Tsvangirai (good) hiddenly supports sanctions against his own country to harm his opponent, Mugabe (bad). That scheme comes to light, possibly spelling doom for democracy. Shame on Wikileaks for screwing it up.
Now let's try in reverse:
Mugabe (bad) hiddenly supports sanctions against his own country to harm his opponent, Tsvangirai (good). That scheme comes to light, possibly spelling doom for the tyranny and opening way for glorious democracy. Glory to Wikileaks for uncovering Mugabe's shady deals.
I don't like double standards. Christopher R. Albon seems to be saying that the end justifies the means, and so long that the end is democracy, pretty much anything goes.
IMO, the problem here is not with Wikileaks. It's one of two things:
A. Tsvangirai isn't all that saintly, and not that much better than Mugabe, so he must to resort to underhanded means to defeat his oponent.
B. The people don't really want democracy. They either like Mugabe for some reason, or he convinced them his oponent is worse, or just don't give a damn. Whatever the issue in such a case should they get this democracy it's unlikely to make things all that much better for them, because democracy requires people who care, and parties willing to represent the will of those people. If the people don't care, or all the choices are horrible, it's democracy in name only.
I'm not so sure there's anything more to be gained. We know that media companies are pushing for these laws in all countries. That they've found representation in US diplomatic circles isn't that shocking. And certainly not shocking enough to warrent crossing the boundary of classified diplomatic communication (and all the additional baggage doing so brings).
Well, take the piracy stuff. On issues like this there are going to be people for and against it. But in either case you think you've got the answer that's best for your country, and not for those poor american multinationals.
Now if evidence comes out that the law is written to please the US, some questions come to mind. Even if you do want such a law, why does the US have to demand it, and to get it written to their specifications? Aren't you supposed to decide how your country runs? And if some third party has to demand laws to be made by them, maybe they're not really going to benefit you? If it really is such a great thing, why is external influence needed?
IMO, what really killed the spanish one is the certain knowledge that it was written for the US. I think this is crucial. We all know that geeks and such "weird" people will talk of it being pushed by the US. But that's completely different from having actual proof that your country is introducing legislation to please a foreign interest in this specific case. Especially since the US doesn't have such a great reputation over there.
Would you really be happy to know the US is passing a law that nobody in the US asked for to please China? Don't you think there would be a difference between rumors of diplomatic deals and actual proof of one in a very specific case?
Specifically, doesn't making laws to please a foreign convernment go very directly against this part?
Every law the people have not ratified in person is null and void is, in fact, not a law. The legislative power belongs to the people, and can belong to it alone
This is one of the most essential things for a good government. If the government isn't legislating for you, that's a very, VERY big thing.
I would have thought we knew this sort of thing was going on already without leaking classified documents. And with that in mind, citizens should be standing up against crap laws being pushed by money interests no matter what national borders are involved.
Well like I said before, IMO there's a big difference between knowing of the "everybody knows nations make shady deals" level, and having concrete proof of what is being done.
I certainly don't think it was worth risking someone's freedom (i.e. Manning) over it.
Nobody risked his freedom for him. He made that decision himself, so in his opinion it was worth it.
So all in all, I really want to support the concept of transparency in government. But I find myself flinching at the level of transparency activists seem to call for. Especially when a lot of activists seem to have no real idea of how these environments work.
IMO, work in the government isn't supposed to be fun and pleasant. It's an important and critical service for the good of the people, and as such entails a lot of responsibility. I think it's quite possible that the issue is that the rules are not properly balanced and there is too much bureacracy where there shouldn't be, and too little where there should be more accountability.
If you wonder why activists want more of it, just look at the failures: the secrecy of the ACTA, the screwups with New Orleans and Deepwater Horizon, Abu Ghraib... People demand transparency for good reasons, I think.
IMO, if the case with Khalid El-Masri is pretty darn criminal. Let's see, a guy is kidnapped, kept in prison for months, tortured, then dumped somewhere in Albania when they figure out he's not the one they want. Which part of kidnapping and torture isn't criminal enough for you?
To top it off, the US requests to Germany to "weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S." if they were thinking of issuing international arrest warrants against the kidnappers. That, if it isn't illegal, definitely should be.
Do you allege such a conspiracy, or at the least gross incompetence by the major news companies?
Well I don't know what the press publishes where you are, but IMO it's generally tending towards incompetence these days.
I'm saying that the GP is intentionally trying to avoid reading too much on Wikileaks for the reasons you said. But that means they can't be all that well informed, and therefore not qualified to make a statement like "Wikileaks has published approximately nothing that is shocking or surprising or that reveals unlawful activity".
The fact that you confuse "not[] looking at the details" with "stay[ing] uninformed" reflects more on me than you
I don't see how. The way I see it is:
Option A is that you're really avoiding learning too much about the leaks to keep your job safe and by doing so can't know if anything important was released. Option B is that you're not really succeeding at it and risking your job.
I don't see much room for a middle ground there. The newspapers are publishing the juiciest stuff, which is really what's interesting about it. I don't think there's much of a point in avoiding what's left.
Also, are you seriously arguing that the way to make Spanish politicians more accountable to the Spanish people is by making the US government more transparent? That suggests to me that there are more significant problems than the US government keeping secrets.
That part isn't about transparency, it's about establishing the importance. The US government getting other countries to write laws for its own benefit rather than that of their citizens is pretty darn important in my book and for me that alone is enough to justify the release.
The line between citizens' private data and sensitive government data is not nearly so bright, either in fact or in rationale, as most of Wikileaks' defenders seem to think.
There's a continuum there. On one extreme lies complete secrecy, on the other complete openness and lack of privacy for anybody.
You seem to like where it is right now, while I think the current position is too much on the secrecy side of things, and that it can be moved towards transparency by quite a bit before it reaches that line between private data and government data.
Isn't that rather pointless? That horse has already bolted. The stuff from Wikileaks is spread far and wide now, in websites, blogs, twitter posts, newspapers, and so on.
So just because it's still officially classified everybody with an interest in working with the government now needs to somehow manage to avoid learning anything they're not supposed to from any of the myriad of possible sources? That's just stupid.
I can't really go take a look. I like my job, and -- thanks probably to the indiscriminate behavior of Wikileaks -- I have been told not to go looking at the details or else I might not be able to continue doing my job.
If you intentionally choose to stay uninformed, then you shouldn't pretend that you know whether anything important was leaked or not.
Also, welcome to the Land of the Formerly Free, where you need to make sure you don't read any subversive literature.
It is not shocking or surprising that the US would supply the kind of diplomatic pressure you mention; I saw news stories about that well before these cables were released.
I think the confirmation is what is important. Everybody knows that the US likes to stick its nose everywhere, and that's not surprising in the slightest. But there's a difference between anti-GMO activists muttering something about the US and its political interests that a lot of people will take for a weird conspiracy theory, and actual, concrete proof that outside interests are pushing for legislation that's for the US, and not for the residents of the country.
This kind of thing is already having important repercusions. Wikileaks uncovered that a spanish anti-filesharing law had been written pretty much according to the US wishes, and that probably was one of the reasons why it got thrown out. I don't think just suspicions would have done that.
If that is the most relevant thing out of a quarter-million cables, though, I have to think that leaking the whole set is an ineffective way to bring attention to it.
I don't know what would that be. There's a lot in there for pretty much everybody. What is the "most relevant" depends on what you care the most about.
Also it's about 1% of a quarter million. With the amount of stuff they have dug up from just that it seems they have hit a goldmine.
Should I be able to closely watch the IRS as it processes your tax return? Should I be able to closely watch judges as they resolve divorce cases or other sensitive lawsuits? If you start a company that does business with the government, should I be able to closely watch it as it handles contract negotiations and billings for that relationship, to the point that I can tell how much your employees make in a year?
Tax returns: sure, so long you don't see the actual information being examined. But do watch their expenses, procedures, and so on. IMO the IRS should deal with data in an anonymized fasion, seeing the content of the return, but not knowing who it belongs to, to ensure impartiality.
Judges: Aren't pretty much all trials public over there? I thought anybody could request all court documents on any trial that wasn't specifically closed.
Business with the government: would have to think more on it, but don't see why not. The government is special and gets special rules regarding contracts and such anyway.
These blanket proclamations that "the government[] has no right of privacy, and in fact should be at all times closely watched" are signs that someone hasn't thought about how little the government would be able to do if there were that much transparency.
How about spying on the UN? The US pressuring Sweden to prosecute the Pirate Bay? The US warning Germany to keep quiet about Khalid El-Masri? The US pressuring Spain "into dropping court investigations into the CIA's extraordinary rendition, torture at Guantanamo Bay, and the 2003 killing of José Couso, a Spanish journalist, in Iraq by American troops"? The US supporting Monsanto in Europe?
And, if after you look at that list (which is about 1% of the full archive) you don't find anything "shocking or surprising or that reveals unlawful activity", then something is very wrong with you.
Would you mind uploading your email archive to a web server for the rest of us to look over? If you wouldn't do that, why would you want the US government to do the same thing?
Because a government is supposed to serve "the people". That's why. The government is not a person and not a corporation, it has no right of privacy, and in fact should be at all times closely watched to make sure it's doing what it's supposed to. When it starts being too secretive, that's a sure sign that something fishy is going on.
I can see that if you are a nomad and wander the wastelands. But 99.7% of everyone else will get near an electrical outlet at least 50 times a day. and that electrical outlet even used for 5 minutes will charge your item 3X more than your backpack can all day long.
Actually it charges things at about the maximum speed possible since it's got an internal battery. I also spend a fairly large amount of time on the street and underground, where there are no outlets.
You bought it for the "look at me" factor.
Actually it's more like this: I think it's cool, I find it useful, it's my small contribution to further development of solar panels, and it goes nicely with my interest in wearable computing. What people think of it is way down the list, though I have nothing against buying things for that reason either.
Otherwise you would have about a far more effective fold up soar charger for the same money that would deliver 3X more charging current in the same sunlight. But it's not visible all the time for the "look at me" effect.
No, that would be considerably less practical unless I was heavily into camping. It'd get 3X more current for the few minutes I might ocassionally sit in a park, and nothing during the rest of the day.
I actually own a backpack with a solar panel, and IMO you don't buy that sort of thing to save money.
My own rationale was that I'm a heavy user of my N900. I play music, browse websites and use the GPS, and that sort of thing can drain the battery really fast. It's nice to have an extra reserve of power for when it's needed.
I also like to travel, and it gives me considerable peace of mind knowing that if I run out of battery at an inconvenient time, I have a reserve.
Those panels are way too small and badly positioned to be of any use. It also sounds like a scam, it's way too expensive. Solar panels don't cost that much.
I own an older model of this solar backpack and I'd say that anything smaller than that wouldn't be very useful. In my experience it comes very handy (for somebody who heavily uses a phone for music, web browsing and talking), but it is still limited by the panel. The backpack charges an internal battery and can charge a smartphone or music player. Most people just don't have anything smaller than that.
Also as it's a backpack it's always possible to place it near a window or outside of the shadow, which would be rather difficult with a pair of pants. And it's a very nicely made backpack too.
I think solar clothing could be quite awesome, but it'd have to be entirely made of a flexible solar panel, and not just have a tiny one glued on somewhere.
My best guess is that it's the legacy driver. It's probably missing some functionality that's used by SDL.
If it's an Opteron, it sounds possible that you don't have PCI-E and are using a PCI or AGP card? If so that's really ancient these days, and it probably doesn't get a whole lot of testing.
I've tested the games on two desktops and two laptops so far and they worked fine on all of them, but they all had new-ish graphics cards.
That's odd. What are you running them on, and what problems do you have?
I have both HIBs, all the games in them work just fine on Linux. There are a couple that don't like nvidia's multimonitor support and go fullscreen across both monitors, but that's the biggest issue I found so far.
I played Osmos yesterday, worked fine. Gish worked for me as well. Cortex Command is very disappointing btw. It looks like it could be really awesome, but it's way too buggy and it seems there's about one developer who releases a new version about once a year.
People don't necessarily have a right to discuss their sexuality at work.
Why not? I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to.
Here's a simple test: would you rather not be allowed to talk about your sexuality at work or be tortured and held in a prison indefinitely without any hope for a trial, let alone a fair one?
I'd prefer to have neither really.
I think both DADT repeal and Guantanamo closing should have happened long ago. I just don't think that social progress should be stopped until all terrible injustices get resolved first. Otherwise we can get into a loop of:
Let's repeal DADT? No, there's Guantanamo first How about now? No, there's the Iraq war first How about now? No, now we started another war somewhere else How about now? No, there's...
And progress for millions gets stopped by something horrible happening to a few people somewhere. I'm not saying to reverse the order either, we could just do both things. There are millions of people in a country, it's possible to fix several issues at once.
Unlike the Iraq war, practically speaking, Guantanamo doesn't make a big difference. There are only 174 people there. The biggest benefit to closing it is a "we care about people's rights" angle. Which is an excellent idea, but doesn't DADT fall into the exactly same category? It probably even affects many more people in the practical sense.
Ever thought, that armed population is the guaranty to ensure, that government will not send army and tanks to dismiss a peaceful demonstration they don't like? (think Tiananmen Square)
Not really, no.
Like I said, the threshold for using a weapon against the government is very, very high. Because by doing it, you're saying that your life is worth risking for defending whatever cause you're interested in. Are you really ready to throw your life away at a protest related to employment, immigration or gay marriage? Most likely not.
This means that any government with half a brain isn't going to do it the Tiananmen Square way, they're going to slowly take things away, trying not to make any of them a life or death issue, even if all combined it is. Also do you really think guns at Tiananmen Square would have helped? They had tanks there. Unless you think people should be aquiring anti-tank weapons in masse for this purpose. A modern government is probably smarter. They'll just use tear gas and rubber bullets, then drag your beaten ass to prison.
The second problem is, will it actually do you any good even if you do? Weapons at a demostration are a disaster waiting to happen. A stray shot which is near guaranteed to hit somebody with so many people around is likely to turn the place into a bloodly battleground, after which nobody will be sure what happened.
" Why didn't you stop them?
They had guns, sir. And they were shootin' bullets."
That's a fantasy. Here's what would really happen:
If the crowd starts it, the police will fire back, and immediately request backup. Probably the best you can expect with a determined crowd is it getting encircled by the army, tear gas and smoke screens launched in, and snipers and soldiers positioned all around. Then they announce a surrender protocol. In any case you can expect to appear on TV as a terrorist and not get any sympathy.
If the government side starts it, they'll have come properly equipped, so it's not likely to go much better for you.
Even if by some chance you do win the engagement, you'll simply be branded as a terrorist. The only way I can see of your side winning in the end is by winning a civil war. But that's a long and very bloody mess, and not in any way related to deterrents.
People generally mention that quantum computing will spell the doom for current crypto, but from what I read on different sites, it seems that it's not exactly that. So I would really appreciate if somebody could clarify it. For instance, on Wikipedia there is this:
Integer factorization is believed to be computationally infeasible with an ordinary computer for large integers if they are the product of few prime numbers (e.g., products of two 300-digit primes).[5] By comparison, a quantum computer could efficiently solve this problem using Shor's algorithm to find its factors. This ability would allow a quantum computer to decrypt many of the cryptographic systems in use today, in the sense that there would be a polynomial time (in the number of digits of the integer) algorithm for solving the problem.
It has been proven that applying Grover's algorithm to break a symmetric (secret key) algorithm by brute force requires roughly 2n/2 invocations of the underlying cryptographic algorithm, compared with roughly 2n in the classical case,[10] meaning that symmetric key lengths are effectively halved: AES-256 would have the same security against an attack using Grover's algorithm that AES-128 has against classical brute-force search
So, the problem is only for public key crypto, and for AES we just switch to 512 bit keys and no problem? Also if quantum computers don't do all that great against AES, wouldn't be it just a problem of finding somethinig else they have trouble with that could be used for public key crypto?
Suppose you have your SMG. What would it take for you to take and use it against the government? I bet it's something very, very big. Now for anything less important than that, what does it matter that you have your SMG even if you're not going to use it?
Short of the government deciding to institute Sharia or something similarly huge, an armed revolt by the population is extremely unlikely. That's quite a lot of things they can do to really screw up your life, without that weaponry helping in the slightest.
It matters to people who want to know. Don't tell me I can't find something out simply because you don't think it has any merit. Curiosity is what drives most of science. You may not care what the underlying rules of the universe are, but others do, and we want to know.
Never said such a thing. My point is, if we suppose that there's a teapot in orbit around mars, and are completely unable to detect it by any means, does it matter whether it actually exists?
The (sic) inobservable (you meant unobservable) is usually observed through indirect means; Eddington's 1919 N. Pole expedition showed Einstein's general theory was correct by observing star displacement.
Well, technically we observe everything indirectly, don't we? I mean to see something you need to perceive photons emitted or reflected by it.
To make it completely clear, by "unobservable" I understand something impossible to perceive at all, by any means, direct or indirect.
Does it matter if something inobservable exists? If you posit the existence of something that can't be observed, how do you verify that hypothesis? What are the applications for a theory that doesn't suggest effects we can detect and verify?
Slashdot Mirror
This case:
Tsvangirai (good) hiddenly supports sanctions against his own country to harm his opponent, Mugabe (bad). That scheme comes to light, possibly spelling doom for democracy. Shame on Wikileaks for screwing it up.
Now let's try in reverse:
Mugabe (bad) hiddenly supports sanctions against his own country to harm his opponent, Tsvangirai (good). That scheme comes to light, possibly spelling doom for the tyranny and opening way for glorious democracy. Glory to Wikileaks for uncovering Mugabe's shady deals.
I don't like double standards. Christopher R. Albon seems to be saying that the end justifies the means, and so long that the end is democracy, pretty much anything goes.
IMO, the problem here is not with Wikileaks. It's one of two things:
A. Tsvangirai isn't all that saintly, and not that much better than Mugabe, so he must to resort to underhanded means to defeat his oponent.
B. The people don't really want democracy. They either like Mugabe for some reason, or he convinced them his oponent is worse, or just don't give a damn. Whatever the issue in such a case should they get this democracy it's unlikely to make things all that much better for them, because democracy requires people who care, and parties willing to represent the will of those people. If the people don't care, or all the choices are horrible, it's democracy in name only.
Well, take the piracy stuff. On issues like this there are going to be people for and against it. But in either case you think you've got the answer that's best for your country, and not for those poor american multinationals.
Now if evidence comes out that the law is written to please the US, some questions come to mind. Even if you do want such a law, why does the US have to demand it, and to get it written to their specifications? Aren't you supposed to decide how your country runs? And if some third party has to demand laws to be made by them, maybe they're not really going to benefit you? If it really is such a great thing, why is external influence needed?
IMO, what really killed the spanish one is the certain knowledge that it was written for the US. I think this is crucial. We all know that geeks and such "weird" people will talk of it being pushed by the US. But that's completely different from having actual proof that your country is introducing legislation to please a foreign interest in this specific case. Especially since the US doesn't have such a great reputation over there.
Would you really be happy to know the US is passing a law that nobody in the US asked for to please China? Don't you think there would be a difference between rumors of diplomatic deals and actual proof of one in a very specific case?
Yes, it's very important. You know the Social Contract?
Specifically, doesn't making laws to please a foreign convernment go very directly against this part?
This is one of the most essential things for a good government. If the government isn't legislating for you, that's a very, VERY big thing.
Well like I said before, IMO there's a big difference between knowing of the "everybody knows nations make shady deals" level, and having concrete proof of what is being done.
Nobody risked his freedom for him. He made that decision himself, so in his opinion it was worth it.
IMO, work in the government isn't supposed to be fun and pleasant. It's an important and critical service for the good of the people, and as such entails a lot of responsibility. I think it's quite possible that the issue is that the rules are not properly balanced and there is too much bureacracy where there shouldn't be, and too little where there should be more accountability.
If you wonder why activists want more of it, just look at the failures: the secrecy of the ACTA, the screwups with New Orleans and Deepwater Horizon, Abu Ghraib... People demand transparency for good reasons, I think.
Ok, if you read headlines, here are some
IMO, if the case with Khalid El-Masri is pretty darn criminal. Let's see, a guy is kidnapped, kept in prison for months, tortured, then dumped somewhere in Albania when they figure out he's not the one they want. Which part of kidnapping and torture isn't criminal enough for you?
To top it off, the US requests to Germany to "weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S." if they were thinking of issuing international arrest warrants against the kidnappers. That, if it isn't illegal, definitely should be.
Well I don't know what the press publishes where you are, but IMO it's generally tending towards incompetence these days.
My point still stands, I think.
I'm saying that the GP is intentionally trying to avoid reading too much on Wikileaks for the reasons you said. But that means they can't be all that well informed, and therefore not qualified to make a statement like "Wikileaks has published approximately nothing that is shocking or surprising or that reveals unlawful activity".
I don't see how. The way I see it is:
Option A is that you're really avoiding learning too much about the leaks to keep your job safe and by doing so can't know if anything important was released.
Option B is that you're not really succeeding at it and risking your job.
I don't see much room for a middle ground there. The newspapers are publishing the juiciest stuff, which is really what's interesting about it. I don't think there's much of a point in avoiding what's left.
That part isn't about transparency, it's about establishing the importance. The US government getting other countries to write laws for its own benefit rather than that of their citizens is pretty darn important in my book and for me that alone is enough to justify the release.
There's a continuum there. On one extreme lies complete secrecy, on the other complete openness and lack of privacy for anybody.
You seem to like where it is right now, while I think the current position is too much on the secrecy side of things, and that it can be moved towards transparency by quite a bit before it reaches that line between private data and government data.
Isn't that rather pointless? That horse has already bolted. The stuff from Wikileaks is spread far and wide now, in websites, blogs, twitter posts, newspapers, and so on.
So just because it's still officially classified everybody with an interest in working with the government now needs to somehow manage to avoid learning anything they're not supposed to from any of the myriad of possible sources? That's just stupid.
If you intentionally choose to stay uninformed, then you shouldn't pretend that you know whether anything important was leaked or not.
Also, welcome to the Land of the Formerly Free, where you need to make sure you don't read any subversive literature.
I think the confirmation is what is important. Everybody knows that the US likes to stick its nose everywhere, and that's not surprising in the slightest. But there's a difference between anti-GMO activists muttering something about the US and its political interests that a lot of people will take for a weird conspiracy theory, and actual, concrete proof that outside interests are pushing for legislation that's for the US, and not for the residents of the country.
This kind of thing is already having important repercusions. Wikileaks uncovered that a spanish anti-filesharing law had been written pretty much according to the US wishes, and that probably was one of the reasons why it got thrown out. I don't think just suspicions would have done that.
I don't know what would that be. There's a lot in there for pretty much everybody. What is the "most relevant" depends on what you care the most about.
Also it's about 1% of a quarter million. With the amount of stuff they have dug up from just that it seems they have hit a goldmine.
Tax returns: sure, so long you don't see the actual information being examined. But do watch their expenses, procedures, and so on. IMO the IRS should deal with data in an anonymized fasion, seeing the content of the return, but not knowing who it belongs to, to ensure impartiality.
Judges: Aren't pretty much all trials public over there? I thought anybody could request all court documents on any trial that wasn't specifically closed.
Business with the government: would have to think more on it, but don't see why not. The government is special and gets special rules regarding contracts and such anyway.
For instance?
What do you mean "nothing"?
How about spying on the UN? The US pressuring Sweden to prosecute the Pirate Bay? The US warning Germany to keep quiet about Khalid El-Masri? The US pressuring Spain "into dropping court investigations into the CIA's extraordinary rendition, torture at Guantanamo Bay, and the 2003 killing of José Couso, a Spanish journalist, in Iraq by American troops"? The US supporting Monsanto in Europe?
Heck, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_of_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak is long enough that I don't even know what to pick from it. Go take a look, you'll probably find something.
And, if after you look at that list (which is about 1% of the full archive) you don't find anything "shocking or surprising or that reveals unlawful activity", then something is very wrong with you.
Because a government is supposed to serve "the people". That's why. The government is not a person and not a corporation, it has no right of privacy, and in fact should be at all times closely watched to make sure it's doing what it's supposed to. When it starts being too secretive, that's a sure sign that something fishy is going on.
Actually it charges things at about the maximum speed possible since it's got an internal battery. I also spend a fairly large amount of time on the street and underground, where there are no outlets.
Actually it's more like this: I think it's cool, I find it useful, it's my small contribution to further development of solar panels, and it goes nicely with my interest in wearable computing. What people think of it is way down the list, though I have nothing against buying things for that reason either.
No, that would be considerably less practical unless I was heavily into camping. It'd get 3X more current for the few minutes I might ocassionally sit in a park, and nothing during the rest of the day.
I actually own a backpack with a solar panel, and IMO you don't buy that sort of thing to save money.
My own rationale was that I'm a heavy user of my N900. I play music, browse websites and use the GPS, and that sort of thing can drain the battery really fast. It's nice to have an extra reserve of power for when it's needed.
I also like to travel, and it gives me considerable peace of mind knowing that if I run out of battery at an inconvenient time, I have a reserve.
Those panels are way too small and badly positioned to be of any use. It also sounds like a scam, it's way too expensive. Solar panels don't cost that much.
I own an older model of this solar backpack and I'd say that anything smaller than that wouldn't be very useful. In my experience it comes very handy (for somebody who heavily uses a phone for music, web browsing and talking), but it is still limited by the panel. The backpack charges an internal battery and can charge a smartphone or music player. Most people just don't have anything smaller than that.
Also as it's a backpack it's always possible to place it near a window or outside of the shadow, which would be rather difficult with a pair of pants. And it's a very nicely made backpack too.
I think solar clothing could be quite awesome, but it'd have to be entirely made of a flexible solar panel, and not just have a tiny one glued on somewhere.
My best guess is that it's the legacy driver. It's probably missing some functionality that's used by SDL.
If it's an Opteron, it sounds possible that you don't have PCI-E and are using a PCI or AGP card? If so that's really ancient these days, and it probably doesn't get a whole lot of testing.
I've tested the games on two desktops and two laptops so far and they worked fine on all of them, but they all had new-ish graphics cards.
That's odd. What are you running them on, and what problems do you have?
I have both HIBs, all the games in them work just fine on Linux. There are a couple that don't like nvidia's multimonitor support and go fullscreen across both monitors, but that's the biggest issue I found so far.
I played Osmos yesterday, worked fine. Gish worked for me as well. Cortex Command is very disappointing btw. It looks like it could be really awesome, but it's way too buggy and it seems there's about one developer who releases a new version about once a year.
The source for the games in the first HIB except for world of goo (last time I checked) was released. So go and fix it :-)
Why not? I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to.
I'd prefer to have neither really.
I think both DADT repeal and Guantanamo closing should have happened long ago. I just don't think that social progress should be stopped until all terrible injustices get resolved first. Otherwise we can get into a loop of:
Let's repeal DADT? No, there's Guantanamo first
How about now? No, there's the Iraq war first
How about now? No, now we started another war somewhere else
How about now? No, there's...
And progress for millions gets stopped by something horrible happening to a few people somewhere. I'm not saying to reverse the order either, we could just do both things. There are millions of people in a country, it's possible to fix several issues at once.
Why is Guantanamo a priority and DADT isn't?
Unlike the Iraq war, practically speaking, Guantanamo doesn't make a big difference. There are only 174 people there. The biggest benefit to closing it is a "we care about people's rights" angle. Which is an excellent idea, but doesn't DADT fall into the exactly same category? It probably even affects many more people in the practical sense.
Not really, no.
Like I said, the threshold for using a weapon against the government is very, very high. Because by doing it, you're saying that your life is worth risking for defending whatever cause you're interested in. Are you really ready to throw your life away at a protest related to employment, immigration or gay marriage? Most likely not.
This means that any government with half a brain isn't going to do it the Tiananmen Square way, they're going to slowly take things away, trying not to make any of them a life or death issue, even if all combined it is. Also do you really think guns at Tiananmen Square would have helped? They had tanks there. Unless you think people should be aquiring anti-tank weapons in masse for this purpose. A modern government is probably smarter. They'll just use tear gas and rubber bullets, then drag your beaten ass to prison.
The second problem is, will it actually do you any good even if you do? Weapons at a demostration are a disaster waiting to happen. A stray shot which is near guaranteed to hit somebody with so many people around is likely to turn the place into a bloodly battleground, after which nobody will be sure what happened.
That's a fantasy. Here's what would really happen:
If the crowd starts it, the police will fire back, and immediately request backup. Probably the best you can expect with a determined crowd is it getting encircled by the army, tear gas and smoke screens launched in, and snipers and soldiers positioned all around. Then they announce a surrender protocol. In any case you can expect to appear on TV as a terrorist and not get any sympathy.
If the government side starts it, they'll have come properly equipped, so it's not likely to go much better for you.
Even if by some chance you do win the engagement, you'll simply be branded as a terrorist. The only way I can see of your side winning in the end is by winning a civil war. But that's a long and very bloody mess, and not in any way related to deterrents.
People generally mention that quantum computing will spell the doom for current crypto, but from what I read on different sites, it seems that it's not exactly that. So I would really appreciate if somebody could clarify it. For instance, on Wikipedia there is this:
So, the problem is only for public key crypto, and for AES we just switch to 512 bit keys and no problem? Also if quantum computers don't do all that great against AES, wouldn't be it just a problem of finding somethinig else they have trouble with that could be used for public key crypto?
It is not magic, but they are lying in the ad to make it look much better than it actually is.
The examples they show of it working are written in a way that no spanish person would have used.
Here's for instance my attempt to translate spanish to english in the same way: "For favour: Not throw the cigarettes passionate on the ground".
That's the kind of thing they're showing on the signs in the video.
Nope.
It is grammatically correct. It is however nonsensical. It means "the text translates it"
Bullshit.
Suppose you have your SMG. What would it take for you to take and use it against the government? I bet it's something very, very big. Now for anything less important than that, what does it matter that you have your SMG even if you're not going to use it?
Short of the government deciding to institute Sharia or something similarly huge, an armed revolt by the population is extremely unlikely. That's quite a lot of things they can do to really screw up your life, without that weaponry helping in the slightest.
Never said such a thing. My point is, if we suppose that there's a teapot in orbit around mars, and are completely unable to detect it by any means, does it matter whether it actually exists?
Well, technically we observe everything indirectly, don't we? I mean to see something you need to perceive photons emitted or reflected by it.
To make it completely clear, by "unobservable" I understand something impossible to perceive at all, by any means, direct or indirect.
Weird one. Minerva McGonagall is a catgirl? That's stretching it quite a bit.
Does it matter if something inobservable exists? If you posit the existence of something that can't be observed, how do you verify that hypothesis? What are the applications for a theory that doesn't suggest effects we can detect and verify?