process them in space especially since essentially 100% of the technology to mine and manufacture materials in space is, for all practical purposes, science fiction. While our scientists and engineers are pretty damn clever, this is a MUCH harder problem than most people realize. Seldom do people think about the supply chains that are required for all products. You have to have mining, refining, processing, transport, engineering, assembly, and quality controls for every single product and repeat it all for every material and every subcomponent in the item being made. You don't just have to send up a single device, you have to send up an entire supply chain to make space manufacturing technologically viable.
Well you could send earth all of the rare earth element they could ever want by mining descent sized meteor. helium 3 could power fusion reactors, space has unlimited (for all intents and purposes) supply of everything he could just stop all mining on earth and live off of supplies from space and stop shiting where we sleep as it were. we could build orbital stations for growing food and turn earth into a park like city, space if exploited properly would change everything and you are asking why it is a viable investment?
maybe so you could leave earth? why did settlers leave for the new world why could they find economic backers, maybe because it is intrinsically worth doing.
Just how much do you think a direct metal laser sintering printer costs?
Well a rip rap cost according to google shopping search anywhere form $150 parts to over a $1000 fully assembled and about two weeks ago a 3d metal printer based on rep rap was developed it cost about 1000 pounds or 1600 dollars to make according to the slashdot summery. Now the cost of the printers would be a one time investment after that each gun only costs as much as the electricity and powdered metal, and abs plastic (for things like grips such). so really not all that much when it comes right down to it considering.
They don't necessarily have to make their revenue all from ads.
They can provide a polished, stable version of Android that is in many ways better than the original and provide support to the phone manufacturers (perhaps more cheaply than Google?), directly getting a cut from handset sales.
They could start and manage their own app store and take a cut if app purchases.
By working directly with manufacturers, they can spend less time hacking/reverse engineering stuff in order to get it to work with the hardware and instead focus on making their flavor of Android better and therefore desirable on handsets. Cyanogenmod has always been about being cutting-edge - pioneering many features long before AOSP. And not just 'fun' features but really important stuff like fine-detailed app permissions management (which has been WAY overdue). If they can now have a say in hardware design, I say, hell yes, bring it on. I hope to see cutting-edge badass smartphones with easy root access, high customize-ability/theming, and bleeding edge features.
Lately I've been keeping an eye on the Sailfish project, but this news has refreshed my interest in the future of Android in general. Let's not be too cynical and assume it's all going to be about advertising. And even if there are ads, does anyone really think the ads could be any worse or more intrusive than the current state of Android in general?
Maybe Canonical has spoiled everyone's attitudes toward the idea of monetizing open source. There's certainly a comparison to be made here. I'm not well-versed enough in the behind-the-scenes stuff to compare, but I wonder what the degree of impact Cyanogen has had on the Android world is, compared to Ubuntu's contribution to Linux, and what lessons we can take from the latter and apply to the former?
BLAH blah blah.
They're just hoping to be bought by google, later, for much MORE money.
how exactly do you buy a community developed distro?
the birth rate lowers but also consider immigration from higher birth rate areas especially from catholic countries like mexico and other central/south american countries will affect the birth rate and population numbers
Its the Frankenstein complex, Asimov noticed this trend in society of man fearing his own creations it goes back centuries, the Titans overthrown by there children the Olympian deities, Satan then Adam and Eve rebelling against God, Rabbi Loews Golum of Prague rebelling against its master and killing those that it was made to protect, Frankenstein fears his creation and rebukes it turning it into the monster he thought it to be, Rossums Robots of Rossems Universal Robots turning on the creator, then the countless evil robots of modern scifi from cylons (BSG) to replicators (SG; SG1) to grey goo to terminators, to Lore (ST TNG).
He wrote several essays on it actually, that's why he came up with the three laws of robotics as he viewed this as stupid asking why would we not a tool with built in safeties.
If he does not makes copies of the documents that are proof of his claims then how is he to prove they are braking the law and violating the trust of their country. He as a systems administrator discovered wrong doing on part of the NSA, from their he proceeded to gain evidence of said wrong doing. As for accusations of "hacking" all he did is what any other sys admin could do with his permissions, when hacking you use exploits, he had the passwords and did not need to hack any more than i am hacking when i ssh into my own server, or remotely log in to my parents computer to fix it. What he did is above reproach.
Slashdot Mirror
Not anymore...not with surveillance cameras everywhere, and facial recognition software tied to every airport and port. His only chance is a small private boat or private airplane from a private airport. Guess you've never read 1984 nor seen Brazil.
Or he could walk across the Canadian or Mexican boarder.
What email provider doesn't the one that resist get taken down look just at lavabit.
Common advice for getting that big social networking site to respond to requests is to mail a paper letter to their HQ, possibly attn: legal affairs. Apparently the success rate is very high.
another good way is if there is a place to put age set is as under 12 many will delete it immediately due to law concerning keeping data about children.
History namely the Boston bombing also show that the government surveillance is utterly useless when applied to terrorism even when it is given plenty of warning by other nations. So if said surveillance is ineffectual against terrorism why is it still need.
what is it useful for? creating a police state.
those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither
No where in the constitution does it say that it is governments job to keep me safe, it is my job to keep me safe, it is the governments job to ensure my freedoms and liberties are preserved not to infringe upon freedoms themselves.
It would be easy to do but you would need access to the internet backbones blank ssl certs and much more you can't get without either owning the infrastructure or having the force of the government on your side. Oh and you would need to have the equipment manufactures give you backdoors as well as the owners of the major propriety OS's. So unless you are the government or own everything its not going to happen.
While I have the option of disabling ads I don't and still will click them, especially MS ones since I find making MS pay /. some what amusing.
hmm how hard would it be to make a adblocker that "clicks" links in ads then closes the tabs they open and still never displays the ads to me. So it would still help the sites i like without me having to actually see the cluter.
Perhaps not.
But yanking the Google Glass off of her face, dropping it to the ground, and stomping it into a twisted, useless jumble of tangled metal? Don't see a problem with that.
So you are going to assault someone and commit distruction on private property because you don't like a app they may or may not be using? Prepare for them to own your ass(ets) after the lawyers get involved.
Thats why we all need to start using TOR Freenet I2P GNUnet Retroshare and other darknets I have been looking into seting up a freenet node on my personal server and trying to tell people about retroshare. While we also need to encrypt the data at the end points (your harddrive) and the message payloads(pgp encrypted and signed emails, texts, messages, etc) the origin and endpoint need to be run through these so they can't collect any metadata.
don't judge the CS and IT by a AC troll
how exactly do you buy a community developed distro?
You buy the IP, it's not rocket surgery.
if it is open source won't the community just fork it again like with libreoffice and openoffice.org
we went from landing man on the moon to essential hitchiking with the russians in less time
never underestimate political bean counter ability to fuck up a good thing
You're missing the point. Yes hauling them back is useless. They would be used in space.
For what exactly? By who? And with what technology? All I'm seeing is a bunch of ill informed hand waving about the economics and technology involved. You're just assuming everything would make economic sense and that the technology will somehow be viable. Yes, getting out of a gravity well is expensive. However it is not the only economic issue in play here.
How do you propose the person doing it get an economic return if they return no product to Earth? Even if you somehow do manage to mine and process materials in space (which is a HUGE if) you still need to return *something* to Earth in order to make it economically attractive unless you are actually engaged in a colonization project with a completely independent economy.
Getting materials to orbit is incredibly expensive.
Sure, it is expensive to get materials out of a gravity well but it is not remotely clear that it would be any cheaper to process them in space especially since essentially 100% of the technology to mine and manufacture materials in space is, for all practical purposes, science fiction. While our scientists and engineers are pretty damn clever, this is a MUCH harder problem than most people realize. Seldom do people think about the supply chains that are required for all products. You have to have mining, refining, processing, transport, engineering, assembly, and quality controls for every single product and repeat it all for every material and every subcomponent in the item being made. You don't just have to send up a single device, you have to send up an entire supply chain to make space manufacturing technologically viable.
You're missing the point. Yes hauling them back is useless. They would be used in space.
For what exactly? By who? And with what technology? All I'm seeing is a bunch of ill informed hand waving about the economics and technology involved. You're just assuming everything would make economic sense and that the technology will somehow be viable. Yes, getting out of a gravity well is expensive. However it is not the only economic issue in play here.
How do you propose the person doing it get an economic return if they return no product to Earth? Even if you somehow do manage to mine and process materials in space (which is a HUGE if) you still need to return *something* to Earth in order to make it economically attractive unless you are actually engaged in a colonization project with a completely independent economy.
Getting materials to orbit is incredibly expensive.
Sure, it is expensive to get materials out of a gravity well but it is not remotely clear that it would be any cheaper to process them in space especially since essentially 100% of the technology to mine and manufacture materials in space is, for all practical purposes, science fiction. While our scientists and engineers are pretty damn clever, this is a MUCH harder problem than most people realize. Seldom do people think about the supply chains that are required for all products. You have to have mining, refining, processing, transport, engineering, assembly, and quality controls for every single product and repeat it all for every material and every subcomponent in the item being made. You don't just have to send up a single device, you have to send up an entire supply chain to make space manufacturing technologically viable.
Well you could send earth all of the rare earth element they could ever want by mining descent sized meteor. helium 3 could power fusion reactors, space has unlimited (for all intents and purposes) supply of everything he could just stop all mining on earth and live off of supplies from space and stop shiting where we sleep as it were. we could build orbital stations for growing food and turn earth into a park like city, space if exploited properly would change everything and you are asking why it is a viable investment?
maybe so you could leave earth? why did settlers leave for the new world why could they find economic backers, maybe because it is intrinsically worth doing.
Because the Earth has liquid water, and enough complex organics to start the process of evolution.
so would you of argued to stay in the ocean where there was enough water for your aquatic ancestors?
"we have rovers on mars that draw penises"
Link or it didn't happen.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/mars-rover-penis-draws-nasa_n_3148422.html
unfortunately it did.
More to the point, we have rovers on mars that draw penises. We own that place. The moon is so 50 years ago. Next stop Uranus.
I think that the TSA already beat NASA to it.
Are you really so scared of boogymen that you need to carry a gun in a holster on your hip? What the fuck do you think is going to happen?
or maybe he just enjoys his constitutional rights.
Just how much do you think a direct metal laser sintering printer costs?
Well a rip rap cost according to google shopping search anywhere form $150 parts to over a $1000 fully assembled and about two weeks ago a 3d metal printer based on rep rap was developed it cost about 1000 pounds or 1600 dollars to make according to the slashdot summery. Now the cost of the printers would be a one time investment after that each gun only costs as much as the electricity and powdered metal, and abs plastic (for things like grips such). so really not all that much when it comes right down to it considering.
They don't necessarily have to make their revenue all from ads.
They can provide a polished, stable version of Android that is in many ways better than the original and provide support to the phone manufacturers (perhaps more cheaply than Google?), directly getting a cut from handset sales.
They could start and manage their own app store and take a cut if app purchases.
By working directly with manufacturers, they can spend less time hacking/reverse engineering stuff in order to get it to work with the hardware and instead focus on making their flavor of Android better and therefore desirable on handsets. Cyanogenmod has always been about being cutting-edge - pioneering many features long before AOSP. And not just 'fun' features but really important stuff like fine-detailed app permissions management (which has been WAY overdue). If they can now have a say in hardware design, I say, hell yes, bring it on. I hope to see cutting-edge badass smartphones with easy root access, high customize-ability/theming, and bleeding edge features.
Lately I've been keeping an eye on the Sailfish project, but this news has refreshed my interest in the future of Android in general. Let's not be too cynical and assume it's all going to be about advertising. And even if there are ads, does anyone really think the ads could be any worse or more intrusive than the current state of Android in general?
Maybe Canonical has spoiled everyone's attitudes toward the idea of monetizing open source. There's certainly a comparison to be made here. I'm not well-versed enough in the behind-the-scenes stuff to compare, but I wonder what the degree of impact Cyanogen has had on the Android world is, compared to Ubuntu's contribution to Linux, and what lessons we can take from the latter and apply to the former?
BLAH blah blah.
They're just hoping to be bought by google, later, for much MORE money.
how exactly do you buy a community developed distro?
Please make that 'GNU/Linux', my good sir/ma'am - rms
Unless i decide to install BSDs utils or busybox, android, plan9 utils or any of a dozen others
exsept that would show up when you run a diff of the sourcecode
the birth rate lowers but also consider immigration from higher birth rate areas especially from catholic countries like mexico and other central/south american countries will affect the birth rate and population numbers
Its the Frankenstein complex, Asimov noticed this trend in society of man fearing his own creations it goes back centuries, the Titans overthrown by there children the Olympian deities, Satan then Adam and Eve rebelling against God, Rabbi Loews Golum of Prague rebelling against its master and killing those that it was made to protect, Frankenstein fears his creation and rebukes it turning it into the monster he thought it to be, Rossums Robots of Rossems Universal Robots turning on the creator, then the countless evil robots of modern scifi from cylons (BSG) to replicators (SG; SG1) to grey goo to terminators, to Lore (ST TNG).
He wrote several essays on it actually, that's why he came up with the three laws of robotics as he viewed this as stupid asking why would we not a tool with built in safeties.
Issac Asimov called and he wanted me to tell you to get over your Frankenstein complex .
If he does not makes copies of the documents that are proof of his claims then how is he to prove they are braking the law and violating the trust of their country. He as a systems administrator discovered wrong doing on part of the NSA, from their he proceeded to gain evidence of said wrong doing. As for accusations of "hacking" all he did is what any other sys admin could do with his permissions, when hacking you use exploits, he had the passwords and did not need to hack any more than i am hacking when i ssh into my own server, or remotely log in to my parents computer to fix it. What he did is above reproach.