and at no cost to anyone other than a slight inconvenience.
An increasing number of alerts times the millions of people that can be inconvenienced for no possible gain. Factoring in the percentages that the alert is based on a custody squabble makes the return on investment even smaller.
For example, alerting the entire state of Oregon for an abduction that takes place in Idaho is just ridiculous. That's the last alert I saw -- a Boise child. You cannot possibly think that anyone more than 20 miles from Boise will have any chance at all of seeing the perp. But this justifies disturbing everyone in a 300 mile radius because "it's just a slight inconvenience". Well, can I point out the fact that the phone in my pocket vibrating when I get a text message is "just a slight inconvenience" but some people here think I should be thrown out of the theater when it happens while they're trying to munch their popcorn and slurp their pop and discuss the plot with their neighbor while watching the movie.
If you want to spend your time scanning every license plate you see, that's fine. If you want to feed your fears off the number of Ambers you see, that's fine, too.
I'm sorry you fear so much for the abduction of your children, but the likelyhood of it happening is very small. The reason it seems to be on the increase is because of the increase in Amber alerts keeping your fears alive.
Keeping Amber Alerts enabled on my phone on the off chance I'll see a true abductor would be like keeping "Butterfly Flapped Its Wings In Africa" alerts enabled on the off chance that it will help me avoid hurricanes. Butterfly Alerts should be mandatory using your argument since the chance of one saving my life is much greater than my chance of finding your child's abductor. And it is only a "slight inconvenience" to keep getting the Butterfly alerts, right?
you are going to be in for a harsh awakening when you actually discover what it means to care for and worry for another person.
You can care for and worry for another person and still realize that a 3AM alert about something happening 300 miles away from your bedroom, to someone you don't know, is useless. You can also realize that constant alerts that are useless only serve to desensitize everyone to alerts that are not useless. The fact that the majority of Ambers are parental custody squabbles means that people learn to assume that they all are, or seek ways of turning them off.
Considering that when I get up five hours later and actually go outside the house, the chances of me seeing the abductor driving the same road I'm on, and my remembering the details so I can even tell it is him, are so vanishingly small that if you think it would ever happen you probably also buy lottery tickets. You have a much better chance of winning the mega jackpot than me seeing your child's abductor -- even assuming it was a real abduction to start with.
Why do you think everyone just clicks through EULAs or "I'm going to install Windows 10 now unless you tell me not to" popups? It's because there are so many popups for every little thing that everyone is desensitized to them.
If we're going to justify Amber alerts, then why don't we also have Kidney Alerts when someone with a failing pair of kidneys needs a donor and is on death's doorstep, asking everyone within a 300 mile radius to donate? The chances of finding a donor to save that one life are infinitely better than finding the abductor.
They had the resources to ask for donations eight years ago, had they wanted to.
They had the resources seven years ago. Six. Five. Shall I continue?
They could have begun the natural distribution of the knowledge to various states a long time go, but chose not to. They lived through the beginnings of DMCA and *AA without worry. The handwriting on wall for the free-for-all Internet age has been there for a long time. We've even got highly respected internet authorities calling for much stronger controls on the internet (so IoT don't do "bad things", you know.)
Instead, they wait until they can take advantage of, and help spread the fear and doubt about, the awful things that awful Donald is going to do to everyone. They're not even leaving the motives to question, they're announcing that it's fear.
Remind me, what did we call the people who objected to the things Obama promised to do? I think it started with "R", as I recall. It wasn't "rational objections to policy".
Both you and jenningsthecat have missed that part where I talked about security systems being designed to deal with some but not every possible situation. I worded it as the operator not being fully committed or infinitely intelligent, but that's the gist of the idea. You both spend a lot of time developing hypothetical ways of defeating this system, but NOBODY HAS SAID IT WAS PERFECT or couldn't be defeated.
OF COURSE someone who is committed to defeating this system can develop new systems that will do so. But the standard drone, as delivered by Amazon or off the shelf of your local hobby shop, will be dealt with reasonably well by this system. The typical criminal who is trying to deliver a cell phone, e.g., to someone inside a prison while they're out in the yard isn't going to spend six months developing the extensive countermeasures you both propose, he's going to buy a Phantom or cheaper drone, strap a phone to it, and take off.
You underestimate the skill it takes to develop a good homing system that you toss off as just "a pair of antennas". Especially if the jammer is broadband noise. You underestimate the amount of weight that every such countermeasure adds to the drone and how much less it can carry because of it.
You also seem to be stuck on the idea that "return to home" is the goal for this gun, when the fact is that "don't deliver the payload" is the actual goal. If your hypothetical aeronautical and radio engineer develops your "two antenna" drone and the payload of drugs intended for inside the prison instead heads to the holder of the Drone Gun and lands at his feet, then the GOOD GUYS WIN. They didn't need "return to home" for that.
I said they are banking on how the drone is designed to operate. (Disabled link = Go home).
They're banking on the drone not doing what the operator wants it to do when the control system is compromised. "Don't deliver the payload." The "return to home" so they can track it is icing on the cake if it happens. The website talks about maintaining forensic capability, which means the drone is not destroyed in the process of stopping it.
You might note that as the drone "returns to home" the control will be regained (the control signal will eventually be stronger than the jamming) and the operator can divert it somewhere else, so "return to home" can already be subverted by the operator. Just as for almost every security activity, successful prevention depends on the bad guys not being infinitely smart and/or totally committed to the operation. Fortunately, bad guys are rarely infinitely smart or totally committed. Bad guys who keep their distance from the destination are already known to not be "totally committed"; not being infinitely smart can be assumed.
I've always understood that a "drone" is an autonomous something.... Has this changed over the past few years?
Just as "Xerox" used to refer a machine/process developed by a specific company (whose name I don't remember at the moment) but now refers to a generic process of copying any document; "Kleenex" used to refer to a specific brand (whose name I also don't remember at the moment) of facial tissues but now refers to any facial tissue; and "tape" used to refer to magnetic tape cartridges containing game software (for Atari game systems, e.g.) but morphed into any cartridge inserted into such systems; "drone" has been co-opted by the public as a generic reference to any UAS.
Are they seriously just banking on how some drones operate for this product to work?
Most drones don't do what the operator wants when the operator control link is disabled.
Disabling the "Land or return to owner" is a software change away.
They're not disabling any software settings. They're using the default standard of "return home when communications is lost" to cause it to return home when communications is lost. That, or the other simple act of "land now", whichever the drone happens to do.
The summary mentions that it also jams GPS, but GPS is around 1.2 and 1.5GHz, so unless the summary is the typical nonsense of a press release, this is a very wideband jammer. Even if it just does the 2.4GHz and 5GHz wifi bands, I would say "thank you FCC" for banning such a tool. We have too many black asshats who like to break things for other people to have another tool on the open market for them to do it with.
I think he means OSX, which has in fact had this functionality for a number of years now.
I think you mean every email client in existence, which has had the ability to send SMS messages through the carrier's email to SMS gateways for as long as those gateways have been in existence.
What's this crap about claiming the OS has this functionality when all the hype is about a Skype CLIENT being able to do it?
That "free" Wi-Fi is a reason I'm paying $12 for three tacos and a drink at a place near my work for lunch,
The point I was making is that you may choose to eat at that taco place instead of a cheaper place across the street because it "gives" you "free wifi", but nobody decides to go to airport XYZ instead of the airport across the street because XYZ has "free wifi" and the other one doesn't. That is why the "paid services" at the airport aren't getting a boost from the airport authority providing that "free wifi".
It's not communism if it's used as an incentive to get you in the door to use their paid services.
By the time you're able to use "free wifi at the airport" you've pretty much already paid for the services the airport has to offer. Your ticket has the airport fee included. You'll pay for parking on the way out. You'll pay the site fee for any rental cars.
If you're referring to the "paid services" like overpriced food and convenience stores, well, when you're busy surfing the web you're not in the stores spending money. If you're doing it while in a store, you're likely using the free wifi to compare prices and you're going to order that fancy gizmo from an online, better priced, store.
"Free wifi" is a perfect example of something that is not free at all, but paid for by the airport authority through either higher airport fees or local taxes. Why should an airport authority spend money on something that has no benefit to them or the onsite vendors, and is not going to be a factor in anyone's decision on which airport to come "visit"? In most places, the airport is a defacto monopoly, so nobody picks their departure or arrival airport based on "free wifi", and the number of people who chose their itinerary stop-overs based on that would be vanishingly small.
I assume the GP is asking from a European prospective, and to that I'd say that on a continent so small that it makes sense to pick airports based on services and not how close they are that "free wifi" might be important in selling the airport as a whole. If you can drive to your destination in about the same amount of time it takes to fly, or can take the train, airports need something to draw the customers. In the US, ain't so much.
And I don't remember too many of the European airports I've been at having free wifi. The business lounges, yes.
It's one of those many simple household tasks that have a deep zen-like vibe to it if you put yourself it in the right mood
My vibe on this is that "I did this same thing just two weeks ago and I did it well. Why the hell am I forced to do the same job over and over and over?" Dishwashing falls into the same category.
I would cringe if anyone would put a bowl like that into a dishwasher. And I'd then probably hit him.
Ahh, grasshopper, if your path to true enlightenment through repetitive menial labor leads to violence, then you have taken a wrong turn somewhere near Alba-querky, Doc.
I only see a place for something like this in a hotel or so - where massive amounts of laundry have to be folded by a certain standard. And fast.
Ten minutes per shirt is not fast. And I much prefer that my shirts come back from commercial laundries on hangers instead of being folded and stuffed into a bag so they wrinkle.
Gerald Ford establish that precedent when he pardoned Richard Nixon.
John Adams established that precedent when he granted amnesty to everyone involved in Frie's Rebellion. And if the list on Wikipedia for Washington was complete, we'd probably see he did some pre-emptive pardons, too.
That's one meaning. The other meanings include "should not happen" (#5) and "not allowed to" (#3). It is possible he is saying that this should not happen, or that his personal ethical standards do not allow him to do it. He did not say he was legally prohibited from doing so.
You (and many others) are using the strictest definition of a common English word and inferring that it refers to a legal prohibition. For Barry to believe this, he would have to be stupid, and stupid is not an adjective that applies to that man. For him to say it in the strictest sense hoping his lie would be undetected would mean he is stupid, and stupid etc.
If you came to me and asked if you could borrow $100, I would tell you that I cannot do that. Not just that I would not do so, for I have $100 and could lend it to you should I choose to do so, but my better judgement tells me I cannot. That is one way of indicating a stronger feeling about the matter than just saying "will not". "Will not" implies a simple choice; "cannot" implies it is more than just a simple desire not to when used in a context where it is a choice. Like this one.
If it is his personal standards that say he cannot do it will be obvious when we see who he will be pardoning as his term comes to an end. If it is just that he doesn't think Snowden should be pardoned, that may be obvious, too.
because "I can't" was followed by an explanation of why he couldn't. and it happened to be total bullshit.
He didn't say that the law wouldn't allow it, he gave HIS reason for saying he can't. Whether he actually believes that may or may not be true, it could be either one. What isn't true is that what he said must be referring to a legal and not an ethical prohibition.
When he hides behind "I can't" and implies that the law forbids him from doing it,
Far be it for me to defend Barry here, but it could be that his "I can't" is not a legal statement, but a statement of an ethical position that he chooses not to violate. Short for "I can't bring myself" or "I can't violate my own ethical standards..."
No, sorry, what was I thinking. Now I have to clean the coffee I just snorted out my nose out of my keyboard.
As for "tarnishing a legacy", no, this won't do that. Most people either don't care/don't know about Snowden, or think he's guilty and shouldn't be pardoned. It truly is a minority that cares and wants the pardon./. is a self-selected community and basing estimates of what the real world thinks on what you read here is unjustified. There are far too many other things that people either love him for or hate him for, for this to be a blip on the radar.
Well, in a perfect world the, the government would not have created ghettos in American cities. Since the did,
Right. Sure.
Citations that will be requested, although I'm sure they will be disregarded:
You managed to make only two of those links into actual links, but the three I reviewed were all based on the opinions of one man. "According to one historian" in the last link was a dead giveaway.
Somehow, I don't think forcing banks to make loans to people who cannot pay them back is a good way of solving the problem you claim the government created. In fact, it is more than "I think". The economic crisis that it created was the obvious result. That obviousness makes it very hard to attribute to stupidity the acts of those who pushed the CRA, denied any brewing trouble with FNMA and Freddie-Mac, and blocked attempts to reregulate those agencies.
It seems my quote above wasn't entirely applicable as it seems to be about cable modems.
Since the cable modem is the gateway from the home network onto the cable side, I think it's relevant that Comcast needs to approve any devices that attach to THEIR network. Wouldn't it be wonderful if someone was selling cable modems that corrupted the network data for everyone else on that branch? I wouldn't mind a cable modem that I can put into promiscuous mode on the WAN so I can sniff all my neighbor's traffic, but I'd hate to have that same thing accessible to them. This isn't limitation on what devices you can connect on your home network.
Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, email, web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;
That's talking about what SERVICES you, as a RESIDENTIAL customer, paying residential rates, may provide to others. It doesn't limit the hardware, only some of the software that can run on it. And it only limits that software when services are provided outside your own home. I have several devices that have web interfaces, and half a dozen file servers.
They're selling you residential service. If you want to be a commercial provider, you can buy business service and run the servers you want for the pubic.
Read your Verizon/Comcast/ATT terms of service and acceptable use policies. This is already in place.
I see no such terms of service in my Comcast agreement. Can you provide a citation that supports your claim? I am not sure how Comcast could detect unapproved equipment I connect to the network anyway. Once it hits the router/modem and gets NAT, it's all the same MAC and IP address.
And in the perfect libertarian world there wouldn't have been the Community Reinvestment Act and similar follow-on legislation that forced banks to make unsecurable loans to people they knew couldn't pay them back, creating a market for bad paper, culminating in a large number of defaults when people who couldn't pay back their loans were faced with balloon payments that they knew from the start they wouldn't be able to meet but they signed up for anyway. So yeah, in this ideal world, I'd go along with the libertarian "lock them up if they commit fraud" idea.
The CEOs you want to lock up for "practicing fraud", however, were acting in response to community groups using the justice department as a bludgeon to either force the loans or be sued for discrimination.
If they didn't have similar percentages of approved loans over their entire service area it was defacto proof of discrimination. The fact that some neighborhoods tend to be working class with people who couldn't afford home loans wasn't relevant, so the rules had to change to allow those loans to be approved anyway. Once those loans were approved, where does the bank get money to make more loans? By selling the ones it has. "Community Reinvestment" stops when the bank has loaned out all it can, unless it sells loans to get more to loan.
The problem of measuring compliance with anti-discrimination laws using simple statistics is ongoing. For example, it is defacto proof of Title IX violation if the percentage of girls at a school participating in sports is not the same as the percentage of boys. If you run a school where 20% of the boys are on sports teams but only 10% of the girls, then you either need to coerce a lot of girls into joining a sports team or cut your boy's teams in half.
And similarly, if your bank is approving 50% of the loans from a neighborhood that is predominantly rich people but only 10% of loans from a poorer neighborhood, you either have to lose 2/3 of your loan business by refusing 80% of the "rich people" loans (losing out on the interest payments from well-secured, low-risk loans), or relax the rules so you can approve 40% more of the apps from poor people (increasing your risk by a large amount). And the answer is almost always based on the demands of the local community activists who want more loans to poor people.
- Oracle has a vested interest in the failure of Linux since it owns Solaris.
It also owns MySQL, as I recall, which runs great on Linux servers. Solaris is (was) a great OS, but hardly a major player in the desktop like Windows.
- Intel has a vested interest in the failure of Linux because it has a very close economic partnership with Microsoft.
Intel doesn't give a crap which OS you run on their CPUs just as long as you aren't using an AMD or ARM CPU to do it.
- HPE has a vested interest in the failure of Linux because it sells hardware that runs Windows and HP/UX.
Ditto HPE. HP/UX is a niche compared to Windows, and HP doesn't care if you're running Windows or Linux as long as you're doing it on HP hardware.
- IBM has a vested interest in the failure of Linux because it sells mainframes and servers running AIX.... and so on.
Ditto IBM.
Or maybe these companies are all platinum members of the Linux Foundation because they see Linux both as a massive market opportunity in its own right and also an enabler of new product development.
Microsoft doesn't do hardware (as a primary function), they do operating system software and other software tied intimately into their operating system. HPE, IBM, Dell, etc. do hardware as the primary function and software as an also-ran. That makes Microsoft a different player in the market than all those hardware companies.
Yes of course. Everyone should have to run their OS off a USB stick.
Oh, knock it off. I didn't say that. The original statement was that it "allows hundreds of millions of users try Ubuntu" (emphasis mine). A USB 3 memory stick has plenty of performance to allow users to try Ubuntu without needing a Windows platform under it, or letting Microsoft control the Ubuntu "experience".
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't something that Trump championed through, this was an existing idea that finally received approval.
If by "finally" you mean a decade ago (2006), yes. It's been in my phones for a long time.
The real headline should be: "Office of the President has been able to send unblockable mass text message to all Americans".
FTFY.
but slashdot needs to stop throwing his name out there for a reaction.
It's not just /.. It's a media frenzy. The media knows that frenzy and fear sells papers and gathers eyeballs, so they do it.
and at no cost to anyone other than a slight inconvenience.
An increasing number of alerts times the millions of people that can be inconvenienced for no possible gain. Factoring in the percentages that the alert is based on a custody squabble makes the return on investment even smaller.
For example, alerting the entire state of Oregon for an abduction that takes place in Idaho is just ridiculous. That's the last alert I saw -- a Boise child. You cannot possibly think that anyone more than 20 miles from Boise will have any chance at all of seeing the perp. But this justifies disturbing everyone in a 300 mile radius because "it's just a slight inconvenience". Well, can I point out the fact that the phone in my pocket vibrating when I get a text message is "just a slight inconvenience" but some people here think I should be thrown out of the theater when it happens while they're trying to munch their popcorn and slurp their pop and discuss the plot with their neighbor while watching the movie.
If you want to spend your time scanning every license plate you see, that's fine. If you want to feed your fears off the number of Ambers you see, that's fine, too. I'm sorry you fear so much for the abduction of your children, but the likelyhood of it happening is very small. The reason it seems to be on the increase is because of the increase in Amber alerts keeping your fears alive.
Keeping Amber Alerts enabled on my phone on the off chance I'll see a true abductor would be like keeping "Butterfly Flapped Its Wings In Africa" alerts enabled on the off chance that it will help me avoid hurricanes. Butterfly Alerts should be mandatory using your argument since the chance of one saving my life is much greater than my chance of finding your child's abductor. And it is only a "slight inconvenience" to keep getting the Butterfly alerts, right?
you are going to be in for a harsh awakening when you actually discover what it means to care for and worry for another person.
You can care for and worry for another person and still realize that a 3AM alert about something happening 300 miles away from your bedroom, to someone you don't know, is useless. You can also realize that constant alerts that are useless only serve to desensitize everyone to alerts that are not useless. The fact that the majority of Ambers are parental custody squabbles means that people learn to assume that they all are, or seek ways of turning them off.
Considering that when I get up five hours later and actually go outside the house, the chances of me seeing the abductor driving the same road I'm on, and my remembering the details so I can even tell it is him, are so vanishingly small that if you think it would ever happen you probably also buy lottery tickets. You have a much better chance of winning the mega jackpot than me seeing your child's abductor -- even assuming it was a real abduction to start with.
Why do you think everyone just clicks through EULAs or "I'm going to install Windows 10 now unless you tell me not to" popups? It's because there are so many popups for every little thing that everyone is desensitized to them.
If we're going to justify Amber alerts, then why don't we also have Kidney Alerts when someone with a failing pair of kidneys needs a donor and is on death's doorstep, asking everyone within a 300 mile radius to donate? The chances of finding a donor to save that one life are infinitely better than finding the abductor.
Does that sound like they "have the resources"?
They had the resources to ask for donations eight years ago, had they wanted to.
They had the resources seven years ago. Six. Five. Shall I continue?
They could have begun the natural distribution of the knowledge to various states a long time go, but chose not to. They lived through the beginnings of DMCA and *AA without worry. The handwriting on wall for the free-for-all Internet age has been there for a long time. We've even got highly respected internet authorities calling for much stronger controls on the internet (so IoT don't do "bad things", you know.)
Instead, they wait until they can take advantage of, and help spread the fear and doubt about, the awful things that awful Donald is going to do to everyone. They're not even leaving the motives to question, they're announcing that it's fear.
Remind me, what did we call the people who objected to the things Obama promised to do? I think it started with "R", as I recall. It wasn't "rational objections to policy".
OF COURSE someone who is committed to defeating this system can develop new systems that will do so. But the standard drone, as delivered by Amazon or off the shelf of your local hobby shop, will be dealt with reasonably well by this system. The typical criminal who is trying to deliver a cell phone, e.g., to someone inside a prison while they're out in the yard isn't going to spend six months developing the extensive countermeasures you both propose, he's going to buy a Phantom or cheaper drone, strap a phone to it, and take off.
You underestimate the skill it takes to develop a good homing system that you toss off as just "a pair of antennas". Especially if the jammer is broadband noise. You underestimate the amount of weight that every such countermeasure adds to the drone and how much less it can carry because of it.
You also seem to be stuck on the idea that "return to home" is the goal for this gun, when the fact is that "don't deliver the payload" is the actual goal. If your hypothetical aeronautical and radio engineer develops your "two antenna" drone and the payload of drugs intended for inside the prison instead heads to the holder of the Drone Gun and lands at his feet, then the GOOD GUYS WIN. They didn't need "return to home" for that.
I said they are banking on how the drone is designed to operate. (Disabled link = Go home).
They're banking on the drone not doing what the operator wants it to do when the control system is compromised. "Don't deliver the payload." The "return to home" so they can track it is icing on the cake if it happens. The website talks about maintaining forensic capability, which means the drone is not destroyed in the process of stopping it.
You might note that as the drone "returns to home" the control will be regained (the control signal will eventually be stronger than the jamming) and the operator can divert it somewhere else, so "return to home" can already be subverted by the operator. Just as for almost every security activity, successful prevention depends on the bad guys not being infinitely smart and/or totally committed to the operation. Fortunately, bad guys are rarely infinitely smart or totally committed. Bad guys who keep their distance from the destination are already known to not be "totally committed"; not being infinitely smart can be assumed.
I've always understood that a "drone" is an autonomous something. ... Has this changed over the past few years?
Just as "Xerox" used to refer a machine/process developed by a specific company (whose name I don't remember at the moment) but now refers to a generic process of copying any document; "Kleenex" used to refer to a specific brand (whose name I also don't remember at the moment) of facial tissues but now refers to any facial tissue; and "tape" used to refer to magnetic tape cartridges containing game software (for Atari game systems, e.g.) but morphed into any cartridge inserted into such systems; "drone" has been co-opted by the public as a generic reference to any UAS.
Just like soldering guns have been illegal for decades.
Are they seriously just banking on how some drones operate for this product to work?
Most drones don't do what the operator wants when the operator control link is disabled.
Disabling the "Land or return to owner" is a software change away.
They're not disabling any software settings. They're using the default standard of "return home when communications is lost" to cause it to return home when communications is lost. That, or the other simple act of "land now", whichever the drone happens to do.
The summary mentions that it also jams GPS, but GPS is around 1.2 and 1.5GHz, so unless the summary is the typical nonsense of a press release, this is a very wideband jammer. Even if it just does the 2.4GHz and 5GHz wifi bands, I would say "thank you FCC" for banning such a tool. We have too many black asshats who like to break things for other people to have another tool on the open market for them to do it with.
I think he means OSX, which has in fact had this functionality for a number of years now.
I think you mean every email client in existence, which has had the ability to send SMS messages through the carrier's email to SMS gateways for as long as those gateways have been in existence.
What's this crap about claiming the OS has this functionality when all the hype is about a Skype CLIENT being able to do it?
That "free" Wi-Fi is a reason I'm paying $12 for three tacos and a drink at a place near my work for lunch,
The point I was making is that you may choose to eat at that taco place instead of a cheaper place across the street because it "gives" you "free wifi", but nobody decides to go to airport XYZ instead of the airport across the street because XYZ has "free wifi" and the other one doesn't. That is why the "paid services" at the airport aren't getting a boost from the airport authority providing that "free wifi".
It's not communism if it's used as an incentive to get you in the door to use their paid services.
By the time you're able to use "free wifi at the airport" you've pretty much already paid for the services the airport has to offer. Your ticket has the airport fee included. You'll pay for parking on the way out. You'll pay the site fee for any rental cars.
If you're referring to the "paid services" like overpriced food and convenience stores, well, when you're busy surfing the web you're not in the stores spending money. If you're doing it while in a store, you're likely using the free wifi to compare prices and you're going to order that fancy gizmo from an online, better priced, store.
"Free wifi" is a perfect example of something that is not free at all, but paid for by the airport authority through either higher airport fees or local taxes. Why should an airport authority spend money on something that has no benefit to them or the onsite vendors, and is not going to be a factor in anyone's decision on which airport to come "visit"? In most places, the airport is a defacto monopoly, so nobody picks their departure or arrival airport based on "free wifi", and the number of people who chose their itinerary stop-overs based on that would be vanishingly small.
I assume the GP is asking from a European prospective, and to that I'd say that on a continent so small that it makes sense to pick airports based on services and not how close they are that "free wifi" might be important in selling the airport as a whole. If you can drive to your destination in about the same amount of time it takes to fly, or can take the train, airports need something to draw the customers. In the US, ain't so much.
And I don't remember too many of the European airports I've been at having free wifi. The business lounges, yes.
yeah but you are also stuck with kids, dummy.
You can always store them in the dryer when you aren't using them, or it.
It's one of those many simple household tasks that have a deep zen-like vibe to it if you put yourself it in the right mood
My vibe on this is that "I did this same thing just two weeks ago and I did it well. Why the hell am I forced to do the same job over and over and over?" Dishwashing falls into the same category.
I would cringe if anyone would put a bowl like that into a dishwasher. And I'd then probably hit him.
Ahh, grasshopper, if your path to true enlightenment through repetitive menial labor leads to violence, then you have taken a wrong turn somewhere near Alba-querky, Doc.
I only see a place for something like this in a hotel or so - where massive amounts of laundry have to be folded by a certain standard. And fast.
Ten minutes per shirt is not fast. And I much prefer that my shirts come back from commercial laundries on hangers instead of being folded and stuffed into a bag so they wrinkle.
Gerald Ford establish that precedent when he pardoned Richard Nixon.
John Adams established that precedent when he granted amnesty to everyone involved in Frie's Rebellion. And if the list on Wikipedia for Washington was complete, we'd probably see he did some pre-emptive pardons, too.
By that measure, he can't pardon the turkey in a couple of days either.
He could have a kangaroo court find it guilty of being delicious, and then he has the legal process to overturn.
But can't means he couldn't even if he wanted to.
That's one meaning. The other meanings include "should not happen" (#5) and "not allowed to" (#3). It is possible he is saying that this should not happen, or that his personal ethical standards do not allow him to do it. He did not say he was legally prohibited from doing so.
You (and many others) are using the strictest definition of a common English word and inferring that it refers to a legal prohibition. For Barry to believe this, he would have to be stupid, and stupid is not an adjective that applies to that man. For him to say it in the strictest sense hoping his lie would be undetected would mean he is stupid, and stupid etc.
If you came to me and asked if you could borrow $100, I would tell you that I cannot do that. Not just that I would not do so, for I have $100 and could lend it to you should I choose to do so, but my better judgement tells me I cannot. That is one way of indicating a stronger feeling about the matter than just saying "will not". "Will not" implies a simple choice; "cannot" implies it is more than just a simple desire not to when used in a context where it is a choice. Like this one.
If it is his personal standards that say he cannot do it will be obvious when we see who he will be pardoning as his term comes to an end. If it is just that he doesn't think Snowden should be pardoned, that may be obvious, too.
because "I can't" was followed by an explanation of why he couldn't. and it happened to be total bullshit.
He didn't say that the law wouldn't allow it, he gave HIS reason for saying he can't. Whether he actually believes that may or may not be true, it could be either one. What isn't true is that what he said must be referring to a legal and not an ethical prohibition.
When he hides behind "I can't" and implies that the law forbids him from doing it,
Far be it for me to defend Barry here, but it could be that his "I can't" is not a legal statement, but a statement of an ethical position that he chooses not to violate. Short for "I can't bring myself" or "I can't violate my own ethical standards ..."
No, sorry, what was I thinking. Now I have to clean the coffee I just snorted out my nose out of my keyboard.
As for "tarnishing a legacy", no, this won't do that. Most people either don't care/don't know about Snowden, or think he's guilty and shouldn't be pardoned. It truly is a minority that cares and wants the pardon. /. is a self-selected community and basing estimates of what the real world thinks on what you read here is unjustified. There are far too many other things that people either love him for or hate him for, for this to be a blip on the radar.
Well, in a perfect world the, the government would not have created ghettos in American cities. Since the did,
Right. Sure.
Citations that will be requested, although I'm sure they will be disregarded:
You managed to make only two of those links into actual links, but the three I reviewed were all based on the opinions of one man. "According to one historian" in the last link was a dead giveaway.
Somehow, I don't think forcing banks to make loans to people who cannot pay them back is a good way of solving the problem you claim the government created. In fact, it is more than "I think". The economic crisis that it created was the obvious result. That obviousness makes it very hard to attribute to stupidity the acts of those who pushed the CRA, denied any brewing trouble with FNMA and Freddie-Mac, and blocked attempts to reregulate those agencies.
It seems my quote above wasn't entirely applicable as it seems to be about cable modems.
Since the cable modem is the gateway from the home network onto the cable side, I think it's relevant that Comcast needs to approve any devices that attach to THEIR network. Wouldn't it be wonderful if someone was selling cable modems that corrupted the network data for everyone else on that branch? I wouldn't mind a cable modem that I can put into promiscuous mode on the WAN so I can sniff all my neighbor's traffic, but I'd hate to have that same thing accessible to them. This isn't limitation on what devices you can connect on your home network.
Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, email, web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;
That's talking about what SERVICES you, as a RESIDENTIAL customer, paying residential rates, may provide to others. It doesn't limit the hardware, only some of the software that can run on it. And it only limits that software when services are provided outside your own home. I have several devices that have web interfaces, and half a dozen file servers.
They're selling you residential service. If you want to be a commercial provider, you can buy business service and run the servers you want for the pubic.
Read your Verizon/Comcast/ATT terms of service and acceptable use policies. This is already in place.
I see no such terms of service in my Comcast agreement. Can you provide a citation that supports your claim? I am not sure how Comcast could detect unapproved equipment I connect to the network anyway. Once it hits the router/modem and gets NAT, it's all the same MAC and IP address.
The CEOs you want to lock up for "practicing fraud", however, were acting in response to community groups using the justice department as a bludgeon to either force the loans or be sued for discrimination. If they didn't have similar percentages of approved loans over their entire service area it was defacto proof of discrimination. The fact that some neighborhoods tend to be working class with people who couldn't afford home loans wasn't relevant, so the rules had to change to allow those loans to be approved anyway. Once those loans were approved, where does the bank get money to make more loans? By selling the ones it has. "Community Reinvestment" stops when the bank has loaned out all it can, unless it sells loans to get more to loan.
The problem of measuring compliance with anti-discrimination laws using simple statistics is ongoing. For example, it is defacto proof of Title IX violation if the percentage of girls at a school participating in sports is not the same as the percentage of boys. If you run a school where 20% of the boys are on sports teams but only 10% of the girls, then you either need to coerce a lot of girls into joining a sports team or cut your boy's teams in half.
And similarly, if your bank is approving 50% of the loans from a neighborhood that is predominantly rich people but only 10% of loans from a poorer neighborhood, you either have to lose 2/3 of your loan business by refusing 80% of the "rich people" loans (losing out on the interest payments from well-secured, low-risk loans), or relax the rules so you can approve 40% more of the apps from poor people (increasing your risk by a large amount). And the answer is almost always based on the demands of the local community activists who want more loans to poor people.
- Oracle has a vested interest in the failure of Linux since it owns Solaris.
It also owns MySQL, as I recall, which runs great on Linux servers. Solaris is (was) a great OS, but hardly a major player in the desktop like Windows.
- Intel has a vested interest in the failure of Linux because it has a very close economic partnership with Microsoft.
Intel doesn't give a crap which OS you run on their CPUs just as long as you aren't using an AMD or ARM CPU to do it.
- HPE has a vested interest in the failure of Linux because it sells hardware that runs Windows and HP/UX.
Ditto HPE. HP/UX is a niche compared to Windows, and HP doesn't care if you're running Windows or Linux as long as you're doing it on HP hardware.
- IBM has a vested interest in the failure of Linux because it sells mainframes and servers running AIX. ... and so on.
Ditto IBM.
Or maybe these companies are all platinum members of the Linux Foundation because they see Linux both as a massive market opportunity in its own right and also an enabler of new product development.
Microsoft doesn't do hardware (as a primary function), they do operating system software and other software tied intimately into their operating system. HPE, IBM, Dell, etc. do hardware as the primary function and software as an also-ran. That makes Microsoft a different player in the market than all those hardware companies.
Yes of course. Everyone should have to run their OS off a USB stick.
Oh, knock it off. I didn't say that. The original statement was that it "allows hundreds of millions of users try Ubuntu" (emphasis mine). A USB 3 memory stick has plenty of performance to allow users to try Ubuntu without needing a Windows platform under it, or letting Microsoft control the Ubuntu "experience".