His statement in context, and the whole answer to the question instead of a soundbite, can be interpreted as "If you need more privacy than Google can provide, don't use Google."
Except Google has been pretty clear about the fact that it sees its role essentially as the world's largest Peeping Tom.
Just look at Google Street Views and the various controversies that cropped up there. In an earlier age, when we weren't so in love with technology and Google hadn't bombarded us for years with the idea that its mantra was "don't be evil," no way in Hell would we put up with a corporation driving trucks around our neighborhoods, taking photos of our property (and occasionally our persons), which would then be published for the entire world to see. No way.
If I want to use Google Reader to browse RSS feeds, is it really reasonable to assume that Google will be using cookies to track my behavior around the Web, and will then sell that data to parties unknown for data-mining purposes? Really? Or have we just been conditioned to put up with such a gross invasion of our privacy?
No he didn't. He said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
And how is that better/more reasonable than the GP's interpretation?
I don't think it's anybody's business how my girlfriend likes to have sex. I guess we should practice abstinence only, huh?
I don't think it's anybody's business that I have leukemia -- at least, it certainly shouldn't affect my employment, my access to health care, the outcome of my divorce, etc. Guess I should stop growing those cells, huh?
I don't think it's anybody's business what route my kid takes to walk to school. Guess I should home-school her, huh?
I don't think it's anybody's business how I voted. Guess I shouldn't vote, huh?
Schmidt comes off like a Nazi to any reasonable U.S. citizen.
Not my idea of a hero, but then, I don't idolize Bill Gates either.
Be fair, though. However he earned his money, Bill Gates as an individual has done at least eight metric shit-tons more good in the world than Mark Zuckerberg ever has.
No offense to the people involved -- certainly it looks great and it's entertaining. But I've seen countless "short films" like this one that were produced "without Hollywood." Usually they're referred to as "cutscenes."
Love the high resolution images and availability; however, using the page UI and how freaking slow the UI is doesn't make a good impression.
Eh??? My impression was that it was basically "Google Maps for paintings." Pan, scroll, zoom... it was all pretty seamless and about as fast as I'd expect it to be.
And how exactly is a UI that "can be used with Silverlight" any better than a "sad Flash UI"?
I suspect the people using BIS really aren't their real customers and RIM goes out of their way to discourage the whole "ZOMG MY PHONE IS FUN!!" vibe that defines the non-enterprise market, which is probably a good thing.
Nuh-uh, sorry. Those days are over. Not long ago RIM ran an an ad campaign that wallpapered an entire BART station (SF Bay Area rail transit) with ads proclaiming how easy it was to catch up with your friends, arrange nights out, flirt, etc. with your BlackBerry. They were pretty clearly targeted at women who want to "keep up with their BFFs." Not exactly your typical enterprise customer, and many of RIM's new BlackBerry handset designs seem to cater to the consumer market, too.
I saw Up! in 3d and completely forgot it was in 3d. When I watch it on Blu-ray (2d) at my house, nothing jumps out as being missing.
THIS. What is the point of making me wear 3D glasses -- big, electronic 3D glasses in the home version, which cost me $90 -- if you're going to make 3D movies that are "subtle," where "the 3D takes a back seat to the actual story," and where you "forget that it's in 3D"? I don't wear glasses, goddammit! Don't force me to wear them to watch a movie if the only effect they're going to have is to dim the screen.
I went in expecting Gosling to have formulated this whole platform full of talking points why Oracle should do this, that, and the other, but instead I got a pretty cogent assessment which jibes with just about everything I suspected as an outsider. Oracle exists to make money and is very aggressive in its tactics: true. Android violates Sun patents: true. He even goes so far to say he would have no problem with Oracle maintaining stewardship of Java if it does right by the community (though he's a little unclear what he's referring to there).
The interviewers seem more eager to go with the whole "Oracle is the Devil" angle than Gosling. Gosling seems to more be saying Oracle has a tendency to be a bully, and who can argue with that?
On the other hand, I wish someone could have gone through the transcript and done a global search-and-replace for "intel" and "cosign," at least...
And as for the death-by-2015 predictions of Negroponte, it's just as likely that as the ranks of the early adopters get saturated, adoption of ebooks will slow. The reason is simple: unlike the move from CDs to MP3s, there is no easy way to convert our existing stock of books to e-readers.
Yeah. Because that's how all those MP3s got onto our iPods. We, um... ripped them from our CDs.
Well look, maybe it's not as revolutionary as the press release makes it sound. It's probably best seen as an incremental innovation in a very crowded market. But if you look at it another way, the ARM market is so crowded that it really wouldn't make any sense to put out a new chip that wasn't actually innovative in some way. If it's not cheaper, it has to be better, or else OEMs will pick someone else's chip -- it's not like there's any shortage of them.
I suppose it would be possible to build a whole second infrastructure across the country for Government agencies and 'critical industries', one that would never necessarily cross lines with any part of the 'insecure' internet.
Yeah, but why would the NSA want that? This is the NSA we're talking about, not the Department of Defense. What they probably want is to reconfigure the Internet so that there are lots of "walls" all over the place, like a maze. Most of the walls will have doors on them, so your traffic will be able to pass through without noticing a thing. The NSA is selling this as if the idea is to make some special walls that don't have doors on them, so those parts of the network will be more secure -- but I'm betting the real idea is the NSA gets to sit on top of all those walls and look down.
"Triple core" as they describe it is pretty standard stuff in the embedded/mobile world. You have one or two main "application" cores, and one or more I/O processing cores doing DSP, graphics, data processing, low rate data moves, etc.
"One or two" isn't the same as three. This chip has three application cores and six I/O or DSP cores like you describe.
The tri-core design integrates two high performance symmetric multiprocessing cores and a third core optimized for ultra low-power. The third core is designed to support routine user tasks and acts as a system management processor to monitor and dynamically scale power and performance.
Depending on what their definition of "routine user tasks" might be, it sounds like it doesn't actually shut off both cores and run exclusively off the third core, the way TFA makes it sound -- it only does that if the device isn't doing anything. More interesting stuff:
Marvell's ARMADA 628 tri-core CPU comprises a complete SoC design – a first for the industry. In addition to the tri-core CPU, there are six additional processing engines to support stunning 3D graphics, 1080p video encode/decode, ultra high fidelity audio, advanced cryptography, and digital photo data processing – for a total of nine dedicated core functions.
Seriously, how many of these "reviews" do we have to put up with? Yes, I realize that 90 percent of the/. audience doesn't bother with them, but how on Earth do they keep making it to the front page?
This is not a review, it is a book report. Why do these reviewers persist in thinking they need to go through every aspect of the book, chapter by chapter? I guarantee you nobody ever picked up a book in a book shop and thumbed through the pages, trying desperately to figure out whether Chapter 8 would live up to the high standard set by Chapter 3.
On the Web, nobody but nobody is going to read 2,500 words' worth of your opinions on anything, let alone some book they've never heard of. All we need to know is whether it's any good -- you ought to be able to get that across in 500 words, maximum.
That said, here is what this review might look like if/. actually had editors:
Almost all of the material presented within the 364 pages of Drupal E-Commerce with Ubercart 2.x can be clearly understood by anyone who is comfortable with the basic terminology of e-commerce and Drupal. Unfortunately, as an introduction to e-commerce sites using Drupal, this book is a poor choice.
Throughout the text, too much emphasis is placed on how to fill out form fields that are fairly obvious, while the most important subject matter is oftentimes glossed over. For instance, the topic of conditional actions arguably deserves its own chapter, or at least an extended section — not one and a half pages up front, and then several paragraphs later. A few key e-commerce topics are completely absent. A glaring example of this is the lack of discussion of how to sell digital products in one's store, which nowadays is important enough to warrant its own chapter.
Worse, the book also suffers from extremely poor editing. While the authors of this title, George Papadongonas and Yiannis Doxaras, are both experienced open-source developers, they also reside in Greece — which may explain why the reader will stumble upon, and sometimes over, many oddly-formed phrases throughout the book. The text contains numerous grammatical errors; for example, the words "the" and "a" are needed but missing in countless places. While programming books generally are known for being grammatically and stylistically weak, there is no excuse for releasing a book to press that has not been thoroughly proofread.
The same is true of the technical editing. Throughout the book, URLs are missing the root directory "/" (which generates an error from the server). In most if not all places where the reader is told to leave a page's settings unchanged, he is then told to click the "Save configuration" button (before going on to the next page) — which is completely unnecessary and a waste of time. Confusingly, pages 200 and 201 list all sorts of advanced theme configuration settings for Garland which don't exist. The chapter finishes with a demonstration of how to create a new Drupal theme from either a static HTML site or a Photoshop template (despite an earlier claim that the chapter would end with a reference to the Fusion Theming System, which is absent).
In short, while the authors have clearly put a lot of effort into making what could be an extremely dry subject more approachable, the finished product suffers from such slipshod production that reading it becomes an exercise in frustration. Steer clear.
That last passages describes exactly what jihadi martyrs hope to achieve by dying. On earth they live in a world full of suffering, violence, fear, and humiliation, which all goes away once they die and gets replaced with grace and paradise. Modern Christians do not live in the same hostile environment as Muslims do.
Except, I guess, for the modern Christians who live in the Middle East? What does "the same hostile environment" mean, anyway? Are you implying that every Muslim interprets the Koran the same way you -- a non-Muslim -- have chosen to? There are Muslims living right down the street from me who have absolutely nothing in common with your "jihadi martyrs". I could go over to their place right now and borrow a cup of sugar. Likewise, a good friend's cousins live in Iran right now. They are nice, pretty girls who like skiing.
Or are you implying that whackjob Christian fundamentalists never harmed anyone? Timothy McVeigh said he was at peace with his God, and I'm pretty sure he didn't mean Allah.
But I think we're getting closer to the real foundation of your posts today, which is that A.) that you hate Islam, probably because you're a fundamentalist Christian yourself or close to it; B.) you therefore hate Arabs because you believe all Muslims are Arabs or Arab-controlled; and C.) that these beliefs do, I'm afraid, make you a bigot.
I doubt Persians feel the same way. Only 50 years ago Persians had a vibrant arts culture, with music and poetry. The Islamic Revolution put a stop to that. That's hardly ancient history.
And you have yet to draw a credible link between the Islamic Revolution and this cabal of Arabs you hypothesize. You were the one who said the government of Iran is run by Arabs. Support that statement, if you please.
Ahh. And you're assuming that the extremist Arab Muslims want to live long, happy lives here on earth, right? Islam's rewards happen in death, not life.
Muslims no more believe in "rewards in death" than do Christians, who also believe in the afterlife. Your bigotry against Islam here does you no service.
I'm sorry, but your view of Iran seems very skewed and you're being modded as Informative when really you just seem to be voicing your own opinions.
Persia was first conquered by Muslim Arabs in 644.
One thousand, three hundred and sixty-six years ago, yes. I hardly think this comes into play in modern Iranian politics. The idea that there's some sort of insidious infestation of Arabism that has festered in Iran for over a thousand years seems pretty silly. Also, the idea that Iranians were converted to Islam by force has been mostly discredited.
Many Persians refer to the 1979 revolution as the second Arab invasion of Persia.
"Many" is a weasel word. The ones you've been listening to apparently believe that. But this interpretation ignores the fact that the 1979 revolution in Iran was largely a populist political revolt against a brutally oppressive regime backed by the foreign interests (the U.S.). Some people protested the societal changes that came with the new Islamic state, yes. But the vast majority welcomed it.
If Iran was "invaded by Arabs" in 1979 and everything since has been part of some big Arab conspiracy, how do you explain that the majority Muslims in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, and Kuwait are Sunni, while Iran is a Shi'a republic?
And if Iran has been "invaded by Arabs" since 1979, how do you explain the events of 1980 when Iran was, oddly enough, invaded by Arabs? Iran fought a bloody war against Iraq for the next eight years.
And when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about improving his countries ties with "Arab nations" and "the Arab world," what's he doing -- putting up a front for appearances' sake? Your comment elsewhere that his mother "is believed to be descended from Muhammad's bloodline" doesn't hold much water.
Likewise your comment that Larijani must secretly be an Arab because he's the son of an Ayatollah doesn't make sense either. You don't have to be an Arab to be a Muslim, and your insistence on conflating the two smacks completely of jingoism, despite what the other responder says.
Why can't these guys do the right thing and stop making this evil stuff?
AFAIK, high fructose corn syrup is a by-product of various industrial uses of corn (processing corn for ethanol, for animal food, whatever). Corn processors get it for free as runoff, which means it's essentially pure profit when they sell it back to the food industry.
Funny thing is, it's not as if high-fructose corn syrup is actually worse for you than a similar amount of cane sugar. The problem is not HFCS as much as it is "foods loaded with sugar."
Maybe, maybe not. While your essential point is sound, from TFA:
When glucose (contained in sugar) enters the bloodstream, it stimulates production of insulin and of a hormone called leptin, which signals to the brain that the body has eaten enough. By contrast, the fructose contained in high fructose corn syrup doesn’t stimulate the production of leptin. Studies also show that fructose is processed into fat more quickly than is glucose.
A friend of mine made a related point, though. These days you see a lot of things like so-called "natural" sodas which claim to be sweetened with "evaporated cane syrup." I defy anybody to give me a scientific explanation why this is not merely sugar with another name. If sugar is too scary for "health" foods, it stands to reason that "high fructose corn syrup" should be too scary a name for junk food. Why should junk food makers be left out? (More to the point, why should the companies who sell their sodas at Whole Foods get away with it?)
The filesystem should store the data it's told to; leave the deduplication to higher layers of a system.
But if that's the kind of deduplication you're talking about, does it really make sense to try to do it at the block level, as these boxes seem to be doing? Seems like you'd want to analyze files or databases in a more intelligent fashion.
If the cops just asked him to leave, it would have been trivial for him to go back to his hotel room, change out of the PedoBear suit, change back into street clothes, then return to the Con and track down somebody with some kind of authority to plead his case. Comic-Con isn't as uptight as this story makes it sound. I wouldn't have been surprised if they let him wear the suit if he promised to stick to the alternative comics alley or something, instead of the front lobby.
TFA is also sort of stupid for talking about "police" as if they're one, monolithic organization. This description of what happened at Comic-Con was written by San Luis Obispo County sheriffs... who weren't there. San Diego County has its own sheriff's department and San Diego City has its own police department. It may also be worth noting that San Luis Obispo county has lower incidence of most types of crimes than the national average... except rapes.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not go to w3c.org and read the specs?
Reading the specs for a tennis racket, court, ball, and net does not teach you how to play tennis.
Rent-seeking: It's the new innovation!
His statement in context, and the whole answer to the question instead of a soundbite, can be interpreted as "If you need more privacy than Google can provide, don't use Google."
Except Google has been pretty clear about the fact that it sees its role essentially as the world's largest Peeping Tom.
Just look at Google Street Views and the various controversies that cropped up there. In an earlier age, when we weren't so in love with technology and Google hadn't bombarded us for years with the idea that its mantra was "don't be evil," no way in Hell would we put up with a corporation driving trucks around our neighborhoods, taking photos of our property (and occasionally our persons), which would then be published for the entire world to see. No way.
If I want to use Google Reader to browse RSS feeds, is it really reasonable to assume that Google will be using cookies to track my behavior around the Web, and will then sell that data to parties unknown for data-mining purposes? Really? Or have we just been conditioned to put up with such a gross invasion of our privacy?
No he didn't. He said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
And how is that better/more reasonable than the GP's interpretation?
I don't think it's anybody's business how my girlfriend likes to have sex. I guess we should practice abstinence only, huh?
I don't think it's anybody's business that I have leukemia -- at least, it certainly shouldn't affect my employment, my access to health care, the outcome of my divorce, etc. Guess I should stop growing those cells, huh?
I don't think it's anybody's business what route my kid takes to walk to school. Guess I should home-school her, huh?
I don't think it's anybody's business how I voted. Guess I shouldn't vote, huh?
Schmidt comes off like a Nazi to any reasonable U.S. citizen.
Not my idea of a hero, but then, I don't idolize Bill Gates either.
Be fair, though. However he earned his money, Bill Gates as an individual has done at least eight metric shit-tons more good in the world than Mark Zuckerberg ever has.
It's ironic that you chose Prometheus as the dubious divinity because he's been adopted by our culture as the patron saint of progress.
Don't forget that the full title of Mary Shelley's book is Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus.
No offense to the people involved -- certainly it looks great and it's entertaining. But I've seen countless "short films" like this one that were produced "without Hollywood." Usually they're referred to as "cutscenes."
Love the high resolution images and availability; however, using the page UI and how freaking slow the UI is doesn't make a good impression.
Eh??? My impression was that it was basically "Google Maps for paintings." Pan, scroll, zoom... it was all pretty seamless and about as fast as I'd expect it to be.
And how exactly is a UI that "can be used with Silverlight" any better than a "sad Flash UI"?
I suspect the people using BIS really aren't their real customers and RIM goes out of their way to discourage the whole "ZOMG MY PHONE IS FUN!!" vibe that defines the non-enterprise market, which is probably a good thing.
Nuh-uh, sorry. Those days are over. Not long ago RIM ran an an ad campaign that wallpapered an entire BART station (SF Bay Area rail transit) with ads proclaiming how easy it was to catch up with your friends, arrange nights out, flirt, etc. with your BlackBerry. They were pretty clearly targeted at women who want to "keep up with their BFFs." Not exactly your typical enterprise customer, and many of RIM's new BlackBerry handset designs seem to cater to the consumer market, too.
I saw Up! in 3d and completely forgot it was in 3d. When I watch it on Blu-ray (2d) at my house, nothing jumps out as being missing.
THIS. What is the point of making me wear 3D glasses -- big, electronic 3D glasses in the home version, which cost me $90 -- if you're going to make 3D movies that are "subtle," where "the 3D takes a back seat to the actual story," and where you "forget that it's in 3D"? I don't wear glasses, goddammit! Don't force me to wear them to watch a movie if the only effect they're going to have is to dim the screen.
I went in expecting Gosling to have formulated this whole platform full of talking points why Oracle should do this, that, and the other, but instead I got a pretty cogent assessment which jibes with just about everything I suspected as an outsider. Oracle exists to make money and is very aggressive in its tactics: true. Android violates Sun patents: true. He even goes so far to say he would have no problem with Oracle maintaining stewardship of Java if it does right by the community (though he's a little unclear what he's referring to there).
The interviewers seem more eager to go with the whole "Oracle is the Devil" angle than Gosling. Gosling seems to more be saying Oracle has a tendency to be a bully, and who can argue with that?
On the other hand, I wish someone could have gone through the transcript and done a global search-and-replace for "intel" and "cosign," at least...
From TFA:
And as for the death-by-2015 predictions of Negroponte, it's just as likely that as the ranks of the early adopters get saturated, adoption of ebooks will slow. The reason is simple: unlike the move from CDs to MP3s, there is no easy way to convert our existing stock of books to e-readers.
Yeah. Because that's how all those MP3s got onto our iPods. We, um... ripped them from our CDs.
Well look, maybe it's not as revolutionary as the press release makes it sound. It's probably best seen as an incremental innovation in a very crowded market. But if you look at it another way, the ARM market is so crowded that it really wouldn't make any sense to put out a new chip that wasn't actually innovative in some way. If it's not cheaper, it has to be better, or else OEMs will pick someone else's chip -- it's not like there's any shortage of them.
I suppose it would be possible to build a whole second infrastructure across the country for Government agencies and 'critical industries', one that would never necessarily cross lines with any part of the 'insecure' internet.
Yeah, but why would the NSA want that? This is the NSA we're talking about, not the Department of Defense. What they probably want is to reconfigure the Internet so that there are lots of "walls" all over the place, like a maze. Most of the walls will have doors on them, so your traffic will be able to pass through without noticing a thing. The NSA is selling this as if the idea is to make some special walls that don't have doors on them, so those parts of the network will be more secure -- but I'm betting the real idea is the NSA gets to sit on top of all those walls and look down.
"Triple core" as they describe it is pretty standard stuff in the embedded/mobile world. You have one or two main "application" cores, and one or more I/O processing cores doing DSP, graphics, data processing, low rate data moves, etc.
"One or two" isn't the same as three. This chip has three application cores and six I/O or DSP cores like you describe.
I think we're tripping up over the reporter's choice of language here. From Marvell's actual press release:
The tri-core design integrates two high performance symmetric multiprocessing cores and a third core optimized for ultra low-power. The third core is designed to support routine user tasks and acts as a system management processor to monitor and dynamically scale power and performance.
Depending on what their definition of "routine user tasks" might be, it sounds like it doesn't actually shut off both cores and run exclusively off the third core, the way TFA makes it sound -- it only does that if the device isn't doing anything. More interesting stuff:
Marvell's ARMADA 628 tri-core CPU comprises a complete SoC design – a first for the industry. In addition to the tri-core CPU, there are six additional processing engines to support stunning 3D graphics, 1080p video encode/decode, ultra high fidelity audio, advanced cryptography, and digital photo data processing – for a total of nine dedicated core functions.
This sounds like a pretty cool chip.
Seriously, how many of these "reviews" do we have to put up with? Yes, I realize that 90 percent of the /. audience doesn't bother with them, but how on Earth do they keep making it to the front page?
That said, here is what this review might look like if /. actually had editors:
Almost all of the material presented within the 364 pages of Drupal E-Commerce with Ubercart 2.x can be clearly understood by anyone who is comfortable with the basic terminology of e-commerce and Drupal. Unfortunately, as an introduction to e-commerce sites using Drupal, this book is a poor choice.
Throughout the text, too much emphasis is placed on how to fill out form fields that are fairly obvious, while the most important subject matter is oftentimes glossed over. For instance, the topic of conditional actions arguably deserves its own chapter, or at least an extended section — not one and a half pages up front, and then several paragraphs later. A few key e-commerce topics are completely absent. A glaring example of this is the lack of discussion of how to sell digital products in one's store, which nowadays is important enough to warrant its own chapter.
Worse, the book also suffers from extremely poor editing. While the authors of this title, George Papadongonas and Yiannis Doxaras, are both experienced open-source developers, they also reside in Greece — which may explain why the reader will stumble upon, and sometimes over, many oddly-formed phrases throughout the book. The text contains numerous grammatical errors; for example, the words "the" and "a" are needed but missing in countless places. While programming books generally are known for being grammatically and stylistically weak, there is no excuse for releasing a book to press that has not been thoroughly proofread.
The same is true of the technical editing. Throughout the book, URLs are missing the root directory "/" (which generates an error from the server). In most if not all places where the reader is told to leave a page's settings unchanged, he is then told to click the "Save configuration" button (before going on to the next page) — which is completely unnecessary and a waste of time. Confusingly, pages 200 and 201 list all sorts of advanced theme configuration settings for Garland which don't exist. The chapter finishes with a demonstration of how to create a new Drupal theme from either a static HTML site or a Photoshop template (despite an earlier claim that the chapter would end with a reference to the Fusion Theming System, which is absent).
In short, while the authors have clearly put a lot of effort into making what could be an extremely dry subject more approachable, the finished product suffers from such slipshod production that reading it becomes an exercise in frustration. Steer clear.
That last passages describes exactly what jihadi martyrs hope to achieve by dying. On earth they live in a world full of suffering, violence, fear, and humiliation, which all goes away once they die and gets replaced with grace and paradise. Modern Christians do not live in the same hostile environment as Muslims do.
Except, I guess, for the modern Christians who live in the Middle East? What does "the same hostile environment" mean, anyway? Are you implying that every Muslim interprets the Koran the same way you -- a non-Muslim -- have chosen to? There are Muslims living right down the street from me who have absolutely nothing in common with your "jihadi martyrs". I could go over to their place right now and borrow a cup of sugar. Likewise, a good friend's cousins live in Iran right now. They are nice, pretty girls who like skiing.
Or are you implying that whackjob Christian fundamentalists never harmed anyone? Timothy McVeigh said he was at peace with his God, and I'm pretty sure he didn't mean Allah.
But I think we're getting closer to the real foundation of your posts today, which is that A.) that you hate Islam, probably because you're a fundamentalist Christian yourself or close to it; B.) you therefore hate Arabs because you believe all Muslims are Arabs or Arab-controlled; and C.) that these beliefs do, I'm afraid, make you a bigot.
I doubt Persians feel the same way. Only 50 years ago Persians had a vibrant arts culture, with music and poetry. The Islamic Revolution put a stop to that. That's hardly ancient history.
And you have yet to draw a credible link between the Islamic Revolution and this cabal of Arabs you hypothesize. You were the one who said the government of Iran is run by Arabs. Support that statement, if you please.
Ahh. And you're assuming that the extremist Arab Muslims want to live long, happy lives here on earth, right? Islam's rewards happen in death, not life.
Muslims no more believe in "rewards in death" than do Christians, who also believe in the afterlife. Your bigotry against Islam here does you no service.
I'm sorry, but your view of Iran seems very skewed and you're being modded as Informative when really you just seem to be voicing your own opinions.
Persia was first conquered by Muslim Arabs in 644.
One thousand, three hundred and sixty-six years ago, yes. I hardly think this comes into play in modern Iranian politics. The idea that there's some sort of insidious infestation of Arabism that has festered in Iran for over a thousand years seems pretty silly. Also, the idea that Iranians were converted to Islam by force has been mostly discredited.
Many Persians refer to the 1979 revolution as the second Arab invasion of Persia.
"Many" is a weasel word. The ones you've been listening to apparently believe that. But this interpretation ignores the fact that the 1979 revolution in Iran was largely a populist political revolt against a brutally oppressive regime backed by the foreign interests (the U.S.). Some people protested the societal changes that came with the new Islamic state, yes. But the vast majority welcomed it.
If Iran was "invaded by Arabs" in 1979 and everything since has been part of some big Arab conspiracy, how do you explain that the majority Muslims in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, and Kuwait are Sunni, while Iran is a Shi'a republic?
And if Iran has been "invaded by Arabs" since 1979, how do you explain the events of 1980 when Iran was, oddly enough, invaded by Arabs? Iran fought a bloody war against Iraq for the next eight years.
And when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about improving his countries ties with "Arab nations" and "the Arab world," what's he doing -- putting up a front for appearances' sake? Your comment elsewhere that his mother "is believed to be descended from Muhammad's bloodline" doesn't hold much water.
Likewise your comment that Larijani must secretly be an Arab because he's the son of an Ayatollah doesn't make sense either. You don't have to be an Arab to be a Muslim, and your insistence on conflating the two smacks completely of jingoism, despite what the other responder says.
Why can't these guys do the right thing and stop making this evil stuff?
AFAIK, high fructose corn syrup is a by-product of various industrial uses of corn (processing corn for ethanol, for animal food, whatever). Corn processors get it for free as runoff, which means it's essentially pure profit when they sell it back to the food industry.
Funny thing is, it's not as if high-fructose corn syrup is actually worse for you than a similar amount of cane sugar. The problem is not HFCS as much as it is "foods loaded with sugar."
Maybe, maybe not. While your essential point is sound, from TFA:
When glucose (contained in sugar) enters the bloodstream, it stimulates production of insulin and of a hormone called leptin, which signals to the brain that the body has eaten enough. By contrast, the fructose contained in high fructose corn syrup doesn’t stimulate the production of leptin. Studies also show that fructose is processed into fat more quickly than is glucose.
A friend of mine made a related point, though. These days you see a lot of things like so-called "natural" sodas which claim to be sweetened with "evaporated cane syrup." I defy anybody to give me a scientific explanation why this is not merely sugar with another name. If sugar is too scary for "health" foods, it stands to reason that "high fructose corn syrup" should be too scary a name for junk food. Why should junk food makers be left out? (More to the point, why should the companies who sell their sodas at Whole Foods get away with it?)
The filesystem should store the data it's told to; leave the deduplication to higher layers of a system.
But if that's the kind of deduplication you're talking about, does it really make sense to try to do it at the block level, as these boxes seem to be doing? Seems like you'd want to analyze files or databases in a more intelligent fashion.
If the cops just asked him to leave, it would have been trivial for him to go back to his hotel room, change out of the PedoBear suit, change back into street clothes, then return to the Con and track down somebody with some kind of authority to plead his case. Comic-Con isn't as uptight as this story makes it sound. I wouldn't have been surprised if they let him wear the suit if he promised to stick to the alternative comics alley or something, instead of the front lobby.
TFA is also sort of stupid for talking about "police" as if they're one, monolithic organization. This description of what happened at Comic-Con was written by San Luis Obispo County sheriffs ... who weren't there. San Diego County has its own sheriff's department and San Diego City has its own police department. It may also be worth noting that San Luis Obispo county has lower incidence of most types of crimes than the national average ... except rapes.