I have knowledge of this matter and I know it's crap. This is about negotiating with a supplier and throwing a tantrum. They have decided to cut off their nose to spite their face.
(If this sounds like a lot of opinion, it is...but I do have some knowledge on this matter. Once things are final, I'll be happy to share exactly what I know.)
For the moment, until things change, nuclear power is the only source that provides enough to keep things going without buring stuff and putting it into the air and everywhere. Already nuclear power has saved countless lives as they have safely displaced the amount of coal and gas to burn. Without nuclear power, the net carbon footprint of hybrid cars would be less than barely a net improvement over pure gasoline. Wind, solar, geothermal and others are not able to make it happen.
Anti-nuke people haven't been paying attention. But just about any way you look at it, nuclear wins. Sure it requires a great deal of care to handle it safely, but we've been doing nuclear in the US for a very long time with a pretty excellent record.
It disappoints me that greedy business interests are behaving this way. Until we have something better than nuclear, we need to keep nuclear going. (Shut them all down once we've got something better. It's not like I'm in love with the tech, but it's just so much better than burning stuff.)
Linux is not a toy. If it were true, then Cisco, VMWare and dozens of other highly respected and expensive technology brands are foisting toys upon the world.
But even so, Linux on the Desktop will never be a "mainstream thing." But that's perfectly okay. Windows (and DOS before it) was always designed to be a desktop system... a non-critical desktop system. And of course, it has critical mass which is why "everything works best on it." But don't confuse that apparent fact to mean that means Windows is the best.
I do use Linux on the desktop and mainly because I can trust it a great deal more than Windows. And in today's ridiculous political climate? You'd be an absolute fool to use anything but Linux today. After all, if you disagree with the tremendous amount of government overreach lately (and the vast majority of us do) I can't imagine why you couldn't presume your Windows isn't compromised already. Seriously. It's mainstream news. It's not "conspiracy theory" any more. And it runs things nicely and well.
So why won't there ever be a year of the Linux Desktop? Well... that's because it's the desktop itself that's on it way out. And it happens that Linux is already dominating its replacements and Microsoft/Windows has already been soundly rejected by the consumer community.
That was part of my point. I was indicating problems with the old way of thinking. People, more likely as a result of the "New Coke" incident than Microsoft's despised Windows releases like WinME, Vista and Win8, just don't care to see "New" on the label.
I would rather think the drug makers/pushers are out of touch rather than maliciously preying on patients.
Yes... going to the bathroom is an inconvenience and often an interruption of my day. I have suggested the idea of adult diapers to people with similar concerns but no one seems to think it's a good idea.
But seriously, all of these individual anecdotes don't negate the big picture issue which has been observed and commented on at least since the 1980s.
1. Can't make any money unless you hold patents (monopoly) and can charge any price you want even [especially] at the expense of loss of life for those who cannot afford it. (They are just dying to get a new drug!) 2. People won't buy your crap unless it has the word "new" on the label. (Microsoft has driven that notion out of us over the past few years though)
Real breakthroughs and discoveries are rare. It seems a month doesn't go by without my hearing some new kind of benefit of using aspirin or acetaminophen.
What really needs to happen:
1. People need to be more careful about their use of drugs -- a body less accustomed to drugs in it shows a better response to drugs when they are needed. 2. People need to be more careful about how they live their lives and to take responsibility for their bodies. I could go on forever about that. 3. More work needs to be done to discover the causes of the maladies plaguing our modern world. We already understand that lots of the cause IS our modern world, but no one wants to talk about it because we might have to give something up.
There's less or no money in any of these ideas. Consequently, it won't happen.
Well, it seems another judge agrees with me in this case. I hope it stops there... likely won't but perhaps the next appeal will favor the constitution as well.
It's interesting that all this mention of Obama is being mentioned. It's as if they are literally calling on him to intervene... or announcing it.
He would do well to steer clear of this one. After all, his push for patent reform is in no small part addressing the issue of software patents among other things like patent trolls. Samsung is a practicing and participating entity. Ideologically, they are precisely what Obama's patent reform push would serve to protect. For Obama to act against the ITC now would be hyp... oh, okay... I see it now. Nevermind.... business as usual.
With the way things are now in the US, it might be a good idea to buy Canadian phone service and "roam" in the US.
Actually, with the actions of T-Mobile lately, it's almost as if they were anticipating this. There are no cancellation fees... no more contracts. If you decide to stop being a T-Mobile customer, you just have to pay for the phone you bought through them if you haven't already.
The roaming and overage charge caps are new though.
To be fair and clear, publishers are scum and this seems to be consistent regardless of the material being published -- research/scholarly journals, books, music, movies/TV and video games.
They are in the business of selling someone else's work and occasionally giving some of that money back to the people who created the content. For the publishers, it's "Money forever" but for the creators, it's "work for hire" and so they don't get money forever unless they somehow managed to cheat the publishers out of it. This type of capitalist vampirism should be outlawed as they don't "represent" the content creators as they so often claim. What we need are agency type arrangements where the publishing agencies can only get like 10 to 15%.
Please check out my other comment about our consumerist society. Our self-esteem comes quite directly from our ability to buy things.
This is our society. We can't change it today or tomorrow. Now explain how you can raise a child with good moral strength and peace of mind without also having any level of financial security and stability. There is more to building a person than education. In fact, I have seen and known some extremely educated people who haven't a clue about how to live.
I actually have three sons. Each of them have had as much as I could give them. The first two graduated with honors under the IB program and on. My little one has even more of my attention. I'm very conscious of what it takes to raise a child. I don't do home schooling because I have to bring money home. But all homework and all in-class work is reviewed and discussed when he gets home and I am in very close contact with the teachers. I'm not making excuses -- I'm telling you what I'm doing because I do as much as I can. And I'm not consumerist personally and so far, neither are my children. But social skills and the ability to function in society is extremely important.
The alternative? It's hard to imagine without living on public assistance.
I realize this is a troll, but there is some truth to this... SOME.
Smart people do not have children they can't raise in a good healthy environment and can't properly give them all the things they need as they grow and graduate into adulthood.
Unfortunately, we have far too many non-smart people. Both rich and poor, they have children they can't or won't care for. Both end up spoiled and neglected and this has been going on for 2-3 generations now. Under these conditions, the results are more than predictable. And the poor become a drain on society.
Now if this notion were followed through and actually happened? Well, that'd be another problem entirely. We need a middle class and we don't have one. The rich send our jobs everywhere else but here and they are slowly running out of people they can sell their crap to. Do you know how poor people are getting their cell phones now? Government subsidized service. Seriously. Welfare mobile phones. And of course they are on welfare everything else as well.
Most of us here on slashdot don't really know what it's like to be poor and on welfare. I've had unfortunate times, though, and I know it all too well. To me it was a nightmare, but most of them were extremely comfortable in their misery. Extremely comfortable.
Shit lost a healthy balance long ago. There is no limit on greed and no limit on laziness. Why there is a dwindling middle-class is partly because they have lowered the measure of what middle-class is and largely because of wealth distribution problems. Like global warming, I think we've gone too far already.
In the USA, it is all about credit (the ability to go into debt for the purpose of buying things) and what you have bought. When we see each other, we assess largely on what they are wearing, driving or have in their possession. Additionally, every time we hear about rich people in trouble or otherwise doing something stupid, we instictively react with "I thought they were [better than us]!!" It's not the presumption that they are just like anyone else and often times dumber, it's the opposite because we pedestrians have been taught to succeed we must be smart or skilled and to work hard. Interestingly, those are the characteristics which keep those "valuable human capital assets" in the trenches where they belong.
All the money circulates around consumerism. That is where the money is. That is what people study to join in to get a share of.
Yes, this is NOT a sustainable model. This is why we are in trouble now.
TSA people are NOT allowed to touch firearms. There is no training for that and the potential liability is too high. There are always LEOs available for just such events.
There are laws in the books in California about the rules of hot pursuits. If, for example, they are suspected of having done something with a gun or are otherwise already a danger to society, they can chase. If they are illegal immigrants, don't chase. That they didn't name the suspect's crime suggests that they either didn't know what they were being chased for or that it was something which did not warrant such a chase. Either way, giving chase was very likely an inappropriate response by the police.
The TSA would NEVER use a scanning device without the ability to record and save the data. Take it from a former screener. *I KNOW* (caveat, I never used one of these backscatter machines as an operator... they weren't in airports when I was a screener.)
Every one of the X-Ray devices I operated had the ability to save and could even print images. And to me it made sense. Evidence. Once I saw a human torso come through. I couldn't resist printing the image. We did not open the containers... Another time, a loaded pistol passed through in an inappropriate container. A screening supervisor felt confident that he could remove the pistol and unload it. I didn't feel uncomfortable about it -- I'm okay around guns. He obviously knew what he was doing as well. But people freaked out just the same. The image was saved.
If you wanted to be able to prove something, a picture is better than testimony. What makes anyone believe the TSA when they say they aren't saving the images?!
Anyone care to guess how the FDA determined that GMO foods are safe? They "consulted with experts." Those experts? Oh yeah.... Monsanto.
And seriously, when the Dairy people keep telling the USDA people that we need more milk in our diet eat year, you have to be a little suspicious considering the source. And Monsanto claiming their stuff don't stink? Why should we expect any other answer?
How are drug trials run? I suspect they are more rigorous and performed by independent testing people. Why has GMO foods gotten a pass on this process?
We all know the fact/joke that Taco Bell simply shuffles a small collection of ingredients to sell you a thing. More components cost more, fewer components cost less, but it's all a stack of the same finite list of components.
So now this is what Apple is to become without Jobs. They are running out of ideas and are now taking parts away to make a dollar menu version and re-adding the extras and sour cream to offer up the "iThing supreme."
Nice.
Stop reading here because I'm going off on a huge tangent... but then later I'll come back to why I hate Apple.
Today, I learned about the real core difference between people. We say conservative vs. liberal and all that. (What does liberal even mean?! We hear liberty but where is it?) Then someone came out and said it -- individual vs collective. Now it's much easier to understand what people have been sayiing that liberals are communists. And it's not so much "divide and conquer" as that never made a whole lot of sense to me before... it's "categorize and conquer." Now it makes sense. Because a person can say "I hate black people" and look like a moron (and they would be for saying that) but when a person says "I hate Al Sharpton" you are now deciding what you feel about an individual, not a collective like race, religion, red or blue.
You know? Everyone here believes they are an individual. But score yourself and be honest. Do you define yourself by what group(s) you are a member of? By the style(s) you wear? Be honest with yourself.
I'm an individual and I know it because people at times have instinctively hated me for it. Well, not for being an individual, but for not being a member of their group. And if I sought shelter of being in one group, I would feel less hated and more protected. But thanks to my somewhat autistic nature, I never understood or maintained a collective mentality. So I grew up wondering "why do people act like this?!" I'm not a member of group A, so they don't care for me. And I'm not a member of group B and they don't care for me either. That makes me alone and while I didn't understand group membership, I understood the misery of being "outcast" "excluded" and "alone." It's kind of depressing when you don't fully understand what's going on and what's what about it all.
So I ask again. Do you feel stronger, more self-assured, more powerful when you are in a group? Or do you feel more like yourself when you aren't part of a collective? Be honest. And to be clear, be honest with yourself because this is a rhetorical question. I actually don't care how you answer because when I say "be honest with yourself" you will be at some level and it will change how you see yourself....now on to Apple...
I hate Apple because of the mentality it exploits. That mentality is one of group membership. Apple isn't the first or only. Any of us who remember "Members Only" jackets are probably looking back at how outwardly ridiculous it really was. (I wonder if I can get one of those on eBay... it would be my first one!) Apple exploited this consumer desire to be elite... in an elite group. People really bought into it heavily. I recall when Apple started introducing less expensive Apple computers and people in forums started bitching because "...great! now EVERYONE can be an Apple user!!" And it was clear -- they were angry at their status degredation; the dilution. Boil it down to basics? These people REALLY define themselves by the things they bought... the things they own actually own them! Ridiculous on its face and amazingly true. And Everyone reading this acknowledges that these people exist. And the vast majority of those will deny they are one of them.
Apple exploits this in people. And when Apple is finally dead, it will be one less entity exploiting this in people.
And if you are honest with yourself and you also begin to see how ridiculous collectivism is on its face, then you will begin to see that "racism" is a collectivism as well and ne
What sort of debris would actually find its way down?
My first thought was "okay, send up hundreds or thousands of high explosive devices distributed evenly on the surface of the oncoming rock to form a giant shotgun blast to try to reduce one big thing into a whole bunch of small things which would burn up in the atmosphere.
That might only blast away the surface of the rock leaving behind a large core of the original and a lot of debris particles, but you know? Lather, rinse, repeat as needed. And of course, all of that crap has to stay in orbit ready to be launched.
I am sure all of this is much more complicated than I imagine it to be but I think the generalities are basically sound.
We have amazing ability to destroy vast portions of our planet. Why are significantly smaller rocks such a challenge? (Oh, that's right, because the targets are actually people, not the planet.)
You read like 90% sarcastic. "...the government will take care of us?"
Our government was BASED on the notion that we should always be suspicious of our government as a means of keeping it honest. Now you think it's a bad idea?
Firstly the just says the 5th amendment prohibits the government from requiring he provide evidence with which to charge and possibly convict the defendant. That was a fact set in stone.
Then the FBI claims that one of the drives have been cracked and they have proof of offending material as well as data present which proves ownership of the drive.
Great. But how does the collection of additional evidence change his constitutional rights against self-incrimination? Perhaps I'm just a big dummy, but providing the government with MORE information is still providing the government with information which incriminates.
Seems to me the government is probably lying about having cracked his drive and wants a fishing license. If they had REAL evidence, they wouldn't need to decrypt any further than they have.
Slashdot Mirror
I have knowledge of this matter and I know it's crap. This is about negotiating with a supplier and throwing a tantrum. They have decided to cut off their nose to spite their face.
(If this sounds like a lot of opinion, it is...but I do have some knowledge on this matter. Once things are final, I'll be happy to share exactly what I know.)
For the moment, until things change, nuclear power is the only source that provides enough to keep things going without buring stuff and putting it into the air and everywhere. Already nuclear power has saved countless lives as they have safely displaced the amount of coal and gas to burn. Without nuclear power, the net carbon footprint of hybrid cars would be less than barely a net improvement over pure gasoline. Wind, solar, geothermal and others are not able to make it happen.
Anti-nuke people haven't been paying attention. But just about any way you look at it, nuclear wins. Sure it requires a great deal of care to handle it safely, but we've been doing nuclear in the US for a very long time with a pretty excellent record.
It disappoints me that greedy business interests are behaving this way. Until we have something better than nuclear, we need to keep nuclear going. (Shut them all down once we've got something better. It's not like I'm in love with the tech, but it's just so much better than burning stuff.)
Linux is not a toy. If it were true, then Cisco, VMWare and dozens of other highly respected and expensive technology brands are foisting toys upon the world.
But even so, Linux on the Desktop will never be a "mainstream thing." But that's perfectly okay. Windows (and DOS before it) was always designed to be a desktop system... a non-critical desktop system. And of course, it has critical mass which is why "everything works best on it." But don't confuse that apparent fact to mean that means Windows is the best.
I do use Linux on the desktop and mainly because I can trust it a great deal more than Windows. And in today's ridiculous political climate? You'd be an absolute fool to use anything but Linux today. After all, if you disagree with the tremendous amount of government overreach lately (and the vast majority of us do) I can't imagine why you couldn't presume your Windows isn't compromised already. Seriously. It's mainstream news. It's not "conspiracy theory" any more. And it runs things nicely and well.
So why won't there ever be a year of the Linux Desktop? Well... that's because it's the desktop itself that's on it way out. And it happens that Linux is already dominating its replacements and Microsoft/Windows has already been soundly rejected by the consumer community.
Yes... it has nothing to do with copyright concerns. If it did, we'd know what to expect.
That was part of my point. I was indicating problems with the old way of thinking. People, more likely as a result of the "New Coke" incident than Microsoft's despised Windows releases like WinME, Vista and Win8, just don't care to see "New" on the label.
I would rather think the drug makers/pushers are out of touch rather than maliciously preying on patients.
Yes... going to the bathroom is an inconvenience and often an interruption of my day. I have suggested the idea of adult diapers to people with similar concerns but no one seems to think it's a good idea.
But seriously, all of these individual anecdotes don't negate the big picture issue which has been observed and commented on at least since the 1980s.
1. Can't make any money unless you hold patents (monopoly) and can charge any price you want even [especially] at the expense of loss of life for those who cannot afford it. (They are just dying to get a new drug!)
2. People won't buy your crap unless it has the word "new" on the label. (Microsoft has driven that notion out of us over the past few years though)
Real breakthroughs and discoveries are rare. It seems a month doesn't go by without my hearing some new kind of benefit of using aspirin or acetaminophen.
What really needs to happen:
1. People need to be more careful about their use of drugs -- a body less accustomed to drugs in it shows a better response to drugs when they are needed.
2. People need to be more careful about how they live their lives and to take responsibility for their bodies. I could go on forever about that.
3. More work needs to be done to discover the causes of the maladies plaguing our modern world. We already understand that lots of the cause IS our modern world, but no one wants to talk about it because we might have to give something up.
There's less or no money in any of these ideas. Consequently, it won't happen.
Well, it seems another judge agrees with me in this case. I hope it stops there... likely won't but perhaps the next appeal will favor the constitution as well.
It's interesting that all this mention of Obama is being mentioned. It's as if they are literally calling on him to intervene... or announcing it.
He would do well to steer clear of this one. After all, his push for patent reform is in no small part addressing the issue of software patents among other things like patent trolls. Samsung is a practicing and participating entity. Ideologically, they are precisely what Obama's patent reform push would serve to protect. For Obama to act against the ITC now would be hyp... oh, okay... I see it now. Nevermind.... business as usual.
With the way things are now in the US, it might be a good idea to buy Canadian phone service and "roam" in the US.
Actually, with the actions of T-Mobile lately, it's almost as if they were anticipating this. There are no cancellation fees... no more contracts. If you decide to stop being a T-Mobile customer, you just have to pay for the phone you bought through them if you haven't already.
The roaming and overage charge caps are new though.
To be fair and clear, publishers are scum and this seems to be consistent regardless of the material being published -- research/scholarly journals, books, music, movies/TV and video games.
They are in the business of selling someone else's work and occasionally giving some of that money back to the people who created the content. For the publishers, it's "Money forever" but for the creators, it's "work for hire" and so they don't get money forever unless they somehow managed to cheat the publishers out of it. This type of capitalist vampirism should be outlawed as they don't "represent" the content creators as they so often claim. What we need are agency type arrangements where the publishing agencies can only get like 10 to 15%.
Didn't they do this last year? Provide a charging kiosk which was able to (as a proof of concept) infiltrate the devices plugged into it?
No, you can thank him yourself... you'll be seeing him soon... if you've been good.
Please check out my other comment about our consumerist society. Our self-esteem comes quite directly from our ability to buy things.
This is our society. We can't change it today or tomorrow. Now explain how you can raise a child with good moral strength and peace of mind without also having any level of financial security and stability. There is more to building a person than education. In fact, I have seen and known some extremely educated people who haven't a clue about how to live.
I actually have three sons. Each of them have had as much as I could give them. The first two graduated with honors under the IB program and on. My little one has even more of my attention. I'm very conscious of what it takes to raise a child. I don't do home schooling because I have to bring money home. But all homework and all in-class work is reviewed and discussed when he gets home and I am in very close contact with the teachers. I'm not making excuses -- I'm telling you what I'm doing because I do as much as I can. And I'm not consumerist personally and so far, neither are my children. But social skills and the ability to function in society is extremely important.
The alternative? It's hard to imagine without living on public assistance.
I realize this is a troll, but there is some truth to this... SOME.
Smart people do not have children they can't raise in a good healthy environment and can't properly give them all the things they need as they grow and graduate into adulthood.
Unfortunately, we have far too many non-smart people. Both rich and poor, they have children they can't or won't care for. Both end up spoiled and neglected and this has been going on for 2-3 generations now. Under these conditions, the results are more than predictable. And the poor become a drain on society.
Now if this notion were followed through and actually happened? Well, that'd be another problem entirely. We need a middle class and we don't have one. The rich send our jobs everywhere else but here and they are slowly running out of people they can sell their crap to. Do you know how poor people are getting their cell phones now? Government subsidized service. Seriously. Welfare mobile phones. And of course they are on welfare everything else as well.
Most of us here on slashdot don't really know what it's like to be poor and on welfare. I've had unfortunate times, though, and I know it all too well. To me it was a nightmare, but most of them were extremely comfortable in their misery. Extremely comfortable.
Shit lost a healthy balance long ago. There is no limit on greed and no limit on laziness. Why there is a dwindling middle-class is partly because they have lowered the measure of what middle-class is and largely because of wealth distribution problems. Like global warming, I think we've gone too far already.
"we live in interesting times."
In the USA, it is all about credit (the ability to go into debt for the purpose of buying things) and what you have bought. When we see each other, we assess largely on what they are wearing, driving or have in their possession. Additionally, every time we hear about rich people in trouble or otherwise doing something stupid, we instictively react with "I thought they were [better than us]!!" It's not the presumption that they are just like anyone else and often times dumber, it's the opposite because we pedestrians have been taught to succeed we must be smart or skilled and to work hard. Interestingly, those are the characteristics which keep those "valuable human capital assets" in the trenches where they belong.
All the money circulates around consumerism. That is where the money is. That is what people study to join in to get a share of.
Yes, this is NOT a sustainable model. This is why we are in trouble now.
The human torso was not exactly private property. It was something for medical students or something like that. Either way, it was an MRI image.
Yes, there was a lot of novelty involved there. Privacy? Not so much. But if I had lost my job over it, I would have completely understood. :)
TSA people are NOT allowed to touch firearms. There is no training for that and the potential liability is too high. There are always LEOs available for just such events.
Ah, I just read... it was, in fact, chasing for reasons within the law. The cops were acting properly.
So this is just really, really unfortunate and I hope the criminals get what's coming to them.
Not troll.
There are laws in the books in California about the rules of hot pursuits. If, for example, they are suspected of having done something with a gun or are otherwise already a danger to society, they can chase. If they are illegal immigrants, don't chase. That they didn't name the suspect's crime suggests that they either didn't know what they were being chased for or that it was something which did not warrant such a chase. Either way, giving chase was very likely an inappropriate response by the police.
The TSA would NEVER use a scanning device without the ability to record and save the data. Take it from a former screener. *I KNOW* (caveat, I never used one of these backscatter machines as an operator... they weren't in airports when I was a screener.)
Every one of the X-Ray devices I operated had the ability to save and could even print images. And to me it made sense. Evidence. Once I saw a human torso come through. I couldn't resist printing the image. We did not open the containers... Another time, a loaded pistol passed through in an inappropriate container. A screening supervisor felt confident that he could remove the pistol and unload it. I didn't feel uncomfortable about it -- I'm okay around guns. He obviously knew what he was doing as well. But people freaked out just the same. The image was saved.
If you wanted to be able to prove something, a picture is better than testimony. What makes anyone believe the TSA when they say they aren't saving the images?!
Anyone care to guess how the FDA determined that GMO foods are safe? They "consulted with experts." Those experts? Oh yeah.... Monsanto.
And seriously, when the Dairy people keep telling the USDA people that we need more milk in our diet eat year, you have to be a little suspicious considering the source. And Monsanto claiming their stuff don't stink? Why should we expect any other answer?
How are drug trials run? I suspect they are more rigorous and performed by independent testing people. Why has GMO foods gotten a pass on this process?
We all know the fact/joke that Taco Bell simply shuffles a small collection of ingredients to sell you a thing. More components cost more, fewer components cost less, but it's all a stack of the same finite list of components.
So now this is what Apple is to become without Jobs. They are running out of ideas and are now taking parts away to make a dollar menu version and re-adding the extras and sour cream to offer up the "iThing supreme."
Nice.
Stop reading here because I'm going off on a huge tangent... but then later I'll come back to why I hate Apple.
Today, I learned about the real core difference between people. We say conservative vs. liberal and all that. (What does liberal even mean?! We hear liberty but where is it?) Then someone came out and said it -- individual vs collective. Now it's much easier to understand what people have been sayiing that liberals are communists. And it's not so much "divide and conquer" as that never made a whole lot of sense to me before... it's "categorize and conquer." Now it makes sense. Because a person can say "I hate black people" and look like a moron (and they would be for saying that) but when a person says "I hate Al Sharpton" you are now deciding what you feel about an individual, not a collective like race, religion, red or blue.
You know? Everyone here believes they are an individual. But score yourself and be honest. Do you define yourself by what group(s) you are a member of? By the style(s) you wear? Be honest with yourself.
I'm an individual and I know it because people at times have instinctively hated me for it. Well, not for being an individual, but for not being a member of their group. And if I sought shelter of being in one group, I would feel less hated and more protected. But thanks to my somewhat autistic nature, I never understood or maintained a collective mentality. So I grew up wondering "why do people act like this?!" I'm not a member of group A, so they don't care for me. And I'm not a member of group B and they don't care for me either. That makes me alone and while I didn't understand group membership, I understood the misery of being "outcast" "excluded" and "alone." It's kind of depressing when you don't fully understand what's going on and what's what about it all.
So I ask again. Do you feel stronger, more self-assured, more powerful when you are in a group? Or do you feel more like yourself when you aren't part of a collective? Be honest. And to be clear, be honest with yourself because this is a rhetorical question. I actually don't care how you answer because when I say "be honest with yourself" you will be at some level and it will change how you see yourself. ...now on to Apple...
I hate Apple because of the mentality it exploits. That mentality is one of group membership. Apple isn't the first or only. Any of us who remember "Members Only" jackets are probably looking back at how outwardly ridiculous it really was. (I wonder if I can get one of those on eBay... it would be my first one!) Apple exploited this consumer desire to be elite... in an elite group. People really bought into it heavily. I recall when Apple started introducing less expensive Apple computers and people in forums started bitching because "...great! now EVERYONE can be an Apple user!!" And it was clear -- they were angry at their status degredation; the dilution. Boil it down to basics? These people REALLY define themselves by the things they bought... the things they own actually own them! Ridiculous on its face and amazingly true. And Everyone reading this acknowledges that these people exist. And the vast majority of those will deny they are one of them.
Apple exploits this in people. And when Apple is finally dead, it will be one less entity exploiting this in people.
And if you are honest with yourself and you also begin to see how ridiculous collectivism is on its face, then you will begin to see that "racism" is a collectivism as well and ne
What sort of debris would actually find its way down?
My first thought was "okay, send up hundreds or thousands of high explosive devices distributed evenly on the surface of the oncoming rock to form a giant shotgun blast to try to reduce one big thing into a whole bunch of small things which would burn up in the atmosphere.
That might only blast away the surface of the rock leaving behind a large core of the original and a lot of debris particles, but you know? Lather, rinse, repeat as needed. And of course, all of that crap has to stay in orbit ready to be launched.
I am sure all of this is much more complicated than I imagine it to be but I think the generalities are basically sound.
We have amazing ability to destroy vast portions of our planet. Why are significantly smaller rocks such a challenge? (Oh, that's right, because the targets are actually people, not the planet.)
You read like 90% sarcastic. "...the government will take care of us?"
Our government was BASED on the notion that we should always be suspicious of our government as a means of keeping it honest. Now you think it's a bad idea?
I don't get this at all.
Firstly the just says the 5th amendment prohibits the government from requiring he provide evidence with which to charge and possibly convict the defendant. That was a fact set in stone.
Then the FBI claims that one of the drives have been cracked and they have proof of offending material as well as data present which proves ownership of the drive.
Great. But how does the collection of additional evidence change his constitutional rights against self-incrimination? Perhaps I'm just a big dummy, but providing the government with MORE information is still providing the government with information which incriminates.
Seems to me the government is probably lying about having cracked his drive and wants a fishing license. If they had REAL evidence, they wouldn't need to decrypt any further than they have.