Re:In that case, MS has failed beyond belief
on
Why Nokia Is Toast
·
· Score: 2
If their goal is to kill Nokia off so that it can't dabble in Linux any more, then their actions make perfect sense.
Hadn't thought of that. The mobile market is huge, and if Microsoft can't own Nokia's share they sure as Hell don't want it going in Android's direction, and Ballmer, Hell & Co. aren't above deliberately destroying another major corporation to get their way.
Re:It Doesn't Matter if it's Humiliating
on
Why Nokia Is Toast
·
· Score: 1
The Moto Droid line tend to use more metal shells (aluminum?) but I think that plastic HTC phones are better quality. The G2 for instance, or the Nexus One are very nice. Samsung's build quality is kinda meh, and while I havent heard any problems with Sony build quialty, they are the worst for upgrades to the OS. But these are just opinions. Best thing is to go to a store and try them out and see how they feel. Personally I would reccomend HTC over any of the others as they have decent quality and open bootloaders and are by far the best at sending out OS updates.
I agree. I have a G2, and it's a solid piece (build quality is exceptional, I'd say) and while the G2's bootloader isn't exactly "open" (in fact, one of the major complaints at its release was the protection stuff they put into it to prevent 3rd party firmware loads) it has been cracked and is fairly easy to root. Also happens to overclock nicely, and runs Cyanogenmod flawlessly.
The accountability would have been restored if they were allowed to fail. You assume the bailout was designed to fix the system. This is not actually the case. In reality it was designed to set us up for an even bigger disaster. Those in power will use this bigger disaster to seize more power and manipulate the situation further.
Sure... they've given up their traditional policy of incrementalism because it takes too damn long. They want more power now, and terrified, uneducated people are far more likely to give it to them. Is there a master plan here (America as a totalitarian state) or is this just power for the sake of power?
Politics is all about division, to keep people busy while they steal the pie.
u mad? I won't bother wasting time on you, it's clear that you already have me all figured out in your head. But as a footnote I've lived in the US as well as a dozen other countries, I have 3 passports (yeah I know I'm only supposed to have 2), and I speak 7 languages fluently. I daresay the odds are good that I've seen a little bit more of the world than you have, but by all means continue chasing the windmills. After all I only need to fit your pre-conceived notion of what you think I am. Your mind is already made up.
Am I mad? No, not in either sense of the word. It's funny, and here I thought I was arguing against pre-conceived notions. Did you actually read my post, or did you just impose your own set of preconceptions upon me and mine, and immediately spew forth without thinking? If anyone is expressing a degree of arrogance that is typically attributed to Americans, I'd have to say it is you. The fact that you've seen a good deal of the world is irrelevant. We're not discussing world history, but that of the United States, and it's plain that you know far less about our history, our government, and our politics that you think. And I had no preconceived notions of you, although I'm beginning to form a few.
Echelon has always been about intelligence, not scooping up as much data as possible. The fabled Keyword Lists are from a bygone era, so who knows what's done now - I'm guessing the results are still used for corporate espionage regardless of methodology and tech changes.
Well, by some estimates the NSA is a century ahead of the rest of the world in advanced mathematics... so yeah, it's a good bet that they're a lot more sophisticated nowadays.
Depending on the situation, most likely turn them over. Particularly because if it really were a matter of national security, say a terrorist threat, they don't want to be the scapegoat. All of that said, however, whether or not AT&T or Comcast have a backbone or not is a different issue entirely than what the article infers.
Our high-sensitivity audio microphone dish mounted in some office window fifteen stories up and a block away? That's perfectly legitimate.
Probably not. For example, police are barred from using thermal imagers when trying to find pot growers because it's considered too invasive. Illegal search and seizure, etc., although those boundaries are eroding fast.
How is this different, other than moving part of the operation back on-shore [moving jobs back to America!]?
This is not about jobs. The difference is that by moving it back to the U.S., those operations are now subject to U.S. law, and can be more easily prosecuted. Why do you think Guantenemo Bay wasn't set up on U.S. territory? Because it's a hell of a lot easier to get away with things are illegal here if you don't do them here. And they're still getting away with it.
I'm sorry, but I don't. If you're going to smear an entire country like that, you're putting those who actually can and will do something in the same boat as those who don't give a fuck. It's also making the (unwarranted) assumption that everyone in American thinks the same way, wants the same things, cares about the same things. We don't. Hell, I'm an American too, and we're obviously disagreeing about something. That's how it's supposed to be, and maybe one or both of us comes away with a fresh perspective. Simply tarring everyone with the same brush discourages that, limits communication and creates bad feelings on both sides. How does that help? Tell me... how does it?
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. There are very, very few trustworthy governments on this planet (wherever you come from, I suspect that's true of yours as well.)
I'm pretty sure they said the same thing about Mussolini - "Oh, he'll bring stability." Look, you NEVER want an army in charge of the government.
And frequently dictators do just that: bring stability, especially if you have a history of governments rising and being toppled. Eventually a dictator comes into power and rules with an iron fist and, for a while, life is "stable".
Note that that doesn't mean that life under such rule is pleasant or even worth living.
You know living in New York I often believe that most people really are more reasonable, realistic, and open-minded when it comes to these things. Of course, there are obviously a lot of people in this country who are easily bamboozled by people like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh.
Sooner or later (but probably never) we're going to realize that ignorance is not bliss but is, in fact, remarkably dangerous.
God should have a place in everything, since he does anyway.
I don't believe in God, but I grant that the belief that others hold can be of consequence to me.
Read the ten commandments and you see the first three rules are about not being or believing in "gods". Islam and other faiths have similar rules, and for the same reasons. They are rules for sustainable human behavior.
That's an excellent way to describe them, regardless of where they came from. Too bad more people haven't taken them to heart.
It's belief in human gods that has no place in government!
True enough. More correctly, it's human beings who believe that they have a special relationship with their God, one which supersedes that of everyone else, who should be kept far, far away from any position of power. Put it like this: there is no way to determine whether there is, or is not, a supreme being. Certainly not in any meaningful way that would convince someone like me (although many have tried.) That is the basis of faith as such: absolute knowledge either way would eliminate the need for faith which is, when you cut right to the bone, belief without fact.. Given fact, everything would change. I am personally satisfied with a more mechanistic view of the Universe, and see no reason to populate it with vast, supernatural forces that no-one has ever seen or can detect. Nevertheless, I accept that I could be wrong: I don't think that I am, and in any event don't lose much sleep over it. I have other things to worry about.
I know many who say they are convinced that God exists: I also wonder how many of them would be terrified beyond hope of recovery if science could ever demonstrate, unequivocably, that they are correct. When you get right down to it, a Supreme Being who actually notices us would be pretty damn scary. In the overall scheme of things we're cockroaches at best, and like that insect, we're far better off when those higher up the evolutionary ladder remain unaware of our existence. Heck, God has already wiped us out at least once and, if those of faith are to be believed, we're on track for another globe-spanning genocidal event any time now. My guess is that He won't bother with a Flood this time: we've acquired so much destructive capability of our own in the past few decades that He could probably induce us to wipe ourselves out with very little effort.
Still, even allowing that there is a God, there's no way to determine whether a given individual has some unusual ability to commune with said being, and that his word should be taken as coming from God. I would argue that all of those throughout history that have claimed to have a direct line to God are either lying or deluded, and use that fiction for personal gain. People are what they are, and being a member of an organized religion does not offer immunity to our baser instincts, or our ability to manufacture rationalizations for any imaginable behavior. The old adage that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" doesn't just apply to governmental politics. And there's no power more absolute than that coming from God, which makes that power (even if entirely fabricated) a very useful tool indeed.
Either way, a person who claims that "God told me to do x" should never, ever, be in charge of anyone or anything, because he will be able to rationalize anything in the Name of his God. History is quite clear on that point. The Founders (men of faith as they were) were smart enough to realize that theocratic government is invariably intolerant of that which is different, is outside the proscribed norms, and thus fundamentally incompatible with the ends they were trying to achieve.
Considering that this is Israeli technology*, this should be modded funny. We don't have the balls to tell Israel what to do.
Or is it? If the NSA/CIA wants something built and made available to their allies without the interference by Congress, just slip development money and specifications (or blueprints) to Israel.
That's kind of insulting to the Israeli tech people... they're more than capable of developing this stuff on their own without any "blueprints" from us. What's more likely to have happened is that they were promised a nice contract from the NSA (or the FBI, or whoever) for the equipment once it was working well.
When will they just discard with the formalities and just say that every goverment agency can do anything whatsoever with no warrants and paperwork required. It would simplify the law too, they could sum it up in one sentence: "Everything is illegal".
I heard it put another way once:
There are two kinds of government:
1. All things are forbidden except those which are permitted.
2. All things are permitted except those which are forbidden.
America was by design in the latter camp, but we're rapidly heading towards the first.
When will they just discard with the formalities and just say that every goverment agency can do anything whatsoever with no warrants and paperwork required. It would simplify the law too, they could sum it up in one sentence: "Everything is illegal".
Two sentences:
Everything is legal for the government.
Nothing is legal for the citizen unless the government says so.
There are many, many nations on this planet which operate along those precise lines. None of them are places where I would choose to live.
Slashdot Mirror
If their goal is to kill Nokia off so that it can't dabble in Linux any more, then their actions make perfect sense.
Hadn't thought of that. The mobile market is huge, and if Microsoft can't own Nokia's share they sure as Hell don't want it going in Android's direction, and Ballmer, Hell & Co. aren't above deliberately destroying another major corporation to get their way.
The Moto Droid line tend to use more metal shells (aluminum?) but I think that plastic HTC phones are better quality. The G2 for instance, or the Nexus One are very nice. Samsung's build quality is kinda meh, and while I havent heard any problems with Sony build quialty, they are the worst for upgrades to the OS. But these are just opinions. Best thing is to go to a store and try them out and see how they feel. Personally I would reccomend HTC over any of the others as they have decent quality and open bootloaders and are by far the best at sending out OS updates.
I agree. I have a G2, and it's a solid piece (build quality is exceptional, I'd say) and while the G2's bootloader isn't exactly "open" (in fact, one of the major complaints at its release was the protection stuff they put into it to prevent 3rd party firmware loads) it has been cracked and is fairly easy to root. Also happens to overclock nicely, and runs Cyanogenmod flawlessly.
Ah, another Heywood Banks aficionado. It's nice to attribute properly.
On the other hand, if it's obvious enough, attribution is implicit.
Reminds me of an "educational" song I was exposed to when I was five or six:
The Sun is a mass,
of incandescent gas,
a gigantic nuclear furnace.
So if SOHO says Sol has holes, we're SOL?
So you're saying that telecommuters and small business are the problem?
I have a hole, gas comes out, but it doesn't do much to harm Earth.
It harms me.
Yes, by contributing to global warming.
To make a long story short, after a generation the Chinese Army rolled in and took over the depopulated United States.
That may very well happen, but it won't take another generation. It wish it would, though ... then I could retire and die and not worry about it.
allowed and encouraged unions
Allowed, encouraged, and regulated unions, you mean. Contrary to popular belief, unions are not a panacea.
I agree with you. That piece of flesh is something I miss every day.
I guess it depends upon your definition of "necessary."
The accountability would have been restored if they were allowed to fail. You assume the bailout was designed to fix the system. This is not actually the case. In reality it was designed to set us up for an even bigger disaster. Those in power will use this bigger disaster to seize more power and manipulate the situation further.
Sure ... they've given up their traditional policy of incrementalism because it takes too damn long. They want more power now, and terrified, uneducated people are far more likely to give it to them. Is there a master plan here (America as a totalitarian state) or is this just power for the sake of power?
ecent cyber-attacks on the European Emissions Trading Scheme shut down that exchange's carbon market just a few weeks ago.
That's "subtle"?
Politics is all about division, to keep people busy while they steal the pie.
u mad? I won't bother wasting time on you, it's clear that you already have me all figured out in your head. But as a footnote I've lived in the US as well as a dozen other countries, I have 3 passports (yeah I know I'm only supposed to have 2), and I speak 7 languages fluently. I daresay the odds are good that I've seen a little bit more of the world than you have, but by all means continue chasing the windmills. After all I only need to fit your pre-conceived notion of what you think I am. Your mind is already made up.
Am I mad? No, not in either sense of the word. It's funny, and here I thought I was arguing against pre-conceived notions. Did you actually read my post, or did you just impose your own set of preconceptions upon me and mine, and immediately spew forth without thinking? If anyone is expressing a degree of arrogance that is typically attributed to Americans, I'd have to say it is you. The fact that you've seen a good deal of the world is irrelevant. We're not discussing world history, but that of the United States, and it's plain that you know far less about our history, our government, and our politics that you think. And I had no preconceived notions of you, although I'm beginning to form a few.
Echelon has always been about intelligence, not scooping up as much data as possible. The fabled Keyword Lists are from a bygone era, so who knows what's done now - I'm guessing the results are still used for corporate espionage regardless of methodology and tech changes.
Well, by some estimates the NSA is a century ahead of the rest of the world in advanced mathematics ... so yeah, it's a good bet that they're a lot more sophisticated nowadays.
Depending on the situation, most likely turn them over. Particularly because if it really were a matter of national security, say a terrorist threat, they don't want to be the scapegoat. All of that said, however, whether or not AT&T or Comcast have a backbone or not is a different issue entirely than what the article infers.
Oh ... they both have backbones.
But no spines.
Our high-sensitivity audio microphone dish mounted in some office window fifteen stories up and a block away? That's perfectly legitimate.
Probably not. For example, police are barred from using thermal imagers when trying to find pot growers because it's considered too invasive. Illegal search and seizure, etc., although those boundaries are eroding fast.
How is this different, other than moving part of the operation back on-shore [moving jobs back to America!]?
This is not about jobs. The difference is that by moving it back to the U.S., those operations are now subject to U.S. law, and can be more easily prosecuted. Why do you think Guantenemo Bay wasn't set up on U.S. territory? Because it's a hell of a lot easier to get away with things are illegal here if you don't do them here. And they're still getting away with it.
I'm sorry, but I agree with the parent here.
I'm sorry, but I don't. If you're going to smear an entire country like that, you're putting those who actually can and will do something in the same boat as those who don't give a fuck. It's also making the (unwarranted) assumption that everyone in American thinks the same way, wants the same things, cares about the same things. We don't. Hell, I'm an American too, and we're obviously disagreeing about something. That's how it's supposed to be, and maybe one or both of us comes away with a fresh perspective. Simply tarring everyone with the same brush discourages that, limits communication and creates bad feelings on both sides. How does that help? Tell me ... how does it?
Like the US?
The deeper you dig, the stronger the stench!
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. There are very, very few trustworthy governments on this planet (wherever you come from, I suspect that's true of yours as well.)
Do members of congress not understand what hypocrisy is or do they just not care?
My guess? They don't care.
I'm pretty sure they said the same thing about Mussolini - "Oh, he'll bring stability." Look, you NEVER want an army in charge of the government.
And frequently dictators do just that: bring stability, especially if you have a history of governments rising and being toppled. Eventually a dictator comes into power and rules with an iron fist and, for a while, life is "stable".
Note that that doesn't mean that life under such rule is pleasant or even worth living.
You know living in New York I often believe that most people really are more reasonable, realistic, and open-minded when it comes to these things. Of course, there are obviously a lot of people in this country who are easily bamboozled by people like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh.
Sooner or later (but probably never) we're going to realize that ignorance is not bliss but is, in fact, remarkably dangerous.
God should have a place in everything, since he does anyway.
I don't believe in God, but I grant that the belief that others hold can be of consequence to me.
Read the ten commandments and you see the first three rules are about not being or believing in "gods". Islam and other faiths have similar rules, and for the same reasons. They are rules for sustainable human behavior.
That's an excellent way to describe them, regardless of where they came from. Too bad more people haven't taken them to heart.
It's belief in human gods that has no place in government!
True enough. More correctly, it's human beings who believe that they have a special relationship with their God, one which supersedes that of everyone else, who should be kept far, far away from any position of power. Put it like this: there is no way to determine whether there is, or is not, a supreme being. Certainly not in any meaningful way that would convince someone like me (although many have tried.) That is the basis of faith as such: absolute knowledge either way would eliminate the need for faith which is, when you cut right to the bone, belief without fact.. Given fact, everything would change. I am personally satisfied with a more mechanistic view of the Universe, and see no reason to populate it with vast, supernatural forces that no-one has ever seen or can detect. Nevertheless, I accept that I could be wrong: I don't think that I am, and in any event don't lose much sleep over it. I have other things to worry about.
I know many who say they are convinced that God exists: I also wonder how many of them would be terrified beyond hope of recovery if science could ever demonstrate, unequivocably, that they are correct. When you get right down to it, a Supreme Being who actually notices us would be pretty damn scary. In the overall scheme of things we're cockroaches at best, and like that insect, we're far better off when those higher up the evolutionary ladder remain unaware of our existence. Heck, God has already wiped us out at least once and, if those of faith are to be believed, we're on track for another globe-spanning genocidal event any time now. My guess is that He won't bother with a Flood this time: we've acquired so much destructive capability of our own in the past few decades that He could probably induce us to wipe ourselves out with very little effort.
Still, even allowing that there is a God, there's no way to determine whether a given individual has some unusual ability to commune with said being, and that his word should be taken as coming from God. I would argue that all of those throughout history that have claimed to have a direct line to God are either lying or deluded, and use that fiction for personal gain. People are what they are, and being a member of an organized religion does not offer immunity to our baser instincts, or our ability to manufacture rationalizations for any imaginable behavior. The old adage that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" doesn't just apply to governmental politics. And there's no power more absolute than that coming from God, which makes that power (even if entirely fabricated) a very useful tool indeed.
Either way, a person who claims that "God told me to do x" should never, ever, be in charge of anyone or anything, because he will be able to rationalize anything in the Name of his God. History is quite clear on that point. The Founders (men of faith as they were) were smart enough to realize that theocratic government is invariably intolerant of that which is different, is outside the proscribed norms, and thus fundamentally incompatible with the ends they were trying to achieve.
Considering that this is Israeli technology*, this should be modded funny. We don't have the balls to tell Israel what to do.
Or is it? If the NSA/CIA wants something built and made available to their allies without the interference by Congress, just slip development money and specifications (or blueprints) to Israel.
That's kind of insulting to the Israeli tech people ... they're more than capable of developing this stuff on their own without any "blueprints" from us. What's more likely to have happened is that they were promised a nice contract from the NSA (or the FBI, or whoever) for the equipment once it was working well.
When will they just discard with the formalities and just say that every goverment agency can do anything whatsoever with no warrants and paperwork required. It would simplify the law too, they could sum it up in one sentence: "Everything is illegal".
I heard it put another way once:
There are two kinds of government:
1. All things are forbidden except those which are permitted.
2. All things are permitted except those which are forbidden.
America was by design in the latter camp, but we're rapidly heading towards the first.
When will they just discard with the formalities and just say that every goverment agency can do anything whatsoever with no warrants and paperwork required. It would simplify the law too, they could sum it up in one sentence: "Everything is illegal".
Two sentences:
Everything is legal for the government.
Nothing is legal for the citizen unless the government says so.
There are many, many nations on this planet which operate along those precise lines. None of them are places where I would choose to live.