On the plus side, they'll have more money. On the negative side, they won't have a very useful citizenship (EU and US citizenships are basically the most favorable ones to hold). And on the even more negative side, they're now required to two two years of military service, plus report once a year for military reserve training up until they reach the age of 40. (Saverin himself is exempt because first-generation immigrants aren't required to do the service; only their children are.)
Personally I'd rather pay some taxes than condemn my kids to years in the military, but perhaps he has other priorities.
He wasn't much of an American. He had U.S. citizenship for a grand total of... 14 years. Apparently he wasn't very honest when he took the oath of citizenship in 1998. The U.S. doesn't need more people who lie under oath; we've got quite enough, so one less is an improvement.
In any case, there are a lot of actually productive people who'd love to become American citizens, most of whom won't be so quick to turn their backs on it if it makes them successful. I'd be happy to loosen immigration restrictions and let more of them in. And people who don't like the United States, and want to renounce it? Let them, especially if they're non-productive investor leeches. You don't see real American rich people renouncing citizenship: Steve Jobs didn't go anywhere, Bill Gates isn't going anywhere, even libertarians like Larry Ellison and the Koch brothers aren't going anywhere, because they aren't mercenary traitors.
If the real goal were to stop people who're actually rioting, the law seems superfluous at best: it is already illegal to riot, with or without a mask. If you're caught throwing a molotov through a shop window, whether you're wearing a mask or not isn't really relevant.
Hence the worry you mention in your last sentence; the only plausible use case for this seems to be arresting people who the police cannot legitimately arrest for any other reason.
As the presumably loyal opposition, certainly nobody could object to choosing to protest in the times and locations that Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, or one of her authorized representatives, indicate would be most pleasing to Her Majesty, as expressed through Her Majesty's Government.
Hell, even the Soviets had already done it, and it didn't work very well. And then in the 1990s there was a whole wave of "make work like play" management books, which didn't do much either, except perhaps inspire the "flair" scene in Office Space. Not sure we need another go at it.
A huge number of the account names and passwords look clearly auto-generated. I would guess it's not a "real" leak of actual users' data, but a compromise of some spammer's twitter-bot farm.
I mean, this is not what a leak of regular Twitter-user u/p would look like:
It sounds like this one is frequency-specific, so it would only block wifi frequencies. But I suppose it depends on just how narrow the blocked band is.
From the article it sounds like they were advertising it as a way to keep your signals from getting out, as a kind of physical security barrier--- not as a way of keeping others' signals from coming in. But perhaps it's true that they'll end up marketing it that way as well.
While true, there's a marked rise and fall in support for republicanism depending on how intelligent or stupid the monarch and likely monarch appear to be. For example, pretty much the only reason that Spain still has a king while Greece doesn't, is that the Spanish king won a lot of public approval by shepherding the transition away from Francoism, so was kept, while the Greek king hedged his bets and did nothing useful during the military dictatorship there, so got axed (though fortunately for him, not, as in previous eras, with a literal axe).
If I put some of this wallpaper on the walls between me and neighbors in an apartment building (and maybe even something similar on floors/ceilings), could this plausibly increase signal quality by reducing interference from the 50 (!) other access points I currently see within range?
The general funding model has been successful for at least a bit longer than Kickstarter in particular has been around, so it's not a completely new thing. Therefore I have a little more confidence in its longevity, though it could always still turn out to be a slightly longer flash in the pan, of course.
One early proposal was John Kelsey and Bruce Schneier's Street Performer Protocol (1998), describing basically the same collect-funds-until-threshold model.
One successful effort I know of from ten years ago was Einstürzende Neubauten, a cult-popular German industrial/avant-garde band, which left their label and focused on crowdfunding starting in 2001. In 2002, they raised around $70,000 to record an album despite using a pretty unorganized system, and repeated that several times. There have been some others since then as well before Kickstarter centralized them, such as David Lynch's effort.
Not necessarily for this reason, but it's as good as any opportunity to point out that you should really have a local copy of your transcript, preferably scanned into PDF along with your diploma as well. For many things, especially outside academia (e.g. applying to jobs in corporations), a PDF of your transcript is perfectly sufficient, and it's quite convenient to have one handy, even if you aren't behind on your student loans, because the official registrar transcript is often not very timely in arriving. Only a minority of things really require an original stamped/embossed copy of the transcript, versus a copy or even a PDF.
What's worse is that sometimes references to these standards are written into laws, meaning that you cannot even really read the law without paying some private organization for a copy of the standard, since it's impossible to determine what the law means without being able to read the standard it references.
This is just a wrap-up standard formalizing a bunch of extensions to the previous standard, such as 802.11.n, so the patent situation is roughly the same as what it's been for 802.11 for the past years. Which is that, yes, there are patents on various things, though the situation is not 100% clear.
All posts on this article will be taken to constitute mockery of Tasmanian Liberal candidate for Bass, Andrew Nikolic, and the Slash Dotters in question will be dealt with accordingly.
I acutely remember my surprise when cutting open a rat, a frog, and an earthworm, that all I really saw at first was a jumbled pink/brown mess of innards
Since you mentioned architecture briefly, this is surprisingly true there as well, especially if it's an older building and you don't have good documentation of the original plans. You cut into things and there's this jumble of wires in the wall going who knows where, some wood or concrete that may or may not be load bearing, a foundation built on top of another foundation that wasn't mentioned in any plans, some pipes that might've been from the previous era's sewer system, etc. Often true even if you do have the plans, especially when it comes to things like what the wiring looks like in the diagrams versus in the wall. And it's even worse in the subterranean space of cities outside of buildings; one of many reasons building a subway line is so expensive.
It's long been true that a top reason to go to academic conferences isn't only for the paper presentations, but rather for the hallway/dinner/bar conversations about those papers. More formally, many scientific journals will publish short letters or commentaries about papers they've previously published, and that practice used to be even more widespread (at some journals a "letter" has morphed into a mini-paper, but they used to really be letters to the editor).
The same is now true online with something like Terence Tao's blog: it's interesting as much for what other mathematicians post in reply, as for what Tao himself posts (though his posts are quite interesting). The main difference as I see it is that the number of people participating is much greater (which has good and bad parts), and, in comparison to hallway conversations, the conversations persist and get referenced back to more, since they're in a semi-durable written medium (that's the "wiki-like" aspect the article discusses).
The U.S. population is about 13% foreign-born, which is pretty high. Lower than Canada (19%), but higher than most other countries. For example, only 9% of the UK population is foreign-born, 4% of the Italian population, 2% of the Japanese population, and... 0.3% of the Chinese population.
It's not necessarily actually easy to get into the U.S., but overall, a lot of people do so anyway. And unlike many other countries, the U.S. has automatic citizenship from birth, which means any offspring of the foreign-born population (a full 1/8 of the country!) are automatically citizens, which is a much friendlier path to citizenship than most countries have.
One reason students in Quebec are more angry about it is that they typically pay their own tuition, for a mixture of economic/cultural/historical reasons. In the rest of Canada it's more common (as in the U.S.) for parents to pay substantial parts of tuition, so tuition hikes don't affect students as directly.
That's more or less my motivation, yes. I can't say there are many Democratic politicians I would trust personally, and the party itself seems to be some mix of ineptness and idiocy, but the Republicans offend me considerably more in their attempts to intrude into my private life with their ridiculous religious values.
For example, let's look at some things that to me seem like pretty easy questions: should it be legal for a wife to give her husband a blow job? What about an unmarried girlfriend giving her boyfriend a blowjob? What about a dude giving another dude a blowjob?
We're talking about consensual adults in all three cases. It seems obvious to me that the only possible pro-liberty answer is "yes" in all three cases. It just isn't the government's business. What kind of absurdly intrusive government would try to criminalize blowjobs?
Yet, in many conservative states, the answer all three was that yes, this should be illegal--- up until the Supreme Court invalidated their laws in 2003. Until that happened, the religious right, via their Republican and conservative Southern Democratic representatives, successfully blocked any repeal of those laws in many states. And even in the "red" states where all three weren't illegal, usually one or two still were (consensual blowjobs between married couples were decriminalized in several of them in the 70s).
When it comes to copyright, the parties do seem pretty close to even, which is to say paid for by the same organizations.
I think the Democrats are better overall on other kinds of civil liberties (especially compared to the theocratic wing of the Republican Party), but I'd probably vote for a Pirate Party if we had one.
If this guy is responsible for sneaking the phrase "hackers and other ne'er-do-wells" into an official legal document, I sort of like him already.
In general though I don't see much reason to single him out, when it seems fairly clear (from what evidence is available) that this was a Google project, not a "rogue employee" acting against management's wishes. There are cases where I'd support individual employees being held accountable, but I'm not sure this rises to that level; whether this turns out to be right or wrong, I think Google as a company should own the actions.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think it's unpleasant to visit places with an EU or US passport, just try visiting with a Singaporean passport and see how you get treated.
On the plus side, they'll have more money. On the negative side, they won't have a very useful citizenship (EU and US citizenships are basically the most favorable ones to hold). And on the even more negative side, they're now required to two two years of military service, plus report once a year for military reserve training up until they reach the age of 40. (Saverin himself is exempt because first-generation immigrants aren't required to do the service; only their children are.)
Personally I'd rather pay some taxes than condemn my kids to years in the military, but perhaps he has other priorities.
He wasn't much of an American. He had U.S. citizenship for a grand total of... 14 years. Apparently he wasn't very honest when he took the oath of citizenship in 1998. The U.S. doesn't need more people who lie under oath; we've got quite enough, so one less is an improvement.
In any case, there are a lot of actually productive people who'd love to become American citizens, most of whom won't be so quick to turn their backs on it if it makes them successful. I'd be happy to loosen immigration restrictions and let more of them in. And people who don't like the United States, and want to renounce it? Let them, especially if they're non-productive investor leeches. You don't see real American rich people renouncing citizenship: Steve Jobs didn't go anywhere, Bill Gates isn't going anywhere, even libertarians like Larry Ellison and the Koch brothers aren't going anywhere, because they aren't mercenary traitors.
You think this bone you're throwing to Vesta is going to make us forgive what you did to poor Pluto?
If the real goal were to stop people who're actually rioting, the law seems superfluous at best: it is already illegal to riot, with or without a mask. If you're caught throwing a molotov through a shop window, whether you're wearing a mask or not isn't really relevant.
Hence the worry you mention in your last sentence; the only plausible use case for this seems to be arresting people who the police cannot legitimately arrest for any other reason.
As the presumably loyal opposition, certainly nobody could object to choosing to protest in the times and locations that Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, or one of her authorized representatives, indicate would be most pleasing to Her Majesty, as expressed through Her Majesty's Government.
Hell, even the Soviets had already done it, and it didn't work very well. And then in the 1990s there was a whole wave of "make work like play" management books, which didn't do much either, except perhaps inspire the "flair" scene in Office Space. Not sure we need another go at it.
A huge number of the account names and passwords look clearly auto-generated. I would guess it's not a "real" leak of actual users' data, but a compromise of some spammer's twitter-bot farm.
I mean, this is not what a leak of regular Twitter-user u/p would look like:
It sounds like this one is frequency-specific, so it would only block wifi frequencies. But I suppose it depends on just how narrow the blocked band is.
From the article it sounds like they were advertising it as a way to keep your signals from getting out, as a kind of physical security barrier--- not as a way of keeping others' signals from coming in. But perhaps it's true that they'll end up marketing it that way as well.
While true, there's a marked rise and fall in support for republicanism depending on how intelligent or stupid the monarch and likely monarch appear to be. For example, pretty much the only reason that Spain still has a king while Greece doesn't, is that the Spanish king won a lot of public approval by shepherding the transition away from Francoism, so was kept, while the Greek king hedged his bets and did nothing useful during the military dictatorship there, so got axed (though fortunately for him, not, as in previous eras, with a literal axe).
If I put some of this wallpaper on the walls between me and neighbors in an apartment building (and maybe even something similar on floors/ceilings), could this plausibly increase signal quality by reducing interference from the 50 (!) other access points I currently see within range?
The general funding model has been successful for at least a bit longer than Kickstarter in particular has been around, so it's not a completely new thing. Therefore I have a little more confidence in its longevity, though it could always still turn out to be a slightly longer flash in the pan, of course.
One early proposal was John Kelsey and Bruce Schneier's Street Performer Protocol (1998), describing basically the same collect-funds-until-threshold model.
One successful effort I know of from ten years ago was Einstürzende Neubauten, a cult-popular German industrial/avant-garde band, which left their label and focused on crowdfunding starting in 2001. In 2002, they raised around $70,000 to record an album despite using a pretty unorganized system, and repeated that several times. There have been some others since then as well before Kickstarter centralized them, such as David Lynch's effort.
Not necessarily for this reason, but it's as good as any opportunity to point out that you should really have a local copy of your transcript, preferably scanned into PDF along with your diploma as well. For many things, especially outside academia (e.g. applying to jobs in corporations), a PDF of your transcript is perfectly sufficient, and it's quite convenient to have one handy, even if you aren't behind on your student loans, because the official registrar transcript is often not very timely in arriving. Only a minority of things really require an original stamped/embossed copy of the transcript, versus a copy or even a PDF.
What's worse is that sometimes references to these standards are written into laws, meaning that you cannot even really read the law without paying some private organization for a copy of the standard, since it's impossible to determine what the law means without being able to read the standard it references.
This is just a wrap-up standard formalizing a bunch of extensions to the previous standard, such as 802.11.n, so the patent situation is roughly the same as what it's been for 802.11 for the past years. Which is that, yes, there are patents on various things, though the situation is not 100% clear.
There is a semi-standard licensing pool, the Via WiFi license pool, that claims to hold most of the relevant patents. But Netgear at least partly won its case after they shipped some products that didn't pay to license the Via pool. But balancing that win, Australia's national research organization seems to be successfully claiming relevant patents.
NOTICE TO SLASH DOT USERS
All posts on this article will be taken to constitute mockery of Tasmanian Liberal candidate for Bass, Andrew Nikolic, and the Slash Dotters in question will be dealt with accordingly.
I acutely remember my surprise when cutting open a rat, a frog, and an earthworm, that all I really saw at first was a jumbled pink/brown mess of innards
Since you mentioned architecture briefly, this is surprisingly true there as well, especially if it's an older building and you don't have good documentation of the original plans. You cut into things and there's this jumble of wires in the wall going who knows where, some wood or concrete that may or may not be load bearing, a foundation built on top of another foundation that wasn't mentioned in any plans, some pipes that might've been from the previous era's sewer system, etc. Often true even if you do have the plans, especially when it comes to things like what the wiring looks like in the diagrams versus in the wall. And it's even worse in the subterranean space of cities outside of buildings; one of many reasons building a subway line is so expensive.
Probably the case with any relationship, actually. Do we really want to know what other people are thinking? Or cats?
It's long been true that a top reason to go to academic conferences isn't only for the paper presentations, but rather for the hallway/dinner/bar conversations about those papers. More formally, many scientific journals will publish short letters or commentaries about papers they've previously published, and that practice used to be even more widespread (at some journals a "letter" has morphed into a mini-paper, but they used to really be letters to the editor).
The same is now true online with something like Terence Tao's blog: it's interesting as much for what other mathematicians post in reply, as for what Tao himself posts (though his posts are quite interesting). The main difference as I see it is that the number of people participating is much greater (which has good and bad parts), and, in comparison to hallway conversations, the conversations persist and get referenced back to more, since they're in a semi-durable written medium (that's the "wiki-like" aspect the article discusses).
The U.S. population is about 13% foreign-born, which is pretty high. Lower than Canada (19%), but higher than most other countries. For example, only 9% of the UK population is foreign-born, 4% of the Italian population, 2% of the Japanese population, and... 0.3% of the Chinese population.
It's not necessarily actually easy to get into the U.S., but overall, a lot of people do so anyway. And unlike many other countries, the U.S. has automatic citizenship from birth, which means any offspring of the foreign-born population (a full 1/8 of the country!) are automatically citizens, which is a much friendlier path to citizenship than most countries have.
One reason students in Quebec are more angry about it is that they typically pay their own tuition, for a mixture of economic/cultural/historical reasons. In the rest of Canada it's more common (as in the U.S.) for parents to pay substantial parts of tuition, so tuition hikes don't affect students as directly.
That's more or less my motivation, yes. I can't say there are many Democratic politicians I would trust personally, and the party itself seems to be some mix of ineptness and idiocy, but the Republicans offend me considerably more in their attempts to intrude into my private life with their ridiculous religious values.
For example, let's look at some things that to me seem like pretty easy questions: should it be legal for a wife to give her husband a blow job? What about an unmarried girlfriend giving her boyfriend a blowjob? What about a dude giving another dude a blowjob?
We're talking about consensual adults in all three cases. It seems obvious to me that the only possible pro-liberty answer is "yes" in all three cases. It just isn't the government's business. What kind of absurdly intrusive government would try to criminalize blowjobs?
Yet, in many conservative states, the answer all three was that yes, this should be illegal--- up until the Supreme Court invalidated their laws in 2003. Until that happened, the religious right, via their Republican and conservative Southern Democratic representatives, successfully blocked any repeal of those laws in many states. And even in the "red" states where all three weren't illegal, usually one or two still were (consensual blowjobs between married couples were decriminalized in several of them in the 70s).
When it comes to copyright, the parties do seem pretty close to even, which is to say paid for by the same organizations.
I think the Democrats are better overall on other kinds of civil liberties (especially compared to the theocratic wing of the Republican Party), but I'd probably vote for a Pirate Party if we had one.
If this guy is responsible for sneaking the phrase "hackers and other ne'er-do-wells" into an official legal document, I sort of like him already.
In general though I don't see much reason to single him out, when it seems fairly clear (from what evidence is available) that this was a Google project, not a "rogue employee" acting against management's wishes. There are cases where I'd support individual employees being held accountable, but I'm not sure this rises to that level; whether this turns out to be right or wrong, I think Google as a company should own the actions.