Yes, a tablet for work is indeed a joke, unless you're a salesman or a CEO, or work at the McDonald and your tablet is used as a point of sale.
And assuming you're a salesman, or a CEO, the only Android tablet I would even consider for work is the Asus Transformer, because of its dockable keyboard which also acts as an extra battery, and that model is not even listed among the options. I guess Asus did not pay Infoworld enough to get included in there.
For everyone else: accountants, developers, IT, admins, editors, and designers, they'll need larger screens and access to more traditional software to do the bulk of their work.
We were made this way for very good reasons, even if we don't understand them.
And notice, their conclusion comes from studying the effects of circumcision within the context of AIDS and other STDs.
It doesn't say for instance, how this will effect the incidence of prostate cancer. So assuming circumcision really does reduce the frequency of masturbation among the male population, it would stand to reason that the incidence of prostate cancer may possibly increase because of circumcision.
And of course, a truly randomized controlled trial in the US would probably give us an definitive objective answer to this question, but American parents would never stand for that kind of study, so it could never be truly random. Apparently, this pediatric association keeps on mentioning "randomized controlled trials in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda", so they probably did find some African parents who were willing to exchange their rights to choose for the good of science (or perhaps in exchange for $$$), but one could argue that this kind of selection wouldn't be random at all. For one thing, only the poor would probably be willing to forego their rights like that. And a second thing, those African countries are different than the US. The average life expectancy in Uganda for instance, is 53 years old. In the US, it's 78 years. And one would assume that there are lower incidents of prostate cancer in Uganda simply because they're dying much earlier than we are.
”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled...”
Roasted would be the way to go I think. That way, you wouldn't lose all the juice.
What are you talking about? Apple has been suing HTC as well, and HTC has been suing Apple. Apple may not be suing Google directly, but I think that's because Google doesn't sell Android phones directly.
Is that over the price of doing the surgery? Because from what I could find, it's in the 2-3k range; so if you have to pay $2000 to save $313, that might not be the best idea.
If you're paying 2 to 3 K, you're probably doing it wrong.
A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement. (John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., "Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects," Plain Fact for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. (1888). P. 295) http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html
What's the going price of carbolic acid (phenol) these days? ~ $10. And mind you, this added cost is only for females. For males, if you forego anesthesia and all the hassles that come with it, you could probably get a normal Barber to do it for only twice his going rate.
I'm not American, and I can't quite understand where does the custom in the US comes from. Is it religious in origin? I know muslims, jews and americans practice it, but that's about it. Does anyone know?
As far as I know, it's not common at all on other countries.
Routine circumcision as a preventative or cure for masturbation was proposed in Victorian times in America. Masturbation was thought to be the cause of a number of diseases. The procedure of routine circumcision became commonplace between 1870 and 1920, and it consequently spread to all the English-speaking countries (England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). None of these countries now circumcise the majority of their male children, a distinction reserved today for the United States (in the UK, in fact, nonreligious circumcision has virtually ceased). Yet, there are still those who promote this social surgery, long after the masturbation hysteria of the past century has subsided.
"By about 1880 the individual... might wish[to]... tie, chain, or infibulate sexually active children... to adorn them with grotesque appliances, encase them in plaster, leather, or rubber, to frighten or even castrate them... masturbation insanity was now real enough--it was affecting the medical profession." (B. Berkeley, quoted from _Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma_, by Rosemary Romberg, Bergin & Garvey Publisher, Inc, S. Hadley MA, USA, 1985, ISBN 089789-073-6)
Dr. E.J. Spratling, who promoted this surgery by telling his colleagues that "...circumcision is undoubtedly the physician's closest friend and ally..." prescribed in 1895 the method of circumcision as it is practiced in hospitals today.
"To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm... We may not be sure that we have done away with the possibility of masturbation, but we may feel confident that we have limited it to within the danger lines." (E.J. Spratling, MD. Medical Record, Masturbation in the Adult, vol. 48, no. 13, September 28, 1895, pp. 442-443.)
Here is an example of what another sexaphobic American doctor had to say about masturbation in 1903:
"It (self abuse) lays the foundation for consumption, paralysis and heart disease. It weakens the memory, makes a boy careless, negligent and listless. It even makes many lose their minds; others, when grown, commit suicide.... Don't think it does no harm to your boy because he does not suffer now, for the effects of this vice come on so slowly that the victim is often very near death before you realize that he has done himself harm. It is worthy of note that many eminent physicians now advocate the custom of circumcision..." (Mary R. Melendy, MD, The Ideal Woman - For Maidens, Wives and Mothers, 1903.) (The above material is quoted from J. Bigelow, The Joy of Uncircumcising, Hourglass Book Publishing, Aptos, CA, USA. Thanks to Robin Verner.)
In America, foreskins were not rare at the time circumcision was introduced into widespread practice. Paradoxically, then, the understanding of the intact male organ at that time was somewhat greater than it is today. (In particular, it never would have been possible to promote circumcision on the basis that it was "necessary for hygienic reasons"---this came later, when doctors themselves were mostly circumcised men.)
Didn't the US Navy use some sort of face paint during WW2 to protect gunners from the heat and flash?
Plus, there is also this version used for firefighters and movie stunt doubles.
The original protective pyrotechnical barrier gel used by professionals around the world seeking the finest protection around fire, flame and heat, such as stunt and special effects experts, foundries, welders, fire fighters, race car drivers and even chefs!
Invented by chemist Gary Zeller over 25 years ago, Zel-Jel Stunt Gel revolutionized safety standards for pyrotechnical effects in the entertainment industry by achieving a level of safety and protection in fire stunts never before attained.
Plus this one is not the only one, there are many other brands. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if a version of this "paint" wasn't already used thousands of years ago by blacksmiths, pottery makers, or even cooks. For someone who's face gets burned on a daily basis, it would only make sense for that person to try all kinds of things to apply to their face to avoid getting burned as much.
I'm not so sure about that, between my Samsung Tab 10.1 and my Nexus X -- I find myself using my Nexus X much more frequently. There is something to be said for that smaller form factor.
And no, except for reading mangas, I don't read much with it, I mostly play games, I use it as a remote control, or I watch Viki or CrunchyRoll with it. And I do switch to my Tab 10.1 for reading comic books/mangas occasionally, but that size of a tablet is a bear to hold in bed (even if it's supposedly lighter and thinner than the iPads).
Wikileaks is a bit like Anonymous. Anybody can just pick up a Wikileaks-like sounding domain name and claim to be working for "Wikileaks". So in that sense, it can never really be destroyed.
That being said, any government could just create a fake Wikileaks organization, infiltrate an existing one, or coerce existing members, so for some types of whistle-blowers, the only branches of Wikileaks that can be trusted are the ones that keep on publishing negative embarrassing materials against their own governments.
Most Slashdotters are for mandatory vaccinations, so why would you ever be against forced medication?
I would be against forced vaccinations, if it was done on a daily basis and required forced indefinite daily detention to make it happen.
In the case of Lindauer, the case was actually preposterous. If you really believed, as the government did, that the woman psychic was paranoid and had delusions of grandeur ever since the age of seven years old. And if you didn't know, as the government didn't seem to know, what exactly she did for Iraq -- except for getting paid by them. Then, moving the case forward was all just nonsense anyway.
In any case, I am against forced medication, but not in all cases.
Clearly, these people are a danger to society.
It depends. Was Lindauer a danger to society? I don't know.
What about this guy? I don't know either. It sounds to me like he was just mouthing off privately. If he had really taken action to prepare for their assassinations, then we would have heard something about it by now.
Also, he was only privately threatening Generals, it's not like he was threatening to blow up school children, or go into a random movie theater and start shooting. And he may be a well-trained killer, but the Generals are well-trained killers and they're protected by well-trained killers as well, so those different scenarios are not exactly equivalent.
He probably saw it for what it was, but decided he didn't want one the passengers beating the shit out of this guy mid-air because they felt threatened.
Would someone really beat up a cooperative 6 foot 2" and 120 pounds cancer patient for a t-shirt he had been wearing -- but agreed to take off just before boarding a flight? I guess a 100 pounds little girl could easily beat him up, but if you ask me, that would really have to be a f-----d up little girl.
Most adults know not to instigate a fight with someone on a plane, or they'll get banned for life from flying anywhere. And most adults know not to instigate a fight with someone much weaker than they are, especially when other people are watching.
Actually, you don't want the UK for anything urgent. In the UK, unless you're willing to pay for a private clinic, you'll usually need to wait at least 6 months before you can see a specialist.
Having lived in the UK, France, and the US, I'd pick the French system for most cases over the American one and then I'd pick the American system over the British one. At least in the US, you can get treated in time (if you or your family are insistent enough), even it means you won't be able to pay your hospital bills afterwards. And for preventative medicine, like prenatal care for instance, then I'd pick France or the UK over the US, so the UK is not all as bad as I made it out to be.
Notice how often some ideas will get instantly censored and others won't?
Post plans to make a gun and get yourself instantly frozen out. Classified military secrets go straight to the NYT and the leaker is called a hero.
Actually, the same thing happened to Wikileaks initially. Their Amazon hosting got shut down and their Pay Pal account got frozen. And just like Wikileaks rised again, this 3D printing project will rise again also. It's not like this kind of information-sharing can really be stopped.
Is this really a story? The conditions for repairs and upgrades are most likely regulated in the contract between the hotels and the supplier/manufacturer. Big deal.
That's only because you missed, or just skimmed, the original story. This story wasn't about bad design, or even perfect lock security. Perfect lock security doesn't exist, it probably never will.
But in this case, someone on the side of the lock manufacturer just got lazy and was intentionally negligent. That's the real story here. The company should be sued for negligence, all the board members and officers of the company should be sued for negligence, and the original engineer(s) should be sued for malpractice.
Once you do that, you'll find that some of those people were smart enough to have covered their own ass by emailing their concerns to others in the company, and then printed out those emails to take home for their own personal records (in case those internal emails/memos at work were ever made to "disappear").
Actually, your attitude IS pretty outrageous. Advertising != forcing you to buy it. It's still something businesses rely on so that people actually know they EXIST
Your outrage is a bit much. Relax, it looks like you're trying to blow a vein trying to control the uncontrollable.
Blocking advertisements doesn't mean that I won't buy from a company. Let's take Amazon for instance, I spend a lot of money on Amazon, especially on books and electronics, but I have no intention of buying garden furniture, nor bicycles, from there, and please don't get me started on their Kindle offerings - I do not want a Kindle.
On Amazon, and therefore on their affiliate web sites, I use an ad-blocker to block the categories I do not want. This is the Internet. If Amazon really wanted me not to mess with the way I process and view their web site on my machine, they should just have started advertising on the television shopping network instead, or they should just have rendered their entire web site completely in Flash or Silverlight.
And don't expect much sympathy. As a business, if consumers do not know you exist. You change your strategies, again and again, until consumers do start noticing you, or until you go out of business. That's simply the risk you're willing to take, as there is really no guarantee that your strategy will be successful or not.
And as a business, there is really a million ways for you to market your business. Playing the moral indignation card may be such a way, but I doubt it will ever be successful. The people you want to specifically reach on the Internet will just tune you out. That's just the natural advantages and disadvantages of this medium.
"But that hypothesis doesn't hold, to any relevant degree. A widely-cited 1996 study from the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology sampled over 4,000 women and found that the rape-related pregnancy rate was 5.0 percent and studies from other countries have reported the percentage to be even greater."
A more likely explanation is that the women were already using some form of birth control or that they simply were not in the fertile period of their cycle.
So you're saying that women from those "other countries" are using birth control more widely than American women? It would be helpful to know which other countries that original quote was referring to.
In any case, if human behavior is anything like animal behavior, anybody who's had a female dog in heat, or a female cat in heat, would probably theorize that the peak of their fertile period is precisely the time those female animals may get raped by any unleashed male they run across. And even if the human body doesn't rely as much on pheromones as animals do, one could further speculate that the fact that women's outward appearance, and behavior, changes during that time, could mark them as a more likely target during that time.
One of the many books I've read on the subject - I believe it was O -The Intimate History of the Orgasm actually stated that in studies rape lead to a higher fertilization rate than consensual relations. I won't get into the theory of why, because it will potentially piss off feminists. I'll just say it is documented and statistically significant.
Hey, I'm all for pissing off feminists, and this book does look very entertaining and thought-provoking, but unfortunately the book does seem to have problems. Take a look at what this customer on Amazon, Christoper Ryan, had to say about it:
"[...]
But even more disturbing is the author's ignorance of very basic information concerning human sexuality. On page 1, he claims that, "the first sexual act by which two like creatures sought intimate contact expressly to give one another physical and emotional pleasure... may well not have taken place until some time in the twentieth century AD, most likely at a location in Western Europe or North America." This is simply astoundingly wrong, not to mention racist as all get-out. For this to be true, nobody in hundreds of centuries ever had sex to give each other pleasure -- no hunter gatherers (most of whom do not equate sex with reproduction), nobody in India (where the Kama Sutra was written thousands of years ago, detailing how to give and receive sexual pleasure), nobody in China (where the first known sex manuals were written even before the Kama Sutra), etc. Just silly.
[...] "
I would have quoted more of his review, but since I really don't know about Bonobos chimps, I can't confirm whether the rest of what he's saying is accurate or not, but this really does not bode well for the author of the book. If the author is that sloppy at making claims and that lazy at double-checking his facts from the very first page of his book, then I doubt he was patient enough to even pull up the primary peer-reviewed scientifically research papers he was supposedly quoting and instead may have just relied on secondary reviews of those research papers, or perhaps even worse, he may have relied on sloppy newspaper articles written by layman journalists interpreting (or misinterpreting) those initial scientific peer-reviewed papers in the first place.
Yes, they absolutely should; for the consumer, to prevent abominations like this. I would say that anything more interactive than a reference document or log book. For more real medical software (i.e. patient monitors or diagnostic tools), just because it's on a smartphone and not a dedicated box doesn't mean it suddenly stops being a medical tool.
I don't see how this is any different from saying that desk lamps can heal your acne, or holding a desk lamp to your face will heal your acne (Disclaimer: I just made this example up, pimple-faced Slashdotters -- DO NOT TRY this at home).
In such a case, a reference document on a phone, or a reference document on a web site, or a logbook that keeps track of the number of times you hold up the desk lamp to your face, can be just as abominable and as dangerous as the interactive app you just referenced.
And in that sense, no separate laws needs to be created for mobile applications. If you make unsubstantiated health claims whether they be on leaflets, books, foods, supplements, cosmetics, shampoo bottles, web pages, or even mobile applications, then I would hope the government would come after you irregardless of the medium you used. And of course, since the government can't be everywhere at once, the more dangerous a health claim is, the quicker the government should intervene in that case.
I think people like you need to learn the definition of words like "slave" that you throw around so easily.
There is actually a silver lining to this story.
Threatening to chop off the heads of generals on a private Facebook page seems to be much more effective at getting yourself mental health services than telling everyone who would listen that you're just going to kill yourself.
"'The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it.'"
It seems to me like he was wildly optimistic in his paranoia. Most paranoids would have just said: "The government is coming for me. Men will be a my door soon to pick me up to take me away. "
Either way, whether you shadow ban them, or ban hem outright, the problem is still the same after that.
You'll still need to keep track of their ip address and other meta-data information to minimize the number of accounts they can create under different names. Also, I think you're overestimating the number of spammers who spam and then who check their spam results after that.
On my site, I strip out html and even urls, and yet, I still get plenty of spammers wasting cpu cycles trying to insert urls automatically.
I am leery about reviews. The app I mentioned had five stars, and a ton of positive reviews. However, if you looked at the reviews, they were stuff like "Game play great!" [sic], or other pithy, fake reviews. One had to dig through a ton of the fake positives in order to find the one star "SMS spammer" items.
It sounds like you were on a site like GetJar. If you notice, GetJar has iPhone applications as well. And if you're willing to take the extra steps required to leave the walled garden of your OS, whether it's Android or iOS, it's ultimately your responsibility if you decide to use a badly run online App Store after that.
You would be surprised how easy it would be to get stung by this by an average user [1].
A couple months ago, I was browsing for a couple games. Looked at the game, and it demanded every right under the sun. Of course, it didn't get the second install click.
However, it was a game with an icon that was the logo for a popular game show, so it looked "legit" enough to a user. Most Android users are not the top tier IT people who know exactly what an app should and should not be doing. They tend to see an app, tap it, and go from there.
Most users actually look at the number of stars and the number of downloads, and sometimes even read the reviews when the thing doesn't have a solid rating. Find me just one example of a WallPaper app, or a shady game, that hasn't been damaged in its star ratings and in its user reviews by having permissions that required access to the SMS functionality.
In addition to that, the Google Play store also looks at the ratings and the number of installs, when deciding to display search results, thus reducing the discoverability of such apps drastically.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, a tablet for work is indeed a joke, unless you're a salesman or a CEO, or work at the McDonald and your tablet is used as a point of sale.
And assuming you're a salesman, or a CEO, the only Android tablet I would even consider for work is the Asus Transformer, because of its dockable keyboard which also acts as an extra battery, and that model is not even listed among the options. I guess Asus did not pay Infoworld enough to get included in there.
For everyone else: accountants, developers, IT, admins, editors, and designers, they'll need larger screens and access to more traditional software to do the bulk of their work.
Technically, it's the same processor, Samsung made the processor for Apple.
We were made this way for very good reasons, even if we don't understand them.
And notice, their conclusion comes from studying the effects of circumcision within the context of AIDS and other STDs.
It doesn't say for instance, how this will effect the incidence of prostate cancer. So assuming circumcision really does reduce the frequency of masturbation among the male population, it would stand to reason that the incidence of prostate cancer may possibly increase because of circumcision.
And of course, a truly randomized controlled trial in the US would probably give us an definitive objective answer to this question, but American parents would never stand for that kind of study, so it could never be truly random. Apparently, this pediatric association keeps on mentioning "randomized controlled trials in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda", so they probably did find some African parents who were willing to exchange their rights to choose for the good of science (or perhaps in exchange for $$$), but one could argue that this kind of selection wouldn't be random at all. For one thing, only the poor would probably be willing to forego their rights like that. And a second thing, those African countries are different than the US. The average life expectancy in Uganda for instance, is 53 years old. In the US, it's 78 years. And one would assume that there are lower incidents of prostate cancer in Uganda simply because they're dying much earlier than we are.
Swift's A Modest Proposal .
Yummy!
”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”
Roasted would be the way to go I think. That way, you wouldn't lose all the juice.
What are you talking about? Apple has been suing HTC as well, and HTC has been suing Apple. Apple may not be suing Google directly, but I think that's because Google doesn't sell Android phones directly.
Is that over the price of doing the surgery?
Because from what I could find, it's in the 2-3k range; so if you have to pay $2000 to save $313, that might not be the best idea.
If you're paying 2 to 3 K, you're probably doing it wrong.
A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.
(John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., "Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects," Plain Fact for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. (1888). P. 295) http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html
What's the going price of carbolic acid (phenol) these days? ~ $10. And mind you, this added cost is only for females. For males, if you forego anesthesia and all the hassles that come with it, you could probably get a normal Barber to do it for only twice his going rate.
I'm not American, and I can't quite understand where does the custom in the US comes from. Is it religious in origin? I know muslims, jews and americans practice it, but that's about it. Does anyone know?
As far as I know, it's not common at all on other countries.
Apparently, we can thank our puritan roots
Routine circumcision as a preventative or cure for masturbation was proposed in Victorian times in America. Masturbation was thought to be the cause of a number of diseases. The procedure of routine circumcision became commonplace between 1870 and 1920, and it consequently spread to all the English-speaking countries (England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). None of these countries now circumcise the majority of their male children, a distinction reserved today for the United States (in the UK, in fact, nonreligious circumcision has virtually ceased). Yet, there are still those who promote this social surgery, long after the masturbation hysteria of the past century has subsided.
"By about 1880 the individual... might wish[to]... tie, chain, or infibulate sexually active children... to adorn them with grotesque appliances, encase them in plaster, leather, or rubber, to frighten or even castrate them... masturbation insanity was now real enough--it was affecting the medical profession."
(B. Berkeley, quoted from _Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma_, by Rosemary Romberg, Bergin & Garvey Publisher, Inc, S. Hadley MA, USA, 1985, ISBN 089789-073-6)
Dr. E.J. Spratling, who promoted this surgery by telling his colleagues that "...circumcision is undoubtedly the physician's closest friend and ally..." prescribed in 1895 the method of circumcision as it is practiced in hospitals today.
"To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm... We may not be sure that we have done away with the possibility of masturbation, but we may feel confident that we have limited it to within the danger lines."
(E.J. Spratling, MD. Medical Record, Masturbation in the Adult, vol. 48, no. 13, September 28, 1895, pp. 442-443.)
Here is an example of what another sexaphobic American doctor had to say about masturbation in 1903:
"It (self abuse) lays the foundation for consumption, paralysis and heart disease. It weakens the memory, makes a boy careless, negligent and listless. It even makes many lose their minds; others, when grown, commit suicide.... Don't think it does no harm to your boy because he does not suffer now, for the effects of this vice come on so slowly that the victim is often very near death before you realize that he has done himself harm. It is worthy of note that many eminent physicians now advocate the custom of circumcision..."
(Mary R. Melendy, MD, The Ideal Woman - For Maidens, Wives and Mothers, 1903.)
(The above material is quoted from J. Bigelow, The Joy of Uncircumcising, Hourglass Book Publishing, Aptos, CA, USA. Thanks to Robin Verner.)
In America, foreskins were not rare at the time circumcision was introduced into widespread practice. Paradoxically, then, the understanding of the intact male organ at that time was somewhat greater than it is today. (In particular, it never would have been possible to promote circumcision on the basis that it was "necessary for hygienic reasons"---this came later, when doctors themselves were mostly circumcised men.)
[...]
Oh, and you've got to love this quote, which can be found on the same page:
Didn't the US Navy use some sort of face paint during WW2 to protect gunners from the heat and flash?
Plus, there is also this version used for firefighters and movie stunt doubles.
The original protective pyrotechnical barrier gel used by professionals around the world seeking the finest protection around fire, flame and heat, such as stunt and special effects experts, foundries, welders, fire fighters, race car drivers and even chefs!
Invented by chemist Gary Zeller over 25 years ago, Zel-Jel Stunt Gel revolutionized safety standards for pyrotechnical effects in the entertainment industry by achieving a level of safety and protection in fire stunts never before attained.
Plus this one is not the only one, there are many other brands. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if a version of this "paint" wasn't already used thousands of years ago by blacksmiths, pottery makers, or even cooks. For someone who's face gets burned on a daily basis, it would only make sense for that person to try all kinds of things to apply to their face to avoid getting burned as much.
I'm not so sure about that, between my Samsung Tab 10.1 and my Nexus X -- I find myself using my Nexus X much more frequently. There is something to be said for that smaller form factor.
And no, except for reading mangas, I don't read much with it, I mostly play games, I use it as a remote control, or I watch Viki or CrunchyRoll with it. And I do switch to my Tab 10.1 for reading comic books/mangas occasionally, but that size of a tablet is a bear to hold in bed (even if it's supposedly lighter and thinner than the iPads).
Give the kid a break, he's just trying to move back with his parents now that he heard they're getting Google fiber.
Wikileaks is a bit like Anonymous. Anybody can just pick up a Wikileaks-like sounding domain name and claim to be working for "Wikileaks". So in that sense, it can never really be destroyed.
That being said, any government could just create a fake Wikileaks organization, infiltrate an existing one, or coerce existing members, so for some types of whistle-blowers, the only branches of Wikileaks that can be trusted are the ones that keep on publishing negative embarrassing materials against their own governments.
Most Slashdotters are for mandatory vaccinations, so why would you ever be against forced medication?
I would be against forced vaccinations, if it was done on a daily basis and required forced indefinite daily detention to make it happen.
In the case of Lindauer, the case was actually preposterous. If you really believed, as the government did, that the woman psychic was paranoid and had delusions of grandeur ever since the age of seven years old. And if you didn't know, as the government didn't seem to know, what exactly she did for Iraq -- except for getting paid by them. Then, moving the case forward was all just nonsense anyway.
In any case, I am against forced medication, but not in all cases.
Clearly, these people are a danger to society.
It depends. Was Lindauer a danger to society? I don't know.
What about this guy? I don't know either. It sounds to me like he was just mouthing off privately. If he had really taken action to prepare for their assassinations, then we would have heard something about it by now.
Also, he was only privately threatening Generals, it's not like he was threatening to blow up school children, or go into a random movie theater and start shooting. And he may be a well-trained killer, but the Generals are well-trained killers and they're protected by well-trained killers as well, so those different scenarios are not exactly equivalent.
He probably saw it for what it was, but decided he didn't want one the passengers beating the shit out of this guy mid-air because they felt threatened.
Would someone really beat up a cooperative 6 foot 2" and 120 pounds cancer patient for a t-shirt he had been wearing -- but agreed to take off just before boarding a flight? I guess a 100 pounds little girl could easily beat him up, but if you ask me, that would really have to be a f-----d up little girl.
Most adults know not to instigate a fight with someone on a plane, or they'll get banned for life from flying anywhere. And most adults know not to instigate a fight with someone much weaker than they are, especially when other people are watching.
Actually, you don't want the UK for anything urgent. In the UK, unless you're willing to pay for a private clinic, you'll usually need to wait at least 6 months before you can see a specialist.
Having lived in the UK, France, and the US, I'd pick the French system for most cases over the American one and then I'd pick the American system over the British one. At least in the US, you can get treated in time (if you or your family are insistent enough), even it means you won't be able to pay your hospital bills afterwards. And for preventative medicine, like prenatal care for instance, then I'd pick France or the UK over the US, so the UK is not all as bad as I made it out to be.
Notice how often some ideas will get instantly censored and others won't?
Post plans to make a gun and get yourself instantly frozen out. Classified military secrets go straight to the NYT and the leaker is called a hero.
Actually, the same thing happened to Wikileaks initially. Their Amazon hosting got shut down and their Pay Pal account got frozen. And just like Wikileaks rised again, this 3D printing project will rise again also. It's not like this kind of information-sharing can really be stopped.
Is this really a story? The conditions for repairs and upgrades are most likely regulated in the contract between the hotels and the supplier/manufacturer. Big deal.
That's only because you missed, or just skimmed, the original story. This story wasn't about bad design, or even perfect lock security. Perfect lock security doesn't exist, it probably never will.
But in this case, someone on the side of the lock manufacturer just got lazy and was intentionally negligent. That's the real story here. The company should be sued for negligence, all the board members and officers of the company should be sued for negligence, and the original engineer(s) should be sued for malpractice.
Once you do that, you'll find that some of those people were smart enough to have covered their own ass by emailing their concerns to others in the company, and then printed out those emails to take home for their own personal records (in case those internal emails/memos at work were ever made to "disappear").
Actually, your attitude IS pretty outrageous. Advertising != forcing you to buy it. It's still something businesses rely on so that people actually know they EXIST
Your outrage is a bit much. Relax, it looks like you're trying to blow a vein trying to control the uncontrollable.
Blocking advertisements doesn't mean that I won't buy from a company. Let's take Amazon for instance, I spend a lot of money on Amazon, especially on books and electronics, but I have no intention of buying garden furniture, nor bicycles, from there, and please don't get me started on their Kindle offerings - I do not want a Kindle.
On Amazon, and therefore on their affiliate web sites, I use an ad-blocker to block the categories I do not want. This is the Internet. If Amazon really wanted me not to mess with the way I process and view their web site on my machine, they should just have started advertising on the television shopping network instead, or they should just have rendered their entire web site completely in Flash or Silverlight.
And don't expect much sympathy. As a business, if consumers do not know you exist. You change your strategies, again and again, until consumers do start noticing you, or until you go out of business. That's simply the risk you're willing to take, as there is really no guarantee that your strategy will be successful or not.
And as a business, there is really a million ways for you to market your business. Playing the moral indignation card may be such a way, but I doubt it will ever be successful. The people you want to specifically reach on the Internet will just tune you out. That's just the natural advantages and disadvantages of this medium.
"But that hypothesis doesn't hold, to any relevant degree. A widely-cited 1996 study from the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology sampled over 4,000 women and found that the rape-related pregnancy rate was 5.0 percent and studies from other countries have reported the percentage to be even greater."
A more likely explanation is that the women were already using some form of birth control or that they simply were not in the fertile period of their cycle.
So you're saying that women from those "other countries" are using birth control more widely than American women? It would be helpful to know which other countries that original quote was referring to.
In any case, if human behavior is anything like animal behavior, anybody who's had a female dog in heat, or a female cat in heat, would probably theorize that the peak of their fertile period is precisely the time those female animals may get raped by any unleashed male they run across. And even if the human body doesn't rely as much on pheromones as animals do, one could further speculate that the fact that women's outward appearance, and behavior, changes during that time, could mark them as a more likely target during that time.
One of the many books I've read on the subject - I believe it was O -The Intimate History of the Orgasm actually stated that in studies rape lead to a higher fertilization rate than consensual relations. I won't get into the theory of why, because it will potentially piss off feminists. I'll just say it is documented and statistically significant.
Hey, I'm all for pissing off feminists, and this book does look very entertaining and thought-provoking, but unfortunately the book does seem to have problems. Take a look at what this customer on Amazon, Christoper Ryan, had to say about it:
"[...]
But even more disturbing is the author's ignorance of very basic information concerning human sexuality. On page 1, he claims that, "the first sexual act by which two like creatures sought intimate contact expressly to give one another physical and emotional pleasure... may well not have taken place until some time in the twentieth century AD, most likely at a location in Western Europe or North America." This is simply astoundingly wrong, not to mention racist as all get-out. For this to be true, nobody in hundreds of centuries ever had sex to give each other pleasure -- no hunter gatherers (most of whom do not equate sex with reproduction), nobody in India (where the Kama Sutra was written thousands of years ago, detailing how to give and receive sexual pleasure), nobody in China (where the first known sex manuals were written even before the Kama Sutra), etc. Just silly.
[...] "
I would have quoted more of his review, but since I really don't know about Bonobos chimps, I can't confirm whether the rest of what he's saying is accurate or not, but this really does not bode well for the author of the book. If the author is that sloppy at making claims and that lazy at double-checking his facts from the very first page of his book, then I doubt he was patient enough to even pull up the primary peer-reviewed scientifically research papers he was supposedly quoting and instead may have just relied on secondary reviews of those research papers, or perhaps even worse, he may have relied on sloppy newspaper articles written by layman journalists interpreting (or misinterpreting) those initial scientific peer-reviewed papers in the first place.
Yes, they absolutely should; for the consumer, to prevent abominations like this. I would say that anything more interactive than a reference document or log book. For more real medical software (i.e. patient monitors or diagnostic tools), just because it's on a smartphone and not a dedicated box doesn't mean it suddenly stops being a medical tool.
I don't see how this is any different from saying that desk lamps can heal your acne, or holding a desk lamp to your face will heal your acne (Disclaimer: I just made this example up, pimple-faced Slashdotters -- DO NOT TRY this at home).
In such a case, a reference document on a phone, or a reference document on a web site, or a logbook that keeps track of the number of times you hold up the desk lamp to your face, can be just as abominable and as dangerous as the interactive app you just referenced.
And in that sense, no separate laws needs to be created for mobile applications. If you make unsubstantiated health claims whether they be on leaflets, books, foods, supplements, cosmetics, shampoo bottles, web pages, or even mobile applications, then I would hope the government would come after you irregardless of the medium you used. And of course, since the government can't be everywhere at once, the more dangerous a health claim is, the quicker the government should intervene in that case.
He should know that.
Not everyone is a paranoid conspiracy theorist tin-foil hat wearing technophobe.
I think people like you need to learn the definition of words like "slave" that you throw around so easily.
There is actually a silver lining to this story.
Threatening to chop off the heads of generals on a private Facebook page seems to be much more effective at getting yourself mental health services than telling everyone who would listen that you're just going to kill yourself.
"'The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it.'"
It seems to me like he was wildly optimistic in his paranoia. Most paranoids would have just said: "The government is coming for me. Men will be a my door soon to pick me up to take me away. "
Either way, whether you shadow ban them, or ban hem outright, the problem is still the same after that.
You'll still need to keep track of their ip address and other meta-data information to minimize the number of accounts they can create under different names. Also, I think you're overestimating the number of spammers who spam and then who check their spam results after that.
On my site, I strip out html and even urls, and yet, I still get plenty of spammers wasting cpu cycles trying to insert urls automatically.
I am leery about reviews. The app I mentioned had five stars, and a ton of positive reviews. However, if you looked at the reviews, they were stuff like "Game play great!" [sic], or other pithy, fake reviews. One had to dig through a ton of the fake positives in order to find the one star "SMS spammer" items.
It sounds like you were on a site like GetJar. If you notice, GetJar has iPhone applications as well. And if you're willing to take the extra steps required to leave the walled garden of your OS, whether it's Android or iOS, it's ultimately your responsibility if you decide to use a badly run online App Store after that.
You would be surprised how easy it would be to get stung by this by an average user [1].
A couple months ago, I was browsing for a couple games. Looked at the game, and it demanded every right under the sun. Of course, it didn't get the second install click.
However, it was a game with an icon that was the logo for a popular game show, so it looked "legit" enough to a user. Most Android users are not the top tier IT people who know exactly what an app should and should not be doing. They tend to see an app, tap it, and go from there.
Most users actually look at the number of stars and the number of downloads, and sometimes even read the reviews when the thing doesn't have a solid rating. Find me just one example of a WallPaper app, or a shady game, that hasn't been damaged in its star ratings and in its user reviews by having permissions that required access to the SMS functionality.
In addition to that, the Google Play store also looks at the ratings and the number of installs, when deciding to display search results, thus reducing the discoverability of such apps drastically.