As an IT security person, I applaud Motorola's initiative. As soon as I see it hitting the market, I will review and probably start recommending it to my customers.
As the owner of a rooted Motorola Android phone, my next one will probably from a different brand. The main reason I rooted my phone was to use OpenVPN on it. Which is a security tool.
I wonder if that level of irony can be unhealthy...
Or any of the others... i use openwrt, mostly because I hackit alot. All myimages are custom built. There are wrt firmwares around for all tastes and all kinds of users.
Yes, you left things out. Like the facts I posted (Brewing temperature should be close to 200 F [93 C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules.), along with the fact similar lawsuits were dismissed in other places exactly because coffee should be served that hot.
You didn't mention that "The National Coffee Association of U.S.A. instructs that coffee should be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91–96 C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit [82–85 C]"."
Just so you know, me and everyone else I know brew coffee at around 90 C (don't ever let it get to 100 C, or it tastes bad). It is known that coffee brewed at high altitudes doesn't taste as good, exactly because water boils at a lower temperature. I was actually talking to a barista a few days ago, and he mentioned that his machine was configured to work at 92 C (exactly).
Way to only tell part of the facts. I invite you and everyone else who thinks along those line to read the very nice summary available on Wikipedia.
A quick quote from that article:
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 F (82 C) in this case) is not "unreasonably dangerous." The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 F [93 C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150-160 F [66-71 C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.[27]
Lets face it. Amazing is a litigation-happy country. People will sue over anything.
Suing a media company ? Yeah, that sure will work nicely. Even if you could find a judge that would accept a case like this, Fox would have him retired in less than 24 hours (unless Fox decided they could use the case to make money somehow).
You see, with 2 statements, you just proved how complicated the issue is. You state you don't trust anyone, and that it is impossible to decide who would decide. But you also mention reviewers, and say that "most rational people could check documents". You also propose rules "such as personal addresses etc". Someone would have to decide on those rules.
We just come back again all or nothing, since yes, there are possible rules that would be the best case, but there is no way to decide who would decide.
I'm kind of middle ground on it all... I'm happy he's exposed some corruption, but unhappy he leaked it all without investigation.... pretty irresponsible.
You raid a good point (as in: food for discussion). Abstrackt(609015) also raise a good one:
What's too much or too little transparency?
Who would you have doing this investigation ? Do you trust Assange to decide what can be released and what can't ? You obviously can't trust the government, since they decided that nothing should be released.
So we have the 3 options above. The 2 pointed by Abstrackt, and the one you offered: someone deciding what should and what shouldn't be released. Isn't that censorship ? Oh, I by no means think there are zero possible benefits from censorship. Any sane person would agree. But the price is too high, which is why we simply don't accept it.
So, where do we stand ? Nothing should have been released (including the DynCorp and Pfizer cases) ? Everything should have been released (as it was) ? Or should we have someone censoring it, deciding what could be made public ? If the last case, who ?
I think the ultimate question is, who do you trust completely ?
Yes, lies are a big part of diplomacy, just like it is a big part of day to day life (what do you think being "politically correct" entails ?)
Therein lies the problems. When strictly confined within the political environment, government representatives can ignore most of those lies. They know it is part of the game, and they do the same thing. The political wheels keep turning and all that. However, once made public, the public will demand a response, which can be really bad.
Lemme give you an example. Several of the released cables regarding Brazil talk about "opportunity for the US to expand business and influence". Is that wrong ? Is that anything different than what was expected ? Even more, that is perfectly acceptable (one of the main job of diplomats for capitalist countries is to find business opportunities). However, I'm expecting a popular outcry against "imperialist America trying to exploit Brazil".
You see, the real danger here is not what was on the cables, but public ignorance.
On the other hand, I'm sure a few of those cables will show stuff that the government really should be ashamed of, and should respond to their population for.
What should Wikileaks have done ? - Not release anything ? (bad) - Release only part of it ? (bad - censorship ? double standards ?) - Release it all ? (maybe not as bad)
So, among all the possible evils, I'm hoping they chose the lesser one.
The real problem with this kind of technology is that it works often enough to make it worth for them. I for one blame, first and foremost, the people who buy from this kind of advertisement (including spam).
For a few years in the 90s, publics schools in one particular state in Brazil were forbidden by state law to fail any students on any tests, regardless of the grade they've got (even if they've got a zero).
Warp was completely unappealing for OS/2 users. In other words, IBM decided not to dance with the person that took her to the ball.
I was working at IBM when Warp was released, although on a non-related area. But I did have friend on the OS/2 PCP division of my country, and their statements corroborated what I experienced, and what I've seen from other people I knew.
As for the people who were not OS/2 users yet ? Maybe they would have liked Warp. But they had no incentive to try it, not even from their friends.
I still find it interesting they call it a "mode", instead of what it is: a complete Windows XP virtual machine, and runs separated from the Windows 7 system (as much as a guest and host systems can be separated).
We want to ensure broadband subscribers are adequately protected so that rights holders can pursue their claims for copyright infringement without causing unnecessary worry to innocent people.
You see, I have a big problem RIGHT THERE.
At least on (most of) the western world, everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. So if you share the data with the "copyright holders" before the conviction, you are harming innocent people.
I also wonder how many people didn't want to be bothered by them, or simply refused to ask.
I mean, if someone approached me saying: "Hello, I'm from Parent Watchdog Group this and that, do you mind if I ask you a few questions ?", I would tell them to go to hell.
Anyone who stops to talk to them is biased already.
Slashdot Mirror
As an IT security person, I applaud Motorola's initiative. As soon as I see it hitting the market, I will review and probably start recommending it to my customers.
As the owner of a rooted Motorola Android phone, my next one will probably from a different brand.
The main reason I rooted my phone was to use OpenVPN on it. Which is a security tool.
I wonder if that level of irony can be unhealthy...
If hackers can do it, I see no reason law enforcement can't either. Social engineering is a beautiful thing.
Or any of the others... i use openwrt, mostly because I hackit alot. All myimages are custom built.
There are wrt firmwares around for all tastes and all kinds of users.
Shoot him.
^^^^^^^ THAT!!!!
Where have all the cyber-punk movies gone ? There is a lot of good materials around, in books and pop culture.
Yes, you left things out. Like the facts I posted (Brewing temperature should be close to 200 F [93 C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules.), along with the fact similar lawsuits were dismissed in other places exactly because coffee should be served that hot.
You didn't mention that "The National Coffee Association of U.S.A. instructs that coffee should be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91–96 C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit [82–85 C]"."
Just so you know, me and everyone else I know brew coffee at around 90 C (don't ever let it get to 100 C, or it tastes bad). It is known that coffee brewed at high altitudes doesn't taste as good, exactly because water boils at a lower temperature. I was actually talking to a barista a few days ago, and he mentioned that his machine was configured to work at 92 C (exactly).
Do your homework, please.
Way to only tell part of the facts. I invite you and everyone else who thinks along those line to read the very nice summary available on Wikipedia.
A quick quote from that article:
Lets face it. Amazing is a litigation-happy country. People will sue over anything.
Suing a media company ? Yeah, that sure will work nicely.
Even if you could find a judge that would accept a case like this, Fox would have him retired in less than 24 hours (unless Fox decided they could use the case to make money somehow).
You see, with 2 statements, you just proved how complicated the issue is.
You state you don't trust anyone, and that it is impossible to decide who would decide.
But you also mention reviewers, and say that "most rational people could check documents". You also propose rules "such as personal addresses etc". Someone would have to decide on those rules.
We just come back again all or nothing, since yes, there are possible rules that would be the best case, but there is no way to decide who would decide.
You raid a good point (as in: food for discussion). Abstrackt(609015) also raise a good one:
Who would you have doing this investigation ? Do you trust Assange to decide what can be released and what can't ? You obviously can't trust the government, since they decided that nothing should be released.
So we have the 3 options above. The 2 pointed by Abstrackt, and the one you offered: someone deciding what should and what shouldn't be released. Isn't that censorship ? Oh, I by no means think there are zero possible benefits from censorship. Any sane person would agree. But the price is too high, which is why we simply don't accept it.
So, where do we stand ? Nothing should have been released (including the DynCorp and Pfizer cases) ? Everything should have been released (as it was) ? Or should we have someone censoring it, deciding what could be made public ? If the last case, who ?
I think the ultimate question is, who do you trust completely ?
You must be new here ...
Let the conspiracy theories begin ....
I agree with you, partially.
Yes, lies are a big part of diplomacy, just like it is a big part of day to day life (what do you think being "politically correct" entails ?)
Therein lies the problems. When strictly confined within the political environment, government representatives can ignore most of those lies. They know it is part of the game, and they do the same thing. The political wheels keep turning and all that. However, once made public, the public will demand a response, which can be really bad.
Lemme give you an example. Several of the released cables regarding Brazil talk about "opportunity for the US to expand business and influence". Is that wrong ? Is that anything different than what was expected ? Even more, that is perfectly acceptable (one of the main job of diplomats for capitalist countries is to find business opportunities). However, I'm expecting a popular outcry against "imperialist America trying to exploit Brazil".
You see, the real danger here is not what was on the cables, but public ignorance.
On the other hand, I'm sure a few of those cables will show stuff that the government really should be ashamed of, and should respond to their population for.
What should Wikileaks have done ?
- Not release anything ? (bad)
- Release only part of it ? (bad - censorship ? double standards ?)
- Release it all ? (maybe not as bad)
So, among all the possible evils, I'm hoping they chose the lesser one.
The real problem with this kind of technology is that it works often enough to make it worth for them. I for one blame, first and foremost, the people who buy from this kind of advertisement (including spam).
Yes, you can hide the data. Good enough encryption is indistinguishable from random noise.
There are several tools around that make that possible, and even more on the way.
For a few years in the 90s, publics schools in one particular state in Brazil were forbidden by state law to fail any students on any tests, regardless of the grade they've got (even if they've got a zero).
Not exactly. A big percentage of people (everywhere) is stupid. Don't single out americans.
Warp was completely unappealing for OS/2 users. In other words, IBM decided not to dance with the person that took her to the ball.
I was working at IBM when Warp was released, although on a non-related area. But I did have friend on the OS/2 PCP division of my country, and their statements corroborated what I experienced, and what I've seen from other people I knew.
As for the people who were not OS/2 users yet ? Maybe they would have liked Warp. But they had no incentive to try it, not even from their friends.
Windows didn't kill OS/2. OS/2 killed itself.
OS/2 was wonderful until 2.11. When IBM released OS/2 Warp, at least half the users went looking for something else.
Wasn't there a Netcraft report about that ?
I still find it interesting they call it a "mode", instead of what it is: a complete Windows XP virtual machine, and runs separated from the Windows 7 system (as much as a guest and host systems can be separated).
Isn't marketing-speak great ?
You see, I have a big problem RIGHT THERE.
At least on (most of) the western world, everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. So if you share the data with the "copyright holders" before the conviction, you are harming innocent people.
I also wonder how many people didn't want to be bothered by them, or simply refused to ask.
I mean, if someone approached me saying: "Hello, I'm from Parent Watchdog Group this and that, do you mind if I ask you a few questions ?", I would tell them to go to hell.
Anyone who stops to talk to them is biased already.
A møøse once bit my sister...
Or different from any other political party in the world ?
Projects and Ideas don't win political campaigns. Money does.
More than having room for both ...
Having both gives an opportunity to better use the right tool for the right job.