And finally, each call is going to take some amount of real time that is long enough to complete a call, let the phone ring, and leave a message. There are only so many minutes in a day, so that's going to put yet another cap on the number of calls that can actually be made in a given amount of time.
My god, you are incredibly dense. I mean, even by slashdot standards, you are exhibiting a remarkable level of stupidity.
The amount of time each call takes to connect is irrelevant. Anything done at scale is done in parallel.
Here's a thought experiment: if a web page takes 1 second to load, how many web pages can a single server deliver per hour?
Is that how much you paid to use search engines before Google? Or were you not alive in the late 90s?
I'm about as far as you could get from a Google apologist. That said, I was alive in the late 90s (and quite a bit before that as well -- long before the WWW came around) and I do remember what free search engines were like. They sucked. The good stuff (like Lexis/Nexis) had a significant cost.
Wait -- so this means that Google has the ability to ban any app, for any reason they choose, at any time? I think this is a far bigger story. Do we really want to live in a world where Google has absolute control over any application on their platform?
That doesn't make it any more correct or relevant.
The quote is correct, in that it is a faithful representation of the line spoken in the movie. And that quote was far more relevant to the conversation than your pathetic protestation.
Like school shootings, skyjackings are the result of our over 25,000 gun laws that disarm the "good guys" and don't do anything at all about bad guys with guns.
No, skyjackings are (or mostly were) the result of the fact that it was easy to get a gun onto a plane. When the metal detectors went up, the rash of skyjackings stopped, up until 9/11. Someone figured out that box cutters could be almost as effective as guns, and airplanes almost as effective as missiles, at least in that limited context.
As others have noted, post-9/11 there's no way that a couple guys with box cutters will ever succeed at that again. The passengers of Flight 93 demonstrated to the world that a plane full of passengers can easily overcome dipshits with box cutters. And since then, we've seen proof of that countless numbers of times -- passengers will in most circumstances unite against a hijacker, even if it means losing their own lives.
But you want supposed "good guys" to carry guns on planes? No. People who believe that kind of pro-gun claptrap are the same people who promote stupid conspiracy theories, grow neckbeards, and live in their mother's basement. Oh, and they are probably AOL users, too.
I still think "skyjack" is a bit of informal regional slang, or at least archaic by this century.
It's not informal, regional, or slang. It's a well-understood term for American English speakers. Even if it was obscure, the subject and the base words ("sky" + "jack") lend themselves to a very easy contextual understanding of the word for almost any English-speaker.
I don't think this was really such a mystery for you. I think you just wanted to whinge.
I'd be nervous, though, about any storage in steel containers as that goes very bad when it goes (a few hundred PSI is one thing, but a few thousand PSI is another).
Shoot. There goes my plan to create a vast energy storage system based on 100,000 Harbor Freight 10-gallon air compressors strung together with hoses and extension cords. I'll have to use my 20% off coupon for something else.
I guess this idea will never get off the ground, since there aren't any engineers capable of figuring out a better solution.
Do you think it is the CEO's job to secure his own telephone? Should that same CEO have to abandon his contact list from a perfectly standard iPhone with something like a 19% market share.
You seem to be arguing that the security needs of the POTUS are no greater than the security needs of a corporate CEO. This is known, in technical terms, a "false equivalence". In non-technical terms, this is known as a "butt-stupid argument".
You're calling the entire US government idiots. In particular every single person drawing any kind of pay from the government in any capacity involving technology.
Please quote appropriately from where I said that. Hint: I didn't. You just invented a straw-man and attacked it. Another logical fallacy.
You seem to enjoy denigrating others.
Nope. Just idiots.
We've got an infrastructure that can't transfer a list of names and 10-digit numbers. It is pretty freaking ridiculous.
I'll tell you what's pretty freaking ridiculous. The above two sentences. They are apropos of what, exactly?
Apple is publicly refusing the FBI data off iPhones while funneling data to the Chinese government. This isn't a "play by the local laws" thing, it's blatantly illegal behavior by a multinational that thinks it's above the law.
If you had bothered to read the article, you would have noticed that the allegation is that the communications are intercepted en route, not at the device itself. But since you were so eager to defend someone who is actually a chump, I guess we should expect some bias and dishonesty from you.
You seem to be suffering from cognitive dissonance. The obvious sign here is that you are unable to converge two seemingly contradictory ideas. Thus, you rationalize the contradiction by inventing an alternate reality, one where the NYT has somehow gotten it wrong. Without that alternative reading, your brain would simply melt.
The fact is, though, that the NYT, while not completely immune to mistakes, has gotten it right far more often than they'e gotten it wrong. That's not up for debate, no matter how much you want it to be, no matter how much your sanity depends on it. It's much more likely that your favored political figure is, in fact, a moron who is incapable of securing his own communications.
History will almost certainly reflect this, and in 10 or 20 years you can think back to what a complete idiot you were about it.
I have email addresses on several very popular domains that are very, very old and use a very, very popular nickname -- no letters, no numbers, just the bare nick. I didn't know they would be so conspicuous when I signed up for them in the nineties, but so be it.
I get a lot of misdirected email. A ridiculous amount of it, actually. People often inadvertently drop letters, numbers, and other differentiators from addresses, and they end up in my in-box. Sometimes I can figure out who they're for and forward them on, but that's the exception and not the rule.
Slashdot Mirror
The two states that cause the most problems for the US. Fuck 'em.
How so?
And finally, each call is going to take some amount of real time that is long enough to complete a call, let the phone ring, and leave a message. There are only so many minutes in a day, so that's going to put yet another cap on the number of calls that can actually be made in a given amount of time.
My god, you are incredibly dense. I mean, even by slashdot standards, you are exhibiting a remarkable level of stupidity.
The amount of time each call takes to connect is irrelevant. Anything done at scale is done in parallel.
Here's a thought experiment: if a web page takes 1 second to load, how many web pages can a single server deliver per hour?
(Hint: the answer is way higher than 3600)
And an iPhone can only work with a Macbook...
This is completely and utterly false.
You could find just about anything you wanted, and only what you wanted, with Altavista. The trouble was that you had to learn how to use it.
I would dispute that. Strongly. Search on AltaVista was hit or miss because it only used the content of the page itself as signal.
There's a reason AltaVista doesn't exist today.
Is that how much you paid to use search engines before Google? Or were you not alive in the late 90s?
I'm about as far as you could get from a Google apologist. That said, I was alive in the late 90s (and quite a bit before that as well -- long before the WWW came around) and I do remember what free search engines were like. They sucked. The good stuff (like Lexis/Nexis) had a significant cost.
OK, I would like to say something: why do you think he deserves it ?
Because he's an idealistic, militant dork who eats toe-boogers. Isn't that enough reason?
What they are doing is licensing a 3rd party technology from someone else and bolting it together like Lego
If it were that easy, wouldn't everyone else be doing it too?
I didn't say you had a smartphone, nor did I say you need one. I said you're projecting.
Wait -- so this means that Google has the ability to ban any app, for any reason they choose, at any time? I think this is a far bigger story. Do we really want to live in a world where Google has absolute control over any application on their platform?
I think you're projecting again.
The scary bit is the part about going extinct, not what someone thinks about it in a billion years. But then that was obvious.
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
That is actually subtly incorrect. Try again.
apple is the shadiest of all the big tech companies. Would never trust my personal data to them
You're spouting nonsense.
Not at all impossible.
That doesn't make it any more correct or relevant.
The quote is correct, in that it is a faithful representation of the line spoken in the movie. And that quote was far more relevant to the conversation than your pathetic protestation.
Show me an internal combustion engine that is 100% efficient and I'll give you $1000.
Like school shootings, skyjackings are the result of our over 25,000 gun laws that disarm the "good guys" and don't do anything at all about bad guys with guns.
No, skyjackings are (or mostly were) the result of the fact that it was easy to get a gun onto a plane. When the metal detectors went up, the rash of skyjackings stopped, up until 9/11. Someone figured out that box cutters could be almost as effective as guns, and airplanes almost as effective as missiles, at least in that limited context.
As others have noted, post-9/11 there's no way that a couple guys with box cutters will ever succeed at that again. The passengers of Flight 93 demonstrated to the world that a plane full of passengers can easily overcome dipshits with box cutters. And since then, we've seen proof of that countless numbers of times -- passengers will in most circumstances unite against a hijacker, even if it means losing their own lives.
But you want supposed "good guys" to carry guns on planes? No. People who believe that kind of pro-gun claptrap are the same people who promote stupid conspiracy theories, grow neckbeards, and live in their mother's basement. Oh, and they are probably AOL users, too.
The best term is airplane hijacking -- due to its unambiguous and clear nature.
That's excessively verbose, which is the enemy of effective communication in English. Try German, down the hall and to the left.
I still think "skyjack" is a bit of informal regional slang, or at least archaic by this century.
It's not informal, regional, or slang. It's a well-understood term for American English speakers. Even if it was obscure, the subject and the base words ("sky" + "jack") lend themselves to a very easy contextual understanding of the word for almost any English-speaker.
I don't think this was really such a mystery for you. I think you just wanted to whinge.
I'd be nervous, though, about any storage in steel containers as that goes very bad when it goes (a few hundred PSI is one thing, but a few thousand PSI is another).
Shoot. There goes my plan to create a vast energy storage system based on 100,000 Harbor Freight 10-gallon air compressors strung together with hoses and extension cords. I'll have to use my 20% off coupon for something else.
I guess this idea will never get off the ground, since there aren't any engineers capable of figuring out a better solution.
Do you think it is the CEO's job to secure his own telephone? Should that same CEO have to abandon his contact list from a perfectly standard iPhone with something like a 19% market share.
You seem to be arguing that the security needs of the POTUS are no greater than the security needs of a corporate CEO. This is known, in technical terms, a "false equivalence". In non-technical terms, this is known as a "butt-stupid argument".
You're calling the entire US government idiots. In particular every single person drawing any kind of pay from the government in any capacity involving technology.
Please quote appropriately from where I said that. Hint: I didn't. You just invented a straw-man and attacked it. Another logical fallacy.
You seem to enjoy denigrating others.
Nope. Just idiots.
We've got an infrastructure that can't transfer a list of names and 10-digit numbers. It is pretty freaking ridiculous.
I'll tell you what's pretty freaking ridiculous. The above two sentences. They are apropos of what, exactly?
Apple is publicly refusing the FBI data off iPhones while funneling data to the Chinese government. This isn't a "play by the local laws" thing, it's blatantly illegal behavior by a multinational that thinks it's above the law.
Please cite the specific law that was violated.
Sure! I'm glad you asked.
If you had bothered to read the article, you would have noticed that the allegation is that the communications are intercepted en route, not at the device itself. But since you were so eager to defend someone who is actually a chump, I guess we should expect some bias and dishonesty from you.
You seem to be suffering from cognitive dissonance. The obvious sign here is that you are unable to converge two seemingly contradictory ideas. Thus, you rationalize the contradiction by inventing an alternate reality, one where the NYT has somehow gotten it wrong. Without that alternative reading, your brain would simply melt.
The fact is, though, that the NYT, while not completely immune to mistakes, has gotten it right far more often than they'e gotten it wrong. That's not up for debate, no matter how much you want it to be, no matter how much your sanity depends on it. It's much more likely that your favored political figure is, in fact, a moron who is incapable of securing his own communications.
History will almost certainly reflect this, and in 10 or 20 years you can think back to what a complete idiot you were about it.
I have email addresses on several very popular domains that are very, very old and use a very, very popular nickname -- no letters, no numbers, just the bare nick. I didn't know they would be so conspicuous when I signed up for them in the nineties, but so be it.
I get a lot of misdirected email. A ridiculous amount of it, actually. People often inadvertently drop letters, numbers, and other differentiators from addresses, and they end up in my in-box. Sometimes I can figure out who they're for and forward them on, but that's the exception and not the rule.