Whatever. I'm not an American, and I'm not about to defend any of what you're bitching about. In fact, I agree with a lot of what you say.
I have seen speeches with Ahmadinejad and the simultaneous translation (I believe it was actually Al Jazeera) -- I'm still of the opinion he's bat-shit crazy. I can only hear someone talking about wiping the Great Satan off the planet so much before I'm forced to come to that conclusion.
I also saw the footage of what was happening to their protesters not so long ago. Something to do with shooting a student who was peacefully protesting -- you might have seen it, it made the news.
I know people of Persian origin, and *they* think he's bat-shit crazy. So, without resorting to being a complete wanker who goes off on an anti-US diatribe at the drop of a hat, care to provide any evidence that Ahmadinejad isn't an insane bastard?
You are right; classically it would be a point release, but they all had to catch up to Opera (what 12.x) and IE (about to ship 9.x) on their "current release" so they are skipping those point releases and just changing the major version numbers.
I learned a long time ago that when a vendor is playing hocus-pocus with major version numbers, they're either doing something shady or the marketing department has gotten out of control. In which case, you can bet they're doing something shady.
Yes, I know Firefox is free... it doesn't mean I don't have 15 years of distrust at seeing people play with their version numbers. (You know, "oh, here's our new Steaming Heap of Innovative Technology v 1.0.... oh, don't like that, well, now it's 6.2, is that better?" Same shit, different version number.)
Fewer features in each major release should mean more time spent fixing bugs.
Which, one might argue, makes them point releases instead of major releases. If 5 is only adding a few features from 4, and fixing bugs, then why isn't it 4.1?
I'm shaking my head at the prospect of going through four major releases of Firefox this year, and sort of going "why?".
Iran is not crazy. I'm not sure where you got that idea from. The government is pretty hard line in some instances
And, when you're talking about countries and how they interact, you're talking about the Government of that country. In this case, crazy. Batshit crazy one might say -- listening to any speech of Ahmadinejad, and you're forced to wonder if the man is even lucid.
but the populace isn't generally
No, but if they try to dissent with the government, out comes the guns, batons, and tanks.
The citizens of Iran may not be crazy, but in a real sense of the word, they don't get a vote. At least, not a real one.
If we want to be intellectually honest, let's remember that the op-ed piece I cited was basically one of the highest results from Google, and that numerous sources have identified that the US could, in fact, be pondering trying him under the Espionage Act or somesuch. It's not like I pulled the notion out of my ass.
There's no shortage of sources saying they'd like to be able to do that. It was all over the news in December when the news first broke.
The US basically put an amendment into the Cuban Constitution which decreed that they could have that land leased to them. It's not like they invited you there. In fact, from their perspective, this is a violation of their sovereignty.
I might suggest this is a mess entirely of America's own making and shouldn't just be dumped off on whomever is holding the bag.
Really, the only thing that ever should be there is this.
As soon as you enable any automatic action, you open up a vector for this kind of attack.
I think Microsoft did the world a huge disservice when they did this (although, in fairness, Apple could have provided us with this "innovation"), and I distinctly remember watching what happened when you put a music CD into a computer and watched it install and launch it's own annoying software -- this eventually led to the Sony Rootkit. It's a feature I've largely only ever seen abused by malicious software (malware), and malicious entities (copyright holders).
Autorun is just a plain bad idea, in my experience. Deciding that any old piece of code which rolls by should be ran just because it's sitting in the right place is a bad idea.
I think this line alone is a commentary on both the hyperbole used by his lawyers and the sad state of the US reputation in Europe.
ORLY? When the Wall Street Journal is saying that he should be tried under the Espionage Act... I don't think Guantanamo is exactly a big huge stretch to imagine.
Maybe that reputation is based on things like the CIA kidnapping people in foreign countries to be whisked away to "unofficial" places?
How did you make the leap from "not natural" to "Humans did this"?
Because it's far less of a leap than "Other animals? Aliens?".
To date, we haven't seen any evidence that 'other animals' have ever put together time-keeping measures... and, well, the alien theory is more extraordinary than the notion that a people who have been there for at least 40,000 years did something like this 10,000 years ago.
The most likely conclusion is that "not natural" means "Humans did this".
Wow, something was running on an Apple product before it was on a Microsoft product before the iPhone existed?
I believe lots of things fall into that category.
Xerox may have invented the mouse and the concept of on-screen "windows", but these things were widely used on Apple machines before Microsoft had fully sorted out Windows V 1.0. Hell, I think even USB and Firewire are covered by being on an Apple machine before windows and before the iPhone existed.
Say what you will about about Apple, but they have really been bringing new technology to users for a long time.
I'm pretty sure people have had domain names stolen from them because someone claimed they were trading on their famous name and won in court, even though it was obvious that the person was actually using their own name.
And those that do don't notice the IED killing their friends because they are too focused on their DS instead of looking for suspicious activity.
While I'm sure you're joking... if you're playing your DS on patrol, I'm sure you are going to be a victim of fratricide before long (or PvP in gamers parlance).
Nevertheless, we had a pretty good party [day15000.com] in Bloomington last night with around 40 people, DJ, free pizza, cake and so on. We all had fun and it was a good social outing
Oh, I can only imagine just how off the scale the geek-meter was for that one.
It may not be the best OS of the bunch, but the fact of the matter is that it will run on a whole host of hardware. Apple and RIM have lost in this respect, because there will be very little choice.
I think you overestimate how much consumers care about hardware choice. I don't mean techies, I mean Joe six pack who wants a device, and doesn't care or know anything about the hardware.
In the end, it comes down to features and usability.
I don't believe for a minute that the buying public is at all concerned with such things... they want to push a button and see something happen. And they want it to be easy to use. And pretty. And, yes, possibly even fashionable or trendy.
For the same reason that we hear about too much fragmentation in handsets, and vendors not providing upgrades, or what have you... if there's a bazillion different Android tablets that all have different specs and features, I can see that actually working against Android.
All they're asking for is for ISPs to retain DHCP logs longer.
For now. But this snippet from the linked PDF is kind of scary:
Federal law permits the government only to request that providers preserve particular records relevant to a particular case while investigators work on getting the proper court order, subpoena, or search warrant to obtain those records.
This approach has had its limitations.
Basically, "we find it inconvenient that by law we're only allowed to ask for specific information based on an on-going investigation, we would like some blanket powers so we don't need to bother with this".
Hell, in my book, anybody who is quoting Alberto Gonzales is not to be trusted... Gonzales routinely made awful decisions like "it's legal because we say so" and "who needs habeus corpus?". From the PDF again... "Former Attorney General Gonzales similarly testified about “investigations where the evidence is no longer available because there's no requirement to retain the data.”"
Looking at this section:
In some ways, the problem of investigations being stymied by a lack of data retention is growing worse. One mid-size cell phone company does not retain any records, and others are moving in that direction. A cable Internet provider does not keep track of the Internet protocol addresses it assigns to customers, at all. Another keeps them for only seven days—often, citizens don’t even bring an Internet crime to law enforcement’s attention that quickly. These practices thwart law enforcement’s ability to protect the public. When investigators need records to investigate a drug dealer’s communications, or to investigate a harassing phone call, records are simply unavailable.
they're pulling out pretty much all of the bogey-men to say "we need to be able to monitor everything just in case". They cite child abuse, drugs, terrorism... harassing calls. While these are legitimate law enforcement targets, it's definitely stating the case that they'd really like to be able to monitor everything.
Hell, even the wording they use is charged "Most responsible providers are already collecting the data that is most relevant to criminal and national security-related investigations."... meaning those who aren't actively helping the government monitor everything are irresponsible and therefore evil.
This just sets them up for way too many fishing trips as far as I'm concerned. You can't just simply apply surveillance and monitoring against an entire society "just in case". This is just plain bad, and it's more like something Iran or Stalinist Russia would do.
So, we should monitor everybody so that if in the future we need to monitor a specific person, we'll already have the data. Brilliant!
Welcome to the surveillance society. Wouldn't this run afoul of the whole "unreasonable search and seizure"? Hell, keep everybody's web history long enough and you'll likely find something you could use against them.
I completely disagree that ISPs should just track everything in case law-enforcement wants it at some point. It's a little Orwellian, and I fear that it is only going to get worse -- in their zeal, governments are really going overboard. This is just depressing.
Someone should try to Rickroll the president on live TV.
I'd watch the State of the Union if I thought that might happen.
Commentator: the President is now taking comments from the internet, and is clicking on the question. "Never gonna give you up, never gonna... ".
Now that's entertainment. Then, of course, we need a live feed of the poor bastard whose hacked computer did this so we could watch the black-ops guys swoop in and haul him away.
Someone should get on that. Excuse me, I think I hear a knock at the door.
I guess it makes sense it should continue to be used... isn't it's location fairly optimal in terms of placement within the US for take-off? I see to recall reading that anyway.
Sad that NASA is being squeezed out of the game to a certain extent, glad to see they can still play a role.
"No realli! She was Karving her initials on the Løgic with the sharpened end of an interspace toothbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian movies: "The Hot Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Molars of Horst Nordfink"..."
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever. I'm not an American, and I'm not about to defend any of what you're bitching about. In fact, I agree with a lot of what you say.
I have seen speeches with Ahmadinejad and the simultaneous translation (I believe it was actually Al Jazeera) -- I'm still of the opinion he's bat-shit crazy. I can only hear someone talking about wiping the Great Satan off the planet so much before I'm forced to come to that conclusion.
I also saw the footage of what was happening to their protesters not so long ago. Something to do with shooting a student who was peacefully protesting -- you might have seen it, it made the news.
I know people of Persian origin, and *they* think he's bat-shit crazy. So, without resorting to being a complete wanker who goes off on an anti-US diatribe at the drop of a hat, care to provide any evidence that Ahmadinejad isn't an insane bastard?
I learned a long time ago that when a vendor is playing hocus-pocus with major version numbers, they're either doing something shady or the marketing department has gotten out of control. In which case, you can bet they're doing something shady.
Yes, I know Firefox is free ... it doesn't mean I don't have 15 years of distrust at seeing people play with their version numbers. (You know, "oh, here's our new Steaming Heap of Innovative Technology v 1.0 .... oh, don't like that, well, now it's 6.2, is that better?" Same shit, different version number.)
Which, one might argue, makes them point releases instead of major releases. If 5 is only adding a few features from 4, and fixing bugs, then why isn't it 4.1?
I'm shaking my head at the prospect of going through four major releases of Firefox this year, and sort of going "why?".
And, when you're talking about countries and how they interact, you're talking about the Government of that country. In this case, crazy. Batshit crazy one might say -- listening to any speech of Ahmadinejad, and you're forced to wonder if the man is even lucid.
No, but if they try to dissent with the government, out comes the guns, batons, and tanks.
The citizens of Iran may not be crazy, but in a real sense of the word, they don't get a vote. At least, not a real one.
OK, how about the State Department, or 'diplomatic sources', or Homeland Security?
If we want to be intellectually honest, let's remember that the op-ed piece I cited was basically one of the highest results from Google, and that numerous sources have identified that the US could, in fact, be pondering trying him under the Espionage Act or somesuch. It's not like I pulled the notion out of my ass.
There's no shortage of sources saying they'd like to be able to do that. It was all over the news in December when the news first broke.
It depends on how you interpret the word "lease".
The US basically put an amendment into the Cuban Constitution which decreed that they could have that land leased to them. It's not like they invited you there. In fact, from their perspective, this is a violation of their sovereignty.
I might suggest this is a mess entirely of America's own making and shouldn't just be dumped off on whomever is holding the bag.
Really, the only thing that ever should be there is this.
As soon as you enable any automatic action, you open up a vector for this kind of attack.
I think Microsoft did the world a huge disservice when they did this (although, in fairness, Apple could have provided us with this "innovation"), and I distinctly remember watching what happened when you put a music CD into a computer and watched it install and launch it's own annoying software -- this eventually led to the Sony Rootkit. It's a feature I've largely only ever seen abused by malicious software (malware), and malicious entities (copyright holders).
Autorun is just a plain bad idea, in my experience. Deciding that any old piece of code which rolls by should be ran just because it's sitting in the right place is a bad idea.
ORLY? When the Wall Street Journal is saying that he should be tried under the Espionage Act ... I don't think Guantanamo is exactly a big huge stretch to imagine.
Maybe that reputation is based on things like the CIA kidnapping people in foreign countries to be whisked away to "unofficial" places?
Because it's far less of a leap than "Other animals? Aliens?".
To date, we haven't seen any evidence that 'other animals' have ever put together time-keeping measures ... and, well, the alien theory is more extraordinary than the notion that a people who have been there for at least 40,000 years did something like this 10,000 years ago.
The most likely conclusion is that "not natural" means "Humans did this".
Probably way too long to be just an awkward silence anymore.
Inheriting it is NOT creating wealth, it's just a transfer of existing wealth. The guy who sold pet rocks? That's creating wealth.
And, yes, hard work doesn't guarantee you wealth either.
I believe lots of things fall into that category.
Xerox may have invented the mouse and the concept of on-screen "windows", but these things were widely used on Apple machines before Microsoft had fully sorted out Windows V 1.0. Hell, I think even USB and Firewire are covered by being on an Apple machine before windows and before the iPhone existed.
Say what you will about about Apple, but they have really been bringing new technology to users for a long time.
I'm pretty sure people have had domain names stolen from them because someone claimed they were trading on their famous name and won in court, even though it was obvious that the person was actually using their own name.
Whoever has the money, writes the rules.
While I'm sure you're joking ... if you're playing your DS on patrol, I'm sure you are going to be a victim of fratricide before long (or PvP in gamers parlance).
Sounds like North Eastern Maine.
I'd rather have braking ability at the other end. ;-)
Oh, I can only imagine just how off the scale the geek-meter was for that one.
Good times, good times. ;-P
I think you overestimate how much consumers care about hardware choice. I don't mean techies, I mean Joe six pack who wants a device, and doesn't care or know anything about the hardware.
In the end, it comes down to features and usability.
I don't believe for a minute that the buying public is at all concerned with such things ... they want to push a button and see something happen. And they want it to be easy to use. And pretty. And, yes, possibly even fashionable or trendy.
For the same reason that we hear about too much fragmentation in handsets, and vendors not providing upgrades, or what have you ... if there's a bazillion different Android tablets that all have different specs and features, I can see that actually working against Android.
For now. But this snippet from the linked PDF is kind of scary:
Basically, "we find it inconvenient that by law we're only allowed to ask for specific information based on an on-going investigation, we would like some blanket powers so we don't need to bother with this".
Hell, in my book, anybody who is quoting Alberto Gonzales is not to be trusted ... Gonzales routinely made awful decisions like "it's legal because we say so" and "who needs habeus corpus?". From the PDF again ... "Former Attorney General Gonzales similarly testified about “investigations where the evidence is no longer available because there's no requirement to retain the data.”"
Looking at this section:
they're pulling out pretty much all of the bogey-men to say "we need to be able to monitor everything just in case". They cite child abuse, drugs, terrorism ... harassing calls. While these are legitimate law enforcement targets, it's definitely stating the case that they'd really like to be able to monitor everything.
Hell, even the wording they use is charged "Most responsible providers are already collecting the data that is most relevant to criminal and national security-related investigations." ... meaning those who aren't actively helping the government monitor everything are irresponsible and therefore evil.
This just sets them up for way too many fishing trips as far as I'm concerned. You can't just simply apply surveillance and monitoring against an entire society "just in case". This is just plain bad, and it's more like something Iran or Stalinist Russia would do.
So, we should monitor everybody so that if in the future we need to monitor a specific person, we'll already have the data. Brilliant!
Welcome to the surveillance society. Wouldn't this run afoul of the whole "unreasonable search and seizure"? Hell, keep everybody's web history long enough and you'll likely find something you could use against them.
I completely disagree that ISPs should just track everything in case law-enforcement wants it at some point. It's a little Orwellian, and I fear that it is only going to get worse -- in their zeal, governments are really going overboard. This is just depressing.
Nobody 'needs' a goatse.
That's like ... a weapon of mass disgusting. That would land you in Gitmo or something. ;-)
Well ... if you could Goatse Bin Laden I don't think anybody would mind.
Someone should try to Rickroll the president on live TV.
I'd watch the State of the Union if I thought that might happen.
Commentator: the President is now taking comments from the internet, and is clicking on the question. "Never gonna give you up, never gonna ... ".
Now that's entertainment. Then, of course, we need a live feed of the poor bastard whose hacked computer did this so we could watch the black-ops guys swoop in and haul him away.
Someone should get on that. Excuse me, I think I hear a knock at the door.
I guess it makes sense it should continue to be used ... isn't it's location fairly optimal in terms of placement within the US for take-off? I see to recall reading that anyway.
Sad that NASA is being squeezed out of the game to a certain extent, glad to see they can still play a role.
And gobs of fake watches and prescription pain killers. The Russian girls who want to chat also seem to still be fairly prevalent nowadays.
"No realli! She was Karving her initials on the Løgic with the sharpened end
of an interspace toothbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an
Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian movies: "The Hot Hands of an Oslo
Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Molars of Horst Nordfink"..."