She's a 16 year old girl, not a constitutional lawyer. Read the article, and engage your brain a bit, before you open your mouth.
My apologies, TFA fails to mention that her diabetes has already progressed to the all-too-common side effect of blindness. Otherwise, she no doubt would have noticed the signs posted at these TSA chokepoints saying you can get a pat-down instead. Could I trouble you for a link to your source explaining why she can't read?
And knowing the rules of conduct for an activity planned for your immediate future doesn't require a "constitutional lawyer", just a quick visit to tsa.gov - Which even the "just want to get there" crowd really should check before heading to the airport, just to catch up on the stupid-restrictions-of-the-week.
Hey, I'll step to the front of the line to call these guys the worst kind of placebo, a damned expensive one at that, and in dire need of immediate dissolution. But gimme a break with all this BS about a poor helpless diabetic 16YO.
Also, she could simply said no I dont want to go through. Then they have to pat her down.
This. I think TFA left out some very important details here.
I have found myself needing to fly half a dozen times since 9/11. Of those, four have happened since they started using unregulated, untested medical imaging equipment to look for...Well, they don't catch weapons, so who the hell knows what they look for, but not my point (this time)...
Four times I have refused a scan and requested a patdown. And only once did they even bother asking my "why"; the rest, they just casually directed me to go the taped-off Square of Public Shame for my patdown. And as a humorous side-note, one of those times I made it through security faster than those in the shearing - er, scanning - line.
So the idea that they "made" her go through just doesn't pass the sniff test.
That's not what I've heard. I've read that Seven, like Vista, precaches everything into RAM that it believes you will need and makes it full. This of course means if you access something new (or unexpected), it has to first swap out something from RAM to the HDD in order to make room for the new item. Slooooow.
You say that like a bad thing? Low-end machines today have 8GB. My desktop at work has 32GB. I want Windows to "waste" as much memory in an effort to minimize physical I/O as it possibly can! Needing to go to even the lowest-latency-on-the-market SSDs means potentially "wasting" 250 thousand CPU cycles. An HDD, more like 25 million. And if you actually need to wait for an idle HDD to spin up or a network request... Ouch!
In any case, keep in mind that flushing the FS cache doesn't mean hitting the pagefile. You may need to actually hit the disk if you then go to access something that got dumped, but you would have needed to anyway if Windows hadn't cached it in the first place.
Those replies were directed in context to a specific set of replies.
Bullshit. You (or rather, "Pieroxy") went off on a seven-point tirade of strawmen based on a (short) one sentence post mocking the superficiality of Facebook "friends".
Context? Specificity? Quit pissin' on my leg, little dog.
Put bluntly, you've lied to yourself if you claim you would do much better. Maybe a little better, because I don't even care that I don't care, whereas you apparently feel bad that you can't possibly take a personal interest in the 10k people around you on a given day - But let's not get too meta here.
Would you notice one less homeless guy on your regular walk? 20 faceless business commuters replaced by 20 entirely different faceless business commuters? A new cashier at your morning coffee spot (assuming you go to a chain rather than to a mom n' pop personally staffed by "Mom")?
And more to the point, would you care if you never saw any of those people again? Hell, I have to admit I might notice the park bench unoccupied by drunk-guy, but it has zero impact on the rest of my life.
Not phrased politely, but I would take the GP as sincere if only because he said what most of us (not addicted to Facebook) feel.
Take that or leave it, but honestly, my first thought on seeing this FP ran more along the lines of "A law to allow people to do something after-the-fact that they should have done all along? Fuck 'em, perhaps if FB goes down it'll free up some bandwidth during the day for actual work". And yes, we do have a no-facebook policy. And no, the company won't seriously risk the publicity of firing 2/3rds of its female employees.
Who said it would be a disaster? You did.
Umm, the FP did? "If Facebook ever were to go down there would be potentially huge costs to its users". Right up there on the FEMA-five - Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Flooding, Fires, Facebook-Outages.;)
Who said there was a hundred? You did.
Facebook did. The average Facebook user in 2011 had 245 so-called "friends".
So all in all you're saying that what you're imagining I said is stupid. Way to go.
You chose to defend what you consider a strawman. If you don't feel you fall into the GP's characterization of a FB user, then what s/he wrote apparently doesn't apply to you, so why argue the point?
What you're saying is that below a certain level of "connection" there is no value at all. Which is utterly stupid of course.
Why? I pass dozens or hundreds of people on my walk from the parking lot to work every morning. Some I even recognize, more-or-less, and a handful I'll even wish a merry "good morning".
And if each and every one of them died last night, I wouldn't even notice the difference on my way in today.
So no, real life doesn't work in a binary way, Facebook does, and I don't "friend" the drunk-at-8am guy who mumbles something cheery to me every morning from his regular spot on the park bench.
Well... if you've got some fixtures that seems to burn through light bulbs faster than normal, then maybe it's not the light bulb's fault?
While I agree with you to the extent that the GP might want to have that fixture rewired (or at least checked out) by a real electrician, I can't agree that something pushed as a long-lasting drop-in replacement for an X-Watt incandescent light-bulb would have a shorter lifespan than that same incandescent, regardless of faulty wiring.
I fully appreciate that incandescents count as just about the lowest-tech electricity-using device you can own; But CFL/LED manufacturers need to take into consideration the fact that people don't generally run their room lighting on a line-interactive UPS.
I would not be surprised if the use of Tor, and proxies/VPNs in other countries spiked as a result of this law.
I dunno - I kinda like the idea of having 50-60 million Brits all vocally opt-in and demand their ISPs give them access to porn, just to send a clear message to their MPs that they won't put up with this sort of shit.
Then you'll see the puritans (wait, didn't we get stuck with all of them?) try to outright ban porn - But at least they'll have no ability to claim they act in accordance with the will of their mythical "moral majority".
You can't argue with market realities. You can be smart. rebrand yourselves and build that brand in a respectable manner, or you can be a stupid 10 year old and throw a tantrum and still be associated with spammers and thieves.
Or, you can just not give a damn what Joe Sixpack calls us, since he won't understand it no matter what clever names we come up with. We hear about just as many whitehats going to prison (if not more) for pointing out the gaping holes in security, as we do blackhats for quietly exploiting those holes.
Your choice.
Okay, I'll take "Your Foamy Lord and Master", then.
He didn't say "no" 101 times, though. When someone asks "wanna go blow up a bridge", you have to choose the correct answer EVERY SINGLE TIME. Forever.
When the DA asks you "did you do it", even after answering "no" 101 times, "you have to choose the correct answer EVERY SINGLE TIME. Forever."
And yet, just about everyone will eventually give in (usually after 20-30 hours without sleep or food) and say "yes", regardless of guilt, just to make the interrogation stop.
Peer pressure is no excuse for enacting a terrorist plot
Legally, no. Realistically, you can quite seriously get just about anyone to do just about anything, with enough pressure. Yes, even you.
The FBI, the DHS, even the local Boys in Blue, understand this, and exploit it on a daily basis and as a matter of regular procedure to guarantee they look good regardless of the truth of the situation.
Do we really have agents out there selling weapons to boost their street cred to some upset guy who takes it and kills 5 family members? When they could have got the guy some help to not commit ANY crime?
The beauty of that "memento" is that you can "waste an afternoon" over and over again, often with friends, and they can't make you pay for it again.
Honestly, since I graduated from college and stopped sitting around stoned and licking 9V batteries (over a decade now), I could count the number of movies I've re-watched on one hand - And a band-saw accident tomorrow still wouldn't make that statement false.
I READ, (remember that activity)
A few responses to my post brought that up - Have you all forgotten that "we" hate the publishing houses just as much as the movie studios? Yes, we can pick up decent used books for a buck each - The same holds true of movies, however, with the caveat that you can neither pick what you have available, nor likely see anything released while we've had the current president in office. That said - Netflix.
"By the end of the first month, I didn't miss TV..." (from Fight Club)
Another point responses to me seem to have missed - As I said, I watch less than two hours a week (not per day) - And I took that as an average of roughly one wasted Saturday afternoon a month. I certainly do not wonder where my life has slipped off to and need to answer the question "watching commercials interspersed with trite storylines".
and when night falls I'm tired, and I don't find myself wondering where my life went, or why I have a house-full of bullshit I can't remember why I thought I needed.
Your entertainment seems quite heavily skewed toward those with children. While a perfectly valid life-choice, not one that I have made (and fortunately for the planet, one that an increasing number of people voluntarily decide not to do).
That said, even with kids as entertainment, your weekends sound remarkably boring - "Rest"? I work a desk job; in my free time, I avoid rest.:)
You could always not watch the shows. I like how going without entertainment from a broken industry is never an option.
I know, right? We could all just sit in the middle of an empty living-room and meditate on the mysteries of pocket lint. Silly humans, wanting entertainment when we have paint drying and grass growing all around us!
Seriously. I watch under two hours of TV (NetFlix, actually) per week, and I still have to consider your position nothing but a parody of itself. Yes, I have a million better things to do; but on a cold rainy Saturday, wasting the afternoon on some Hollywood fluff beats getting stoned and licking 9V batteries.
The problem comes from Hollywood expecting me to either:
Pay over $100 per month to watch their crap broken into twelve-minute chunks with three minutes of revenue-generation between segments, or
Pay more than my hourly income for the privilege of getting a shiny plastic disc as a memento of the experience of wasting an afternoon.
What can I say, other than Thank Zeus for NetFlix and... Oh, wait, I guess I can no longer say "and Hulu". Case in point.
The "line fees" that DOCSIS and DSL ISPs charge for not bundling the ISP's other services are close to this.
$5 comes "close" to bundling cable TV? In what world do you live?
Back when I had cable (basic only) with their middle-of-the-road cablemodem service, I paid just shy of $100/month. My local DSL provider offers comparable speed internet access for $39.95/month, with a mere $5 "line fee".
$45 does not come "close to" $95, no matter how you measure it.
Now, if you want to talk about forcing people to buy "bundled" packages, I would never have cancelled my cable if they offered, a la carte (didn't they lose that case in federal court something like a decade ago?) the whopping three channels I ever actually watched. But no, they'd rather subsidize seven versions of ESPN than actually charge for what their customers want.
So fuck 'em all, I won't even waste the time to piss on their graves.
/ Of course, I don't actually have cable or DSL as a choice where I currently live, so I pay closer to $95 just for crappy 3G wireless service.:( // And to add insult to injury, with a data-only plan, I still have to pay the BS "Universal Access Fee" that doesn't actually mean they have to drop a line to my door. /// Fuck 'em all a second time - And perhaps I do have a full bladder.
Just this NSA data center [wired.com] is a much bigger privacy risk than any number of employees who are dumb enough to ask for FB access of their potential hires and these potential workers being dumb and unprincipled enough to give it to them.
Oddly enough, I view the fact that Congress actually cares about this issue as a much more disturbing sign relating to your point... The average Joe actually does think about thinks like what his boss would think of his crossdressing habit; They don't think about whether or not the NSA has a copy of every word they've ever uttered over a public network.
So call me paranoid, but I see this move as not as an attempt to respect people's privacy, but rather, as a thinly-veiled measure to ensure the continued free flow of the minutiae of people's personal lives into a sufficiently-public space for Big Brother to have complete access to material he couldn't otherwise legally obtain.
Or put more bluntly - Don't startle the cows, they'll give less milk.
Unlike LG, HTC or Samsung, RIM is a North American company
You may have heard of this new startup, really shaking up the market these days... Goes by the cutesy name of "Apple"? Straight out of Cupertino, you don't get much more North American than that.
Not to mention that Microsoft and Google also come from the US... And for the record, your Crackberry came from Malaysia, which last time I checked didn't recently become a Canadian province.
there will be a huge rush as everyone tries to generate the new cheap coins on the ground floor. And without the mining power behind Bitcoin 1.0, the old coins will be worthless.
Actually, this has happened, with at least half a dozen semi-successful alternatives (most notably, NameCoin, SolidCoin, and LiteCoin). And despite them drawing significant hashing power out of the Bitcoin network (well, NameCoin actually shares mining power with Bitcoin, rather than forcing a one-or-the-other choice on miners), they remain well under a Bitpenny each and haven't notably impacted the exchange rate of BTC itself.
What? Being the creator of a scam now is something to be valued?
C'mon, seriously, how hard did you need to try to miss that point?
The GP pointed out nothing more controversial than saying that the mint doesn't give your money its value, the fact that you can use it to buy bread and gasoline, and pay your rent and taxes, does. If you want to disagree with that, I can't stop you, but it just sounds deliberately obtuse at this point.
You guys need to go back to calling it a Ponzi scheme, at least then we can consider you legitimately ignorant about what that means.
If the creators of Bitcoin truly wanted to create some kind of new currency, they should have set it up in such a way that they didn't get the lions share of the bitcoins right away, signalling to everyone else that it's a fucking scam.
You mean, exactly like they did?
The Bitcoin block chain has exactly one "pre-mined" block, which remains unredeemed; and even if Satoshi himself someday shows up to claim it, at this point a mere 50BTC would have no effect whatsoever on the stability of the Bitcoin economy (currently with 8.8 million BTC in circulation).
You personally had just as much chance (adjusted for hardware) at mining every... single... block generated since that origin block, as all those who did so instead of whining about fairness; and your ongoing failure to do anything about it except sow FUD about the entire concept doesn't inspire sympathy.
How do you know it doesn't drop all permissions other than those needed to write to Firefox's folder inside Program Files?
Hmm, permission to replace a trusted binary that the user will likely run several times within the next 24 hours, with an arbitrary one of my choosing... Now how could that ever cause problems?
What do you mean "silences UAC"? From the article: "When you install Firefox 12, Windows UAC will ask you to approve Firefox Software Updater".
You've just answered your own question - UAC will bug you about it one last time, after which it will remain silent every time FF gets an update - Even the potentially bricking-ones.
If you can't disable something so simple on a corporate scale, maybe you should fine another career.
Don't play obtuse, AC. World of difference between knowing how to set it on one machine, and deploying that to 5000 users spread across four continents.
Slashdot Mirror
She's a 16 year old girl, not a constitutional lawyer. Read the article, and engage your brain a bit, before you open your mouth.
My apologies, TFA fails to mention that her diabetes has already progressed to the all-too-common side effect of blindness. Otherwise, she no doubt would have noticed the signs posted at these TSA chokepoints saying you can get a pat-down instead. Could I trouble you for a link to your source explaining why she can't read?
And knowing the rules of conduct for an activity planned for your immediate future doesn't require a "constitutional lawyer", just a quick visit to tsa.gov - Which even the "just want to get there" crowd really should check before heading to the airport, just to catch up on the stupid-restrictions-of-the-week.
Hey, I'll step to the front of the line to call these guys the worst kind of placebo, a damned expensive one at that, and in dire need of immediate dissolution. But gimme a break with all this BS about a poor helpless diabetic 16YO.
Also, she could simply said no I dont want to go through. Then they have to pat her down.
This. I think TFA left out some very important details here.
I have found myself needing to fly half a dozen times since 9/11. Of those, four have happened since they started using unregulated, untested medical imaging equipment to look for...Well, they don't catch weapons, so who the hell knows what they look for, but not my point (this time)...
Four times I have refused a scan and requested a patdown. And only once did they even bother asking my "why"; the rest, they just casually directed me to go the taped-off Square of Public Shame for my patdown. And as a humorous side-note, one of those times I made it through security faster than those in the shearing - er, scanning - line.
So the idea that they "made" her go through just doesn't pass the sniff test.
That's not what I've heard. I've read that Seven, like Vista, precaches everything into RAM that it believes you will need and makes it full. This of course means if you access something new (or unexpected), it has to first swap out something from RAM to the HDD in order to make room for the new item. Slooooow.
You say that like a bad thing? Low-end machines today have 8GB. My desktop at work has 32GB. I want Windows to "waste" as much memory in an effort to minimize physical I/O as it possibly can! Needing to go to even the lowest-latency-on-the-market SSDs means potentially "wasting" 250 thousand CPU cycles. An HDD, more like 25 million. And if you actually need to wait for an idle HDD to spin up or a network request... Ouch!
In any case, keep in mind that flushing the FS cache doesn't mean hitting the pagefile. You may need to actually hit the disk if you then go to access something that got dumped, but you would have needed to anyway if Windows hadn't cached it in the first place.
just another AC
'Nuff said.
Those replies were directed in context to a specific set of replies.
Bullshit. You (or rather, "Pieroxy") went off on a seven-point tirade of strawmen based on a (short) one sentence post mocking the superficiality of Facebook "friends".
Context? Specificity? Quit pissin' on my leg, little dog.
That, is really sad.
Put bluntly, you've lied to yourself if you claim you would do much better. Maybe a little better, because I don't even care that I don't care, whereas you apparently feel bad that you can't possibly take a personal interest in the 10k people around you on a given day - But let's not get too meta here.
Would you notice one less homeless guy on your regular walk? 20 faceless business commuters replaced by 20 entirely different faceless business commuters? A new cashier at your morning coffee spot (assuming you go to a chain rather than to a mom n' pop personally staffed by "Mom")?
And more to the point, would you care if you never saw any of those people again? Hell, I have to admit I might notice the park bench unoccupied by drunk-guy, but it has zero impact on the rest of my life.
Typical troll.
;)
Not phrased politely, but I would take the GP as sincere if only because he said what most of us (not addicted to Facebook) feel.
Take that or leave it, but honestly, my first thought on seeing this FP ran more along the lines of "A law to allow people to do something after-the-fact that they should have done all along? Fuck 'em, perhaps if FB goes down it'll free up some bandwidth during the day for actual work". And yes, we do have a no-facebook policy. And no, the company won't seriously risk the publicity of firing 2/3rds of its female employees.
Who said it would be a disaster? You did.
Umm, the FP did? "If Facebook ever were to go down there would be potentially huge costs to its users". Right up there on the FEMA-five - Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Flooding, Fires, Facebook-Outages.
Who said there was a hundred? You did.
Facebook did. The average Facebook user in 2011 had 245 so-called "friends".
So all in all you're saying that what you're imagining I said is stupid. Way to go.
You chose to defend what you consider a strawman. If you don't feel you fall into the GP's characterization of a FB user, then what s/he wrote apparently doesn't apply to you, so why argue the point?
What you're saying is that below a certain level of "connection" there is no value at all. Which is utterly stupid of course.
Why? I pass dozens or hundreds of people on my walk from the parking lot to work every morning. Some I even recognize, more-or-less, and a handful I'll even wish a merry "good morning".
And if each and every one of them died last night, I wouldn't even notice the difference on my way in today.
So no, real life doesn't work in a binary way, Facebook does, and I don't "friend" the drunk-at-8am guy who mumbles something cheery to me every morning from his regular spot on the park bench.
Well... if you've got some fixtures that seems to burn through light bulbs faster than normal, then maybe it's not the light bulb's fault?
While I agree with you to the extent that the GP might want to have that fixture rewired (or at least checked out) by a real electrician, I can't agree that something pushed as a long-lasting drop-in replacement for an X-Watt incandescent light-bulb would have a shorter lifespan than that same incandescent, regardless of faulty wiring.
I fully appreciate that incandescents count as just about the lowest-tech electricity-using device you can own; But CFL/LED manufacturers need to take into consideration the fact that people don't generally run their room lighting on a line-interactive UPS.
Wow. Just... Wow.
So when does Dennis Ritchie (or does this all go back to the Lovelace estate?) plan to file suit against Oracle?
I would not be surprised if the use of Tor, and proxies/VPNs in other countries spiked as a result of this law.
I dunno - I kinda like the idea of having 50-60 million Brits all vocally opt-in and demand their ISPs give them access to porn, just to send a clear message to their MPs that they won't put up with this sort of shit.
Then you'll see the puritans (wait, didn't we get stuck with all of them?) try to outright ban porn - But at least they'll have no ability to claim they act in accordance with the will of their mythical "moral majority".
You can't argue with market realities. You can be smart. rebrand yourselves and build that brand in a respectable manner, or you can be a stupid 10 year old and throw a tantrum and still be associated with spammers and thieves.
Or, you can just not give a damn what Joe Sixpack calls us, since he won't understand it no matter what clever names we come up with. We hear about just as many whitehats going to prison (if not more) for pointing out the gaping holes in security, as we do blackhats for quietly exploiting those holes.
Your choice.
Okay, I'll take "Your Foamy Lord and Master", then.
He didn't say "no" 101 times, though. When someone asks "wanna go blow up a bridge", you have to choose the correct answer EVERY SINGLE TIME. Forever.
When the DA asks you "did you do it", even after answering "no" 101 times, "you have to choose the correct answer EVERY SINGLE TIME. Forever."
And yet, just about everyone will eventually give in (usually after 20-30 hours without sleep or food) and say "yes", regardless of guilt, just to make the interrogation stop.
Peer pressure is no excuse for enacting a terrorist plot
Legally, no. Realistically, you can quite seriously get just about anyone to do just about anything, with enough pressure. Yes, even you.
The FBI, the DHS, even the local Boys in Blue, understand this, and exploit it on a daily basis and as a matter of regular procedure to guarantee they look good regardless of the truth of the situation.
Do we really have agents out there selling weapons to boost their street cred to some upset guy who takes it and kills 5 family members? When they could have got the guy some help to not commit ANY crime?
Why yes... Yes, we do!. And note that stories like these only refer to the ones we acci-fucking-dentally got back, not to all of what we sent South of the Border in some bizarre parody of law enforcement efforts.
So not only do these pieces of shit pretend to stop crime, they actually really cause more than they pretend to stop!
/ And people call me cynical...
The beauty of that "memento" is that you can "waste an afternoon" over and over again, often with friends, and they can't make you pay for it again.
Honestly, since I graduated from college and stopped sitting around stoned and licking 9V batteries (over a decade now), I could count the number of movies I've re-watched on one hand - And a band-saw accident tomorrow still wouldn't make that statement false.
I READ, (remember that activity)
A few responses to my post brought that up - Have you all forgotten that "we" hate the publishing houses just as much as the movie studios? Yes, we can pick up decent used books for a buck each - The same holds true of movies, however, with the caveat that you can neither pick what you have available, nor likely see anything released while we've had the current president in office. That said - Netflix.
"By the end of the first month, I didn't miss TV..." (from Fight Club)
Another point responses to me seem to have missed - As I said, I watch less than two hours a week (not per day) - And I took that as an average of roughly one wasted Saturday afternoon a month. I certainly do not wonder where my life has slipped off to and need to answer the question "watching commercials interspersed with trite storylines".
and when night falls I'm tired, and I don't find myself wondering where my life went, or why I have a house-full of bullshit I can't remember why I thought I needed.
Your entertainment seems quite heavily skewed toward those with children. While a perfectly valid life-choice, not one that I have made (and fortunately for the planet, one that an increasing number of people voluntarily decide not to do).
:)
That said, even with kids as entertainment, your weekends sound remarkably boring - "Rest"? I work a desk job; in my free time, I avoid rest.
You could always not watch the shows. I like how going without entertainment from a broken industry is never an option.
I know, right? We could all just sit in the middle of an empty living-room and meditate on the mysteries of pocket lint. Silly humans, wanting entertainment when we have paint drying and grass growing all around us!
Seriously. I watch under two hours of TV (NetFlix, actually) per week, and I still have to consider your position nothing but a parody of itself. Yes, I have a million better things to do; but on a cold rainy Saturday, wasting the afternoon on some Hollywood fluff beats getting stoned and licking 9V batteries.
The problem comes from Hollywood expecting me to either:
Pay over $100 per month to watch their crap broken into twelve-minute chunks with three minutes of revenue-generation between segments, or
Pay more than my hourly income for the privilege of getting a shiny plastic disc as a memento of the experience of wasting an afternoon.
What can I say, other than Thank Zeus for NetFlix and... Oh, wait, I guess I can no longer say "and Hulu". Case in point.
The "line fees" that DOCSIS and DSL ISPs charge for not bundling the ISP's other services are close to this.
:(
// And to add insult to injury, with a data-only plan, I still have to pay the BS "Universal Access Fee" that doesn't actually mean they have to drop a line to my door.
/// Fuck 'em all a second time - And perhaps I do have a full bladder.
$5 comes "close" to bundling cable TV? In what world do you live?
Back when I had cable (basic only) with their middle-of-the-road cablemodem service, I paid just shy of $100/month. My local DSL provider offers comparable speed internet access for $39.95/month, with a mere $5 "line fee".
$45 does not come "close to" $95, no matter how you measure it.
Now, if you want to talk about forcing people to buy "bundled" packages, I would never have cancelled my cable if they offered, a la carte (didn't they lose that case in federal court something like a decade ago?) the whopping three channels I ever actually watched. But no, they'd rather subsidize seven versions of ESPN than actually charge for what their customers want.
So fuck 'em all, I won't even waste the time to piss on their graves.
/ Of course, I don't actually have cable or DSL as a choice where I currently live, so I pay closer to $95 just for crappy 3G wireless service.
Just this NSA data center [wired.com] is a much bigger privacy risk than any number of employees who are dumb enough to ask for FB access of their potential hires and these potential workers being dumb and unprincipled enough to give it to them.
Oddly enough, I view the fact that Congress actually cares about this issue as a much more disturbing sign relating to your point... The average Joe actually does think about thinks like what his boss would think of his crossdressing habit; They don't think about whether or not the NSA has a copy of every word they've ever uttered over a public network.
So call me paranoid, but I see this move as not as an attempt to respect people's privacy, but rather, as a thinly-veiled measure to ensure the continued free flow of the minutiae of people's personal lives into a sufficiently-public space for Big Brother to have complete access to material he couldn't otherwise legally obtain.
Or put more bluntly - Don't startle the cows, they'll give less milk.
Unlike LG, HTC or Samsung, RIM is a North American company
You may have heard of this new startup, really shaking up the market these days... Goes by the cutesy name of "Apple"? Straight out of Cupertino, you don't get much more North American than that.
Not to mention that Microsoft and Google also come from the US... And for the record, your Crackberry came from Malaysia, which last time I checked didn't recently become a Canadian province.
there will be a huge rush as everyone tries to generate the new cheap coins on the ground floor. And without the mining power behind Bitcoin 1.0, the old coins will be worthless.
Actually, this has happened, with at least half a dozen semi-successful alternatives (most notably, NameCoin, SolidCoin, and LiteCoin). And despite them drawing significant hashing power out of the Bitcoin network (well, NameCoin actually shares mining power with Bitcoin, rather than forcing a one-or-the-other choice on miners), they remain well under a Bitpenny each and haven't notably impacted the exchange rate of BTC itself.
What? Being the creator of a scam now is something to be valued?
C'mon, seriously, how hard did you need to try to miss that point?
The GP pointed out nothing more controversial than saying that the mint doesn't give your money its value, the fact that you can use it to buy bread and gasoline, and pay your rent and taxes, does. If you want to disagree with that, I can't stop you, but it just sounds deliberately obtuse at this point.
You guys need to go back to calling it a Ponzi scheme, at least then we can consider you legitimately ignorant about what that means.
If the creators of Bitcoin truly wanted to create some kind of new currency, they should have set it up in such a way that they didn't get the lions share of the bitcoins right away, signalling to everyone else that it's a fucking scam.
You mean, exactly like they did?
The Bitcoin block chain has exactly one "pre-mined" block, which remains unredeemed; and even if Satoshi himself someday shows up to claim it, at this point a mere 50BTC would have no effect whatsoever on the stability of the Bitcoin economy (currently with 8.8 million BTC in circulation).
You personally had just as much chance (adjusted for hardware) at mining every... single... block generated since that origin block, as all those who did so instead of whining about fairness; and your ongoing failure to do anything about it except sow FUD about the entire concept doesn't inspire sympathy.
So "the truth" now requires an export permit before we dare speak of it in public?
Well and truly fucked, the lot of us.
How do you know it doesn't drop all permissions other than those needed to write to Firefox's folder inside Program Files?
Hmm, permission to replace a trusted binary that the user will likely run several times within the next 24 hours, with an arbitrary one of my choosing... Now how could that ever cause problems?
What do you mean "silences UAC"? From the article: "When you install Firefox 12, Windows UAC will ask you to approve Firefox Software Updater".
You've just answered your own question - UAC will bug you about it one last time, after which it will remain silent every time FF gets an update - Even the potentially bricking-ones.
If you can't disable something so simple on a corporate scale, maybe you should fine another career.
Don't play obtuse, AC. World of difference between knowing how to set it on one machine, and deploying that to 5000 users spread across four continents.