This entirely about Australian airport authorities and the article does not mention the TSA. This whole setup is designed to expedite searching suspected drug mules and, in fairness, could get some of them to a hospital before drugs they've swallowed kill them.
Perhaps a better solution would be to only allow one book to be taken out per user. Makes more sense and most people don't read more than one book at a time anyways. If they want to keep the ebook they can buy it.
Really? I've never met someone who only reads one book at a time. It may only be occasionally that they'll stop one book halfway and get distracted, but that's two at a time.
The worst part, from a user experience perspective, is that it sounds like a reasonable limitation. When users do run into it and are frustrated, and that's what they'll tell other people about, no matter how good it is overall.
Every time an article comes on here about Anon everybody bashes the news organizations for saying Anonymous has a hierarchy with 'senior' members, leaders, and so forth.
While the news orgs assume that there is some old guy with a title running things, and that's probably wrong, there is going to be a hierarchy. At some point, they're making decisions, and some members will more often defer to others on the groups' overall direction. This is probably a fairly informal hierarchy, and may even shift from one project to another, but it's going to be there. The division of labor is a natural phenomenon that happens even if you don't plan on it.
So why are you so quick to accept this? How can this press release saying 'Its not really us' carry any more weight then one saying "It's us".
If this is fake claim by WBC, it fits with WBC's modus operandi of preemptive victimhood. If it is a legit claim by WBC, it doesn't fit with Anonymous's pattern of attacking "big fish," that is, banks, the US government, etc. They find a big, respectable, trusted name and make them look incompetent. Really, what could they possibly do to WBC to make them look worse?
...and I cherish the First Amendment above all the others....
Hang out with the Guard long enough and #3 starts looking pretty damned important. Not to mention the fact that there are some pretty important parts of the original constitution. You can't, for instance, be all for big government without loving that commerce clause, though by now it's gotten so much love it makes goatse look puckered.
...but just this once....I'm gonna be spending all my time looking in another direction.
Sorry, but you should just turn in your badge and gun. You're not fit to call yourself Defender of the Internets any more./sarc.
While the government has an absolute duty to not actively infringe on your rights, it has a very finite duty to prevent others from infringing on your rights. I have a right to be secure in my person, but that doesn't mean the government should hire a cop to babysit me. (That's what 2A is for.)
And while I'll defend your right to free speech to the death, that doesn't mean I'm going to jump in with you if you decide to do performance art in the lion's exhibit.
As free speech goes, I have no problem with the WBC holding a rally. I'd rather their views be aired so that everyone knows we heard what they had to say and rejected it. But this guy wants to do it over and over again, in the most offensive way imaginable, and in such a manner that it's as outrageous as he can imagine.
Our system of law is not perfect and, given that he's making his living off it, he knows damned well it's not perfect. If someone is going to knowingly push the law past its ability to protect their rights, my reaction is, "pass the popcorn." In a nutshell, there's no particular line he can cross that should make us stop upholding it, that is, there's no magic formula that says, "okay, that's too much, we're going to withdraw the cops and let the mob at you."
What's going to happen is that the city budget will run out, or a cop will be distracted, or the mob will be too big. Basically, our finite resources will run out and since, so far, Phelps *hasn't* gotten his wish to be a martyr, this means we are truly rich, as a nation, where it counts.
It's not a Ponzi scheme since there are viable alternatives for keeping the system solvent until the boomers are mostly dead. It's only a Ponzi scheme if it's impossible for it to be sustained. It isn't. You may not like the choices, but there are choices.
So, viable alternative #1, cutting benefits, instead of a conman telling you "you're screwed, you're not getting your money back" it's the government telling you that.
And with viable alternative #2, increasing taxes, instead the whole thing falling apart when the con is discovered, the government says, "you're going to continue paying and you'll pay more, or you can have no income or you can go to jail."
It's definitely not a Ponzi scheme, that's for sure.
(Doubling up here for the quoted part) 1 . For every person who swears they could make a lot more investing their money themselves there are 2 or 3 who try it and fail, and 2 or 3 more who keep meaning to get around to it but don't ever get their act together. Maybe the parent could really do it, maybe he's smarter and more self disciplined than a lot of other people who have made the same boast, but statistically, he's way wrong.
Most of us just get a 401K account, or a TSP if you're military / government. People can easily get 10% rate of return, and doing that over 30 years you can pile up a good amount of money, and if you shovel it into bonds towards the end you're not likely to lose it.
According to this calculator, which is based on historical data, the rates of return for SS are miserable. Even if you left your money in bonds the whole time you could beat SS.
See, this is how the Apple RDF works. You think that this is a new service and that Apple is offering it first when neither are true. There has been a multitude of hardware vendors offering network and internet boot appliances for a long, long time now.
Have you ever heard the phrase "The network is the computer."? If you don't know it's Oracle's slogan. Oracle released a diskless network booted workstation in 1996, the same year that Apple only started offering online storage.
Somehow in the Apple world this means that what Oracle did 14 years ago, and that other hardware manufacturers have been doing all along, somehow magically didn't happen.
Yes, it is their slogan and has been for about a year and a half.
Apple has had network booting for some time now (hold N while booting, or select "network" as your default startup disk).
To be specific, since Mac OS 8, as in classic Mac OS. And it's been in OS X since an early version of OS X Server.
Best evidence I could find is here. This was part of the reason the classic Mac OS installer would allow you to do an install with a universal set of drivers.
So unless the advertising was for RAMAC's, which you can't just buy anymore, I'm not seeing it.
Try actually following the link in the article.
The banner at the top of the page alone has two ads, one for macworld and one going to doubleclick currently offering deals on a car.
Then directly below the text in the slideshow is another doubleclick ad, in this one case wanting to sell Mercury Elite-AL Pro 'Dual mini' hard drives, which you can buy anymore (In fact they just went on the market in the last year)
Steam cultist remind me of Apple fanboys. "Oh but it's Steam, it's GOOD DRM!" Hilarious! It's still DRM that can disable your games at any time of their chosing.
Or it can disable your games just because your connection isn't working. After I paid off my last credit card, I thought, okay, that was a stupid thing to agree to, so why would I ever agree to it again? And, so far, I haven't gotten another one.
I'm not so worried about DRM for games because, really, I don't need to play them and on the occasions where I can't it always forces me to do something more productive with my time. But, I definitely do find that it pushes me away from buying a game at all. It's just a lousy deal.
This will just lead to more state parties moving to closed primaries.
Closed primaries do nothing to reduce the effectiveness of an organized effort launched two years prior to an election to get people to vote in a particular primary of a particular party, regardless of where there loyalties lie.
It would affect the effectiveness of similar efforts conducted at the last minute, or individuals crossing over based on late polls.
That's two years for the other side to counter it.
I'll certainly be voting in my primary for the first time having heard this news, and will make sure I publicize this.
Most people forget he originally said he wouldn't run for President because he didn't have enough experience. He turned right around and started running for President about a year and half in to being a Senator. So much for truth and honesty.
I don't think he promised not to run, he just said he thought it would be a bad idea.
... is that elections are largely driven by economic fundamentals and (to some degree) random chance. Meaning, there's a non-trivial probability that Palin might beat Obama. I'm not trying to be an ass about Palin, because I'm sure she's a nice person in the right context, but she has not demonstrated anything close to the knowledge and/or responsibility that I would expect in a Presidential candidate.
She is an excellent recruiter. She's done great things in bringing more conservative women into Republican politics, so if liberals really believe what they say about diversity, they should be cheering her on in bringing more of it to the GOP. I'd prefer she keep doing what she's doing.
But... let's compare her to Obama. I've never heard the man say anything particularly profound about anything aside from his favorite topic, himself and how wonderful it is that he's president. He barely even attempts to demonstrate that he understand's the views of people who disagree with him. If he's not dismissing legitimate complaints as "obstructionism", he'll fall back on his usual shtick of claiming that the other side is presenting a false choice. Even the delivery is mediocre; the man really does live off his teleprompter, and is a terrible extemporaneous speaker. His press conferences are agonizing as he rambles through the simplest questions.
Pretty much all the complaints you can make about Palin's style of politics you can make about Obama's, except that he's a movement liberal instead of a populist conservative, he doesn't have that annoying accent and he is more genteel in his delivery. The media made a huge stink about how Palin's "death panels" claim, yet they ignored how Obama claimed surgeons were doing unnecessary amputations for diabetic patients. If anything, he's worse: at least Palin doesn't routinely call for bipartisanship *while* she's slamming the Democrats. And I've never heard her completely dismiss entire portions of the American population as he did with his "bitter clingers" remark.
Palin isn't my ideal candidate, not by a long shot, but if you idiots push her into the general, I'm voting for her.
Hmm. Seems to me their biggest problem is that they allowed clients with a known bug to become supernodes
Isn't the biggest problem the monolithic app design?
Look at this bug: it's due to counting the number of voicemail messages. *Why* did that take out the node completely?
This makes a pretty good argument for modularizing a GUI into discrete tools. Not only does it protect me from bugs in one tool, but I also don't have to run stuff I'm not interested in.
But Lord High Julian never made a mistake and ALLL information needs to be free ALL the time.
When it comes to my government once again fucking about in a country it has no business meddling with, absolutely.
Right! We need a way to figure out what is the legitimate scope of what our government can do in the name of national security.
We can't exactly poll the entire American people, but maybe if we had some "representatives" of the people elected by a "vote", those representatives could confer with the elected President to determine a policy that, as best as possible, represented the will of the people...
That is, until, some asshat decides to disenfranchise all 300+ million of us by completely derailing that foreign policy.
Music has always been free. It is going to naturally reject the futile attempt to monetise every aspect off it because the next generation of people aren't stupid enough to respect your sort of logic.
My logic? All I'm saying is that everyone involved in getting a song on the radio, or as sheet music or however, at some point, has to pay their bills. (And the fatcats, really, are a drop in the bucket of the overall costs.) And not just once or twice, people want to start families and save for retirement, so for most of them it needs to work pretty consistently.
Those are just the constraints of reality. And I'm just observing that wailing about the children doesn't change that.
its wrong for the busker to stop playing, break his guitar over a cheapskates head and then steal his wallet and run off.
I'd hope he didn't run off too quick; I'd have a fucking 20 for him if I saw that.
For fucks' sake, kindergartens aren't undercutting their sales and making them lose profit!
Arguing that it's a trivial amount of money works both ways. If it's so trivial, it's also not a big deal for the schools to pay. They're just being cheapskates.
"They're treating the schools like everyone else" - and the fact that you don't see the problem with the way they are treating people means that you can only be a psychopath.
You seriously missed the previous sentence which started with, "they seem to be going about it like assholes"?
Why should schools be able to stiff all the people who work to produce a song and release it? Because of "the children"? Really?
They seem to be going about it like assholes, and there are certainly plenty of problems with copyright and IP law as it is. But the fact that they're treating schools like everyone else isn't a problem.
I would divide by ten or drop it an order of magnitude, whichever made more sense.
Aren't those the same thing?
I must have reflexively tried to avoid applying numeric operations to non-numeric things, having been mentally scarred by atrocities like "LEADERSHIP * TEAMWORK = SUCCESS".
While I appreciate your pedantry, a vital prerequisite to posting on/., I must point out that the proper question would be, "wouldn't any case in which it made sense to divide by ten also be a case in which it made sense to drop an order of magnitude?" The answer would be yes.
Slashdot Mirror
This entirely about Australian airport authorities and the article does not mention the TSA. This whole setup is designed to expedite searching suspected drug mules and, in fairness, could get some of them to a hospital before drugs they've swallowed kill them.
The real story here is that we wouldn't be hearing about this if it weren't for the war on drugs.
But seriously, if you're using PHP and you start worrying about The Rules, you've thrown out your only reason for using PHP at all.
Perhaps a better solution would be to only allow one book to be taken out per user. Makes more sense and most people don't read more than one book at a time anyways. If they want to keep the ebook they can buy it.
Really? I've never met someone who only reads one book at a time. It may only be occasionally that they'll stop one book halfway and get distracted, but that's two at a time.
The worst part, from a user experience perspective, is that it sounds like a reasonable limitation. When users do run into it and are frustrated, and that's what they'll tell other people about, no matter how good it is overall.
Every time an article comes on here about Anon everybody bashes the news organizations for saying Anonymous has a hierarchy with 'senior' members, leaders, and so forth.
While the news orgs assume that there is some old guy with a title running things, and that's probably wrong, there is going to be a hierarchy. At some point, they're making decisions, and some members will more often defer to others on the groups' overall direction. This is probably a fairly informal hierarchy, and may even shift from one project to another, but it's going to be there. The division of labor is a natural phenomenon that happens even if you don't plan on it.
So why are you so quick to accept this? How can this press release saying 'Its not really us' carry any more weight then one saying "It's us".
If this is fake claim by WBC, it fits with WBC's modus operandi of preemptive victimhood. If it is a legit claim by WBC, it doesn't fit with Anonymous's pattern of attacking "big fish," that is, banks, the US government, etc. They find a big, respectable, trusted name and make them look incompetent. Really, what could they possibly do to WBC to make them look worse?
...and I cherish the First Amendment above all the others....
Hang out with the Guard long enough and #3 starts looking pretty damned important. Not to mention the fact that there are some pretty important parts of the original constitution. You can't, for instance, be all for big government without loving that commerce clause, though by now it's gotten so much love it makes goatse look puckered.
...but just this once....I'm gonna be spending all my time looking in another direction.
Sorry, but you should just turn in your badge and gun. You're not fit to call yourself Defender of the Internets any more. /sarc.
While the government has an absolute duty to not actively infringe on your rights, it has a very finite duty to prevent others from infringing on your rights. I have a right to be secure in my person, but that doesn't mean the government should hire a cop to babysit me. (That's what 2A is for.)
And while I'll defend your right to free speech to the death, that doesn't mean I'm going to jump in with you if you decide to do performance art in the lion's exhibit.
As free speech goes, I have no problem with the WBC holding a rally. I'd rather their views be aired so that everyone knows we heard what they had to say and rejected it. But this guy wants to do it over and over again, in the most offensive way imaginable, and in such a manner that it's as outrageous as he can imagine.
Our system of law is not perfect and, given that he's making his living off it, he knows damned well it's not perfect. If someone is going to knowingly push the law past its ability to protect their rights, my reaction is, "pass the popcorn." In a nutshell, there's no particular line he can cross that should make us stop upholding it, that is, there's no magic formula that says, "okay, that's too much, we're going to withdraw the cops and let the mob at you."
What's going to happen is that the city budget will run out, or a cop will be distracted, or the mob will be too big. Basically, our finite resources will run out and since, so far, Phelps *hasn't* gotten his wish to be a martyr, this means we are truly rich, as a nation, where it counts.
It's not a Ponzi scheme since there are viable alternatives for keeping the system solvent until the boomers are mostly dead. It's only a Ponzi scheme if it's impossible for it to be sustained. It isn't. You may not like the choices, but there are choices.
So, viable alternative #1, cutting benefits, instead of a conman telling you "you're screwed, you're not getting your money back" it's the government telling you that.
And with viable alternative #2, increasing taxes, instead the whole thing falling apart when the con is discovered, the government says, "you're going to continue paying and you'll pay more, or you can have no income or you can go to jail."
It's definitely not a Ponzi scheme, that's for sure.
Because the difference in receiving $145 / year for life instead of $135 is so great a risk?
Spoken like someone who has never had to live on a fixed income, but almost certainly will someday, IF he is lucky.
I'll bet you'd be the first in line to demand more services from your local government, and damn the effect on property taxes!
(Note for the clueless: property taxes cause the most hardship for people on a fixed income.)
(Doubling up here for the quoted part)
1 . For every person who swears they could make a lot more investing their money themselves there are 2 or 3 who try it and fail, and 2 or 3 more who keep meaning to get around to it but don't ever get their act together. Maybe the parent could really do it, maybe he's smarter and more self disciplined than a lot of other people who have made the same boast, but statistically, he's way wrong.
Most of us just get a 401K account, or a TSP if you're military / government. People can easily get 10% rate of return, and doing that over 30 years you can pile up a good amount of money, and if you shovel it into bonds towards the end you're not likely to lose it.
According to this calculator, which is based on historical data, the rates of return for SS are miserable. Even if you left your money in bonds the whole time you could beat SS.
See, this is how the Apple RDF works. You think that this is a new service and that Apple is offering it first when neither are true. There has been a multitude of hardware vendors offering network and internet boot appliances for a long, long time now.
Have you ever heard the phrase "The network is the computer."? If you don't know it's Oracle's slogan. Oracle released a diskless network booted workstation in 1996, the same year that Apple only started offering online storage.
Somehow in the Apple world this means that what Oracle did 14 years ago, and that other hardware manufacturers have been doing all along, somehow magically didn't happen.
Yes, it is their slogan and has been for about a year and a half.
The article is nonsense.
Apple has had network booting for some time now (hold N while booting, or select "network" as your default startup disk).
To be specific, since Mac OS 8, as in classic Mac OS. And it's been in OS X since an early version of OS X Server.
Best evidence I could find is here. This was part of the reason the classic Mac OS installer would allow you to do an install with a universal set of drivers.
They did, a while back, but it didn't work out so well.
So unless the advertising was for RAMAC's, which you can't just buy anymore, I'm not seeing it.
Try actually following the link in the article.
The banner at the top of the page alone has two ads, one for macworld and one going to doubleclick currently offering deals on a car.
Then directly below the text in the slideshow is another doubleclick ad, in this one case wanting to sell Mercury Elite-AL Pro 'Dual mini' hard drives, which you can buy anymore (In fact they just went on the market in the last year)
Ads? I didn't see any ads.
or games which only use Steam for DRM
Steam cultist remind me of Apple fanboys. "Oh but it's Steam, it's GOOD DRM!" Hilarious! It's still DRM that can disable your games at any time of their chosing.
Or it can disable your games just because your connection isn't working. After I paid off my last credit card, I thought, okay, that was a stupid thing to agree to, so why would I ever agree to it again? And, so far, I haven't gotten another one.
I'm not so worried about DRM for games because, really, I don't need to play them and on the occasions where I can't it always forces me to do something more productive with my time. But, I definitely do find that it pushes me away from buying a game at all. It's just a lousy deal.
This will just lead to more state parties moving to closed primaries.
Closed primaries do nothing to reduce the effectiveness of an organized effort launched two years prior to an election to get people to vote in a particular primary of a particular party, regardless of where there loyalties lie.
It would affect the effectiveness of similar efforts conducted at the last minute, or individuals crossing over based on late polls.
That's two years for the other side to counter it.
I'll certainly be voting in my primary for the first time having heard this news, and will make sure I publicize this.
Most people forget he originally said he wouldn't run for President because he didn't have enough experience. He turned right around and started running for President about a year and half in to being a Senator. So much for truth and honesty.
I don't think he promised not to run, he just said he thought it would be a bad idea.
... is that elections are largely driven by economic fundamentals and (to some degree) random chance. Meaning, there's a non-trivial probability that Palin might beat Obama. I'm not trying to be an ass about Palin, because I'm sure she's a nice person in the right context, but she has not demonstrated anything close to the knowledge and/or responsibility that I would expect in a Presidential candidate.
She is an excellent recruiter. She's done great things in bringing more conservative women into Republican politics, so if liberals really believe what they say about diversity, they should be cheering her on in bringing more of it to the GOP. I'd prefer she keep doing what she's doing.
But... let's compare her to Obama. I've never heard the man say anything particularly profound about anything aside from his favorite topic, himself and how wonderful it is that he's president. He barely even attempts to demonstrate that he understand's the views of people who disagree with him. If he's not dismissing legitimate complaints as "obstructionism", he'll fall back on his usual shtick of claiming that the other side is presenting a false choice. Even the delivery is mediocre; the man really does live off his teleprompter, and is a terrible extemporaneous speaker. His press conferences are agonizing as he rambles through the simplest questions.
Pretty much all the complaints you can make about Palin's style of politics you can make about Obama's, except that he's a movement liberal instead of a populist conservative, he doesn't have that annoying accent and he is more genteel in his delivery. The media made a huge stink about how Palin's "death panels" claim, yet they ignored how Obama claimed surgeons were doing unnecessary amputations for diabetic patients. If anything, he's worse: at least Palin doesn't routinely call for bipartisanship *while* she's slamming the Democrats. And I've never heard her completely dismiss entire portions of the American population as he did with his "bitter clingers" remark.
Palin isn't my ideal candidate, not by a long shot, but if you idiots push her into the general, I'm voting for her.
Hmm. Seems to me their biggest problem is that they allowed clients with a known bug to become supernodes
Isn't the biggest problem the monolithic app design?
Look at this bug: it's due to counting the number of voicemail messages. *Why* did that take out the node completely?
This makes a pretty good argument for modularizing a GUI into discrete tools. Not only does it protect me from bugs in one tool, but I also don't have to run stuff I'm not interested in.
But Lord High Julian never made a mistake and ALLL information needs to be free ALL the time.
When it comes to my government once again fucking about in a country it has no business meddling with, absolutely.
Right! We need a way to figure out what is the legitimate scope of what our government can do in the name of national security.
We can't exactly poll the entire American people, but maybe if we had some "representatives" of the people elected by a "vote", those representatives could confer with the elected President to determine a policy that, as best as possible, represented the will of the people...
That is, until, some asshat decides to disenfranchise all 300+ million of us by completely derailing that foreign policy.
Disclosure: I'm involved in the Drupal project. I develop for Drupal. I've been developing for Drupal for 6 years.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Music has always been free. It is going to naturally reject the futile attempt to monetise every aspect off it because the next generation of people aren't stupid enough to respect your sort of logic.
My logic? All I'm saying is that everyone involved in getting a song on the radio, or as sheet music or however, at some point, has to pay their bills. (And the fatcats, really, are a drop in the bucket of the overall costs.) And not just once or twice, people want to start families and save for retirement, so for most of them it needs to work pretty consistently.
Those are just the constraints of reality. And I'm just observing that wailing about the children doesn't change that.
its wrong for the busker to stop playing, break his guitar over a cheapskates head and then steal his wallet and run off.
I'd hope he didn't run off too quick; I'd have a fucking 20 for him if I saw that.
For fucks' sake, kindergartens aren't undercutting their sales and making them lose profit!
Arguing that it's a trivial amount of money works both ways. If it's so trivial, it's also not a big deal for the schools to pay. They're just being cheapskates.
"They're treating the schools like everyone else" - and the fact that you don't see the problem with the way they are treating people means that you can only be a psychopath.
You seriously missed the previous sentence which started with, "they seem to be going about it like assholes"?
Should they be going after schools? Hell no.
Why should schools be able to stiff all the people who work to produce a song and release it? Because of "the children"? Really?
They seem to be going about it like assholes, and there are certainly plenty of problems with copyright and IP law as it is. But the fact that they're treating schools like everyone else isn't a problem.
"modules, which can be thought of as add-ons that extend the capabilities of Drupal in specific ways — oftentimes in conjunction with other modules"
Just another day's work for... CAPTAAAAIIIIIIIIN OBVIOUS!
Stay tuned for our next episode where Michael explains what hypertext is and how to use a mouse!
I would divide by ten or drop it an order of magnitude, whichever made more sense.
Aren't those the same thing?
I must have reflexively tried to avoid applying numeric operations to non-numeric things, having been mentally scarred by atrocities like "LEADERSHIP * TEAMWORK = SUCCESS".
While I appreciate your pedantry, a vital prerequisite to posting on /., I must point out that the proper question would be, "wouldn't any case in which it made sense to divide by ten also be a case in which it made sense to drop an order of magnitude?" The answer would be yes.