GPR becomes much less useful in areas where buildings come right up to the border on both sides, as is the case in some urban areas where towns pre-date the border.
You're talking about an offensive[1] ground war in a highly urbanised area with quite a few damaged buildings (which makes them easier to defend) against an enemy with no proper uniform. That's expensive, and even with an enemy as incompetent as Hamas you might well find that Israel would lose more people by responding than by doing nothing (not to mention that they might create more support for Hamas).
[1] tactically speaking - the Israelis would be the ones advancing into hostile territory.
I wish I could find the reference at the moment, but I read somewhere a couple of years ago that most of the rockets that are being fired into Israel don't even have a payload, and are just empty shells.
WTF? Why would Hamas bother to launch empty rockets when they could achieve far more by launching fewer rockets with actual payloads, or even jus filled with shrapnel in the hope of doing some harm when he rockets are shot down?
ISTR that they've only managed to kill 21 people with rockets in 10 years (and destroyed nothing of great importance), which makes me wonder why they haven't decided to try something else. I mean, even taking pot-shots over the border with rifles would be a better use of time and money.
Firefox on linux used to be able to execute arbitrary commands from extensions: I wrote one which did that on Firefox 2 and ported it to firefox 3. that means if you can fool someone into installing your extension, you've got them.
Similarly, a *.desktop file (used for Gnome and KDE desktop items) can contain arbitrary shell script. This doesn't need +x, because it isn't executed directly when you click on it, instead the string is passed to system(3). The way I'd use that would be to overwrite a common program's file, then use that to find something which is called via the graphical sudo (wireshark or the package manager, for example), and patch that to insert my evil kernel module.
I'm sure there are other places where scripts could be inserted without needing to do a chmod or find an undocumented flaw.
The problem arises when someone other than you posts your information. Do you trust everyone who knows you to be as careful about your personal data as you are? You can't manage your private details without being able to prevent other people giving out your data.
The defendants say the plaintiff made comments on Facebook which would indicate that there was nothing she objected to at the time (in fact, quite the contrary), that they didn't do her any harm, and that she was in it for the money. If she did post that on Facebook, she deserves to loose if only for being too dumb to live.
However, she shouldn't be handing over the password, she should be required to export the data under supervision and give that to the impartial expert mentioned in TFA.
That sounds like MADD's alcohol-related accident statistics, which supposedly count every accident where there was any amount of alcohol at the scene, even if the only drinkers were passengers or drivers ruled to be not at fault (or even if there weren't any drinkers but alcohol was found at the scene. IOW, they don't count alcohol-caused accidents or even accidents where alcohol is a conceivable cause, they count accident where alcohol is mentioned in the report.
That's probably a precursor to the anti-hoax laws, so if you fire blanks at the you don;t just get let off with a breach of the peace charge (and so you can't complain when some policeman mistakes it for live firing and shoots back).
A few years back, I lived in a locale where sorted recycling was required (if it wasn't sorted, the crew would just leave it there, and since it wasn't in the proper wheelie bin, it wouldn't get taken to the landfill either), and it really wasn't a burden: it isn't very hard to not put the glass and plastic together, and the majority of the recyclable waste paper was either junk mail or stuff produced in the study, where there wasn't a whole lot of other waste. Similarly, most people produce green waste in the garden, so it isn't like it is any extra effort to throw it in one bin rather than another.
Again: where is the capitalism? Why are the barriers to market entry so high?
Mainly, the barriers are:
network effects (people won't use your service unless either lots of small vendors or one really big vendor use it too),
established infrastructure which borders on a natural monopoly (shops won't handle your new cards unless the terminals are cheap or the expected saving on handling fees makes it worthwhile, but the existing providers already have the infrastructure in place)
regulations written on the assumption that everyone who had to deal with them was huge and could spread the burden thinly accords customers.
there is a lot of work to do to produce a payment system, and it needs to be of very high quality because one exploit early on and your system is sunk. Unlike, say, Linux or GNU, it is almost completely useless until most of the work is done, which makes it hard to draw interest (or income for developers).
If we're so clever, why aren't we engineering a workaround for crappy laws?
People do try from time to time, but they usually end up either mired down in overheads they're not big enough to handle (as happened to e-gold) or wither away into obscurity (as happened to some of bitcoin's precursors).
The two aren't completely contradictory: it is a bit like saying that the tax code should be simplified by the total tax rate increased, so that you've got less (and simpler) taxes but more total tax.
The problem is that too many people confuse "simple" with "permissive" when it comes to regulation. The former is clearly a good thing, within reason, but the latter is problematic. Unfortunately, those benefiting most from regulatory capture argue for permissiveness in the name of simplicity while arguing against simplicity on the grounds that it is too permissive of Bad Things.
Usually the way companies like that work is by having wholly-owned subsidiaries in each country (or regulatory area - so just one in the EU, for example), each of which complies with national laws about who they can do business with (i.e. can they handle payments for prostitutes, can they do business with Cuba, etc.), and employs their local staff, but then outsources actual operations to other subsidiaries which own the big iron and do the core business work, then the whole lot is connected together with more links, and you end up with all the profits in some tax haven, except what goes out as revenue.
Essentially, you can shut down a local operation, but only the country where the head of the monster is incorporated can control the whole beast, and then only with difficulty.
(Exercise: map out the corporate structure of the entire Catholic Church. I once tried to map out the links in my local parish, and gave up with a headache after I realised that the parish council didn't know what their corporate status was and that no-one knew who was liable for the youth group's hypothetical debts. Trying to plot all the links in the world would probably make graphviz choke, and that managed to plot a visualisation of the entire public internet.)
It might not be a bad idea if government bail-outs worked as share dilution (based on the value of shares at the moment the paperwork was filed). The shares could then be used either as a source of revenue once the company was up and running again or to promote the national interest in some other way (by, for example, on-shoring jobs, or transferring the shares to one of the administrative departments to treat as effectively a nationalised company).
I definitely agree with the idea of horizontal separation of the internet market, although I don't mind ISPs operating caches or download mirrors (and giving preferential treatment of those services by, for example, exempting them from traffic caps), provided they aren't in any kind of relationship with the provider.
You're overcomplicating it: all that Thunderbird would need to do would be to come with Enigmail bundled and have it set up automatically (with the keyring password stored in the password manager - insecure, but idiot-safe), and, in easy-install mode use PGP-MIME, automatically sign by default, and encrypt if you have the recipient's key. That makes everything work without any addition to the protocols, and is almost transparent to non-PGP users (who just see some meaningless parts attached to their messages, which they are used to seeing from Outlook).
Most interesting conference speakers are either leaders of big or clever projects, academics, or high-profile community figures (e.g. Bruce Perens). Most of those people are male (although that might not be the case in the ruby world, I assume it is there too), so that alters the candidate pool.
You might well say that that is a problem in the community, at any level of specificity, but within the context of the conference the organisers probably doing nothing wrong themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus is a Hellenised form of Joshua, which is a very common Hebrew name.
I think he's talking about Irgun.
GPR becomes much less useful in areas where buildings come right up to the border on both sides, as is the case in some urban areas where towns pre-date the border.
You're talking about an offensive[1] ground war in a highly urbanised area with quite a few damaged buildings (which makes them easier to defend) against an enemy with no proper uniform. That's expensive, and even with an enemy as incompetent as Hamas you might well find that Israel would lose more people by responding than by doing nothing (not to mention that they might create more support for Hamas).
[1] tactically speaking - the Israelis would be the ones advancing into hostile territory.
I wish I could find the reference at the moment, but I read somewhere a couple of years ago that most of the rockets that are being fired into Israel don't even have a payload, and are just empty shells.
WTF? Why would Hamas bother to launch empty rockets when they could achieve far more by launching fewer rockets with actual payloads, or even jus filled with shrapnel in the hope of doing some harm when he rockets are shot down?
ISTR that they've only managed to kill 21 people with rockets in 10 years (and destroyed nothing of great importance), which makes me wonder why they haven't decided to try something else. I mean, even taking pot-shots over the border with rifles would be a better use of time and money.
Firefox on linux used to be able to execute arbitrary commands from extensions: I wrote one which did that on Firefox 2 and ported it to firefox 3. that means if you can fool someone into installing your extension, you've got them.
Similarly, a *.desktop file (used for Gnome and KDE desktop items) can contain arbitrary shell script. This doesn't need +x, because it isn't executed directly when you click on it, instead the string is passed to system(3). The way I'd use that would be to overwrite a common program's file, then use that to find something which is called via the graphical sudo (wireshark or the package manager, for example), and patch that to insert my evil kernel module.
I'm sure there are other places where scripts could be inserted without needing to do a chmod or find an undocumented flaw.
The problem arises when someone other than you posts your information. Do you trust everyone who knows you to be as careful about your personal data as you are? You can't manage your private details without being able to prevent other people giving out your data.
They are things which could get you beaten up or cut off financially or killed for the sake of your family's honour.
The defendants say the plaintiff made comments on Facebook which would indicate that there was nothing she objected to at the time (in fact, quite the contrary), that they didn't do her any harm, and that she was in it for the money. If she did post that on Facebook, she deserves to loose if only for being too dumb to live.
However, she shouldn't be handing over the password, she should be required to export the data under supervision and give that to the impartial expert mentioned in TFA.
That sounds like MADD's alcohol-related accident statistics, which supposedly count every accident where there was any amount of alcohol at the scene, even if the only drinkers were passengers or drivers ruled to be not at fault (or even if there weren't any drinkers but alcohol was found at the scene. IOW, they don't count alcohol-caused accidents or even accidents where alcohol is a conceivable cause, they count accident where alcohol is mentioned in the report.
Does a US public school have the ability to enforce a uniform, given that they can't reject specific items of clothing except on very narrow grounds?
If you remember, they also appeared in the first Jon Pertwee serial, although then the nestene consciousness was working for the Master.
Also rather silly is that the EU has .eu rather than .eu.int, even though its principal use is its own websites.
That's probably a precursor to the anti-hoax laws, so if you fire blanks at the you don;t just get let off with a breach of the peace charge (and so you can't complain when some policeman mistakes it for live firing and shoots back).
A few years back, I lived in a locale where sorted recycling was required (if it wasn't sorted, the crew would just leave it there, and since it wasn't in the proper wheelie bin, it wouldn't get taken to the landfill either), and it really wasn't a burden: it isn't very hard to not put the glass and plastic together, and the majority of the recyclable waste paper was either junk mail or stuff produced in the study, where there wasn't a whole lot of other waste. Similarly, most people produce green waste in the garden, so it isn't like it is any extra effort to throw it in one bin rather than another.
Again: where is the capitalism? Why are the barriers to market entry so high?
Mainly, the barriers are:
If we're so clever, why aren't we engineering a workaround for crappy laws?
People do try from time to time, but they usually end up either mired down in overheads they're not big enough to handle (as happened to e-gold) or wither away into obscurity (as happened to some of bitcoin's precursors).
The two aren't completely contradictory: it is a bit like saying that the tax code should be simplified by the total tax rate increased, so that you've got less (and simpler) taxes but more total tax.
The problem is that too many people confuse "simple" with "permissive" when it comes to regulation. The former is clearly a good thing, within reason, but the latter is problematic. Unfortunately, those benefiting most from regulatory capture argue for permissiveness in the name of simplicity while arguing against simplicity on the grounds that it is too permissive of Bad Things.
Usually the way companies like that work is by having wholly-owned subsidiaries in each country (or regulatory area - so just one in the EU, for example), each of which complies with national laws about who they can do business with (i.e. can they handle payments for prostitutes, can they do business with Cuba, etc.), and employs their local staff, but then outsources actual operations to other subsidiaries which own the big iron and do the core business work, then the whole lot is connected together with more links, and you end up with all the profits in some tax haven, except what goes out as revenue.
Essentially, you can shut down a local operation, but only the country where the head of the monster is incorporated can control the whole beast, and then only with difficulty.
(Exercise: map out the corporate structure of the entire Catholic Church. I once tried to map out the links in my local parish, and gave up with a headache after I realised that the parish council didn't know what their corporate status was and that no-one knew who was liable for the youth group's hypothetical debts. Trying to plot all the links in the world would probably make graphviz choke, and that managed to plot a visualisation of the entire public internet.)
It might not be a bad idea if government bail-outs worked as share dilution (based on the value of shares at the moment the paperwork was filed). The shares could then be used either as a source of revenue once the company was up and running again or to promote the national interest in some other way (by, for example, on-shoring jobs, or transferring the shares to one of the administrative departments to treat as effectively a nationalised company).
I definitely agree with the idea of horizontal separation of the internet market, although I don't mind ISPs operating caches or download mirrors (and giving preferential treatment of those services by, for example, exempting them from traffic caps), provided they aren't in any kind of relationship with the provider.
Malcolm Turnbull has the solution to wireless bandwidth limits, but he's keeping it a trade secret.
You're overcomplicating it: all that Thunderbird would need to do would be to come with Enigmail bundled and have it set up automatically (with the keyring password stored in the password manager - insecure, but idiot-safe), and, in easy-install mode use PGP-MIME, automatically sign by default, and encrypt if you have the recipient's key. That makes everything work without any addition to the protocols, and is almost transparent to non-PGP users (who just see some meaningless parts attached to their messages, which they are used to seeing from Outlook).
Most interesting conference speakers are either leaders of big or clever projects, academics, or high-profile community figures (e.g. Bruce Perens). Most of those people are male (although that might not be the case in the ruby world, I assume it is there too), so that alters the candidate pool.
You might well say that that is a problem in the community, at any level of specificity, but within the context of the conference the organisers probably doing nothing wrong themselves.
Ah, but if it weren't for Eve, the men wouldn't be tempted, so it is still women's fault. ;)
If they're doing the right thing for the wrong reason, does it matter?
If they're in the Garden of Eden (and, as they haven't covered their nakedness, they presumably are), they're both very young...