They could, except the FBI screwed up and changed the cloud password for the phone (locking themselves out of it in an attempt to keep anyone else out of it) and while the County paid for the employer option of being able to reset the PIN on their owned phones, they never actually got around to installing it on their employee's phones. Now they want Apple to bail them out of their mistakes by creating a special version of their phone OS which drops all the PIN code brute force protection.
And they wonder why some of us don't trust the competency of the government to hold and protect special access to every encrypted device we own.... after all, its not like they've had their own top secret personnel vetting files breached and exposed, right? What could possibly go wrong...
Only U.S. companies were impacted like that, not companies in other countries, including multi-nationals with different companies in different countries.
From an anti-embargo article in Forbes: "Moreover, since Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct business in Cuba unimpeded, the sanctions are rather toothless. The State Department has argued that the cost of conducting business in Cuba is only negligibly higher because of the embargo. For American multinational corporations wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba, foreign branches find it easy to conduct exchanges."
From a Clinton Administration State department report: "Rationing has been a staple of Cuban life since the early 1960's. During the early 1990's, Cuba's food consumption deteriorated sharply, when massive amounts of Soviet aid were withdrawn. On its own, without Soviet largesse and abundant food imports, Cuban agriculture was paralyzed by a scarcity of inputs and poor production incentives resulting from collectivism and the lack of appropriate price signals. In pre-Castro Cuba, by contrast, food supplies were abundant." one of many quotes showing that pre-revolution Cuba was much more prosperous and that it's collectivism that's killed Cuba. The only thing that propped Cuba up for a while was the much larger Soviet Union paying them off to be a thorn in the side of the U.S.
A blockade (keeping other people out) isn't the same as an embargo (not trading yourself). Cuba has been free to trade with the other 195 countries in the world. With the cost of shipping from the other side of the world (say, China) extremely low, there is virtually no difference between them trading with the U.S. and trading with the rest of the world. Not only that, but anything made specifically in the U.S. can get to Cuba by just transhipping it via another country. The biggest impact of the embargo has been Cuban access to U.S. financial markets, for which there are many other alternatives out there.
A fictional business entity should not have any political rights at all.
So you're contending the NY Times isn't entitled to any free speech rights when it publishes newspapers and the ACLU can be told by the government which causes they are allowed support?
Because those are corporations...
What you seem to be missing is that corporations are a method/tool people use to exercise their rights. Publishing a movie about a political candidate (as in the case in question, Citizens United) is exactly the type of political speech the constitution was intended to protect.
I strung him along by responding literally to his questions while using a handy FreeBSD server I had sitting there under the table until he gave me their logmein url(which I later reported to logmein support, who promised to close their account), then allowed him to finally make sense of my somewhat responses (I don't see a Start button, but I do have a window I can type that command in... What version am I using? The OS says version 10, etc...) when I finally asked him what kind of computer engineer has never heard of FreeBSD before...
Missing part of a sentence... The "fastest" route for me took me about 30% our of the way from a "direct" route, because there wasn't a direct route along a shortest path.
I used to live in Northern VA and had to commute (like most people there) 50+ minutes each way, and that was only traveling 20 miles, but it was mostly north-south. I'm sure you can do the math on average speed there. The "fastest" route for me took me about
Other than the two east-west freeways, there are typically one, or sometimes as many as two streets which "go through" from one city to the next. It's all small winding highways at best in a North-south direction. That's it. So all the traffic dumps through those north-south streets, even if they're residential streets and even if the drivers are just passing through town. Four-way stops become nightmares at some of those intersections.
They really do need to just bite the bullet and purchase/tear-down some houses to make multiple real routes between towns, rather then have all the traffic hitting mile after mile of residential areas.
But because of the focused money/population/expanding government agencies around the DC area sucking the rest of the country dry, property values are ridiculous the closer you get to DC, on the order of millions of dollars per small house, so you can see why they don't want to have to pay to demolish in order to put new roads in.
The summary is BS. It says the Republicans are trying to change the definition, when what's being argued with is the FCC arbitrarily changing their previous definition:
"As part of its 2015 Broadband Progress Report, the Federal Communications Commission has voted to change the definition of broadband by raising the minimum download speeds needed from 4Mbps to 25Mbps, and the minimum upload speed from 1Mbps to 3Mbps, which effectively triples the number of US households without broadband access."
You may want people to have faster speeds, but changing what terms mean isn't an honest way to go about it. Anything over dial-up or ISDN speeds is technically broadband. If you want to have a standard for 25 MBs internet, call it "4K TV speed" or something, but don't pretend that suddenly the definition of broadband has changed and thus overnight there are 3 times as many people "without broadband" as there were the day before, even though their access speeds didn't change.
The issue was the landing site wasn't properly approved for helicopter landings. Fortunately, the local officials are reasonable and Uber made an agreement with the County to use the Sheriff's landing pad instead so that flights could continue during the festival.
From a follow-up story: "Thanks to the county's proactive outreach, we have developed an alternative landing site for uberCHOPPER that serves riders and accommodates residents," Patterson said.
The story is about NY and CA. You don't get more Democrat than that. It's not like they'll pass anything without the Dems.
If the Republicans are worse, we'd see similar bills across the GOP-controlled states, yet we don't. Republicans aren't perfect, for sure, but wake up a bit to the Dems, eh?
NASA officially had a policy not to list female contributors to papers as co-authors?
Nope. In fact, if you read the gutenberg link in the summary, it clearly states that she was listed as a co-author. i.e.:
NASA TND-233, “The Determination of Azimuth Angle at Burnout for Placing a Satellite over a Selected Earth Position” 1960. Authors: T.H. Skopinski, Katherine G. Johnson
The link says her contributions were greater than the mere "computers" and proves it by stating she co-authored 26 papers, so while there may have been a policy not to list the people who did the underlying math for you (Seen a TI-30Xa listed as a co-author recently?), they clearly listed female contributors.
Trying to get the facts on something through the media is like playing a game of deliberately biased "telephone", however.
She co-authored 26 papers and was listed as an author in a NASA peer-reviewed report. I know the summary makes it sound like she didn't get any credit for her work at the time, but actually following and reading the gutenberg link provided makes the point she was more knowledgeable than the rest because she was credited when normally someone who was just a "computer" wouldn't have been, implying she was more than just another "computer".
The whole "NASA policy" part of the summary is clearly wrong with regards to female "contributors", as she was both female and listed as a co-author in a NASA paper in 1960. It's a confused mishmash of "computers" not being credited, trying to imply that was because they were predominantly female at the time, which simply isn't true. Seen any papers lately where a TI-30Xa is listed as a coauthor? Yeah, me neither.
Something like 80% of the population supports stricter gun laws
You're apparently stuck in a left-wing bubble somewhere. Even right after a mass shooting, a majority of the population opposes stricter gun control laws. Here's the first reference I found in Google from CNN. Care to cite your 80% number study?
Shootings by bad guys tend to last until the first good guy (cop, or not) with a gun arrives.
More guns in responsible private hands in the U.S. results in fewer mass shootings with less victims.
The bad guys will get (or make) guns if they want to. Even in prison. The technology is well understood by anyone who wants to learn it.
So yeah, we'd like to limit mass (and other) shootings by increasing the number of people capable of stopping them. As it turns out, no increase in stricter gun laws is known to have resulted in a lower crime rate.
What's amazing is that even though the Democratic process by which laws are passed in the U.S. is clearly not in favor of stricter gun laws, somehow a supposedly Democratic President refuses the "will of the people" and wants to do anything he can to unilaterally and potentially unconstitutionally (with the mental health stuff) circumvent it.
If the issue is new laws need to be passed that clarify and fund enabling people who are an actual threat to others to have due process of law and have their rights taken away (including getting locked up in an institution, a process the folks with a D after their name destroyed about 30 years ago or so), then yeah, let's have that debate in Congress where it (and other new laws) are supposed to begin.
Yeah, once you have an exploit giving you access to the OS, let alone having it running an open source Unix (rather than some special windows derivative), the bulk of the work has been done.
I'm not "completely wrong in that regard." as my actual statement (which you seem to have read as the opposite meaning) was 'No one with any comprehension of their history would call them "Linux-like"' It sounds like you agree with me on that.
Linux is "Unix-like". It was made to be similar to Unix in behavior, but be based on different underlying code.
FreeBSD is literally Unix (descended from the "Berkely Software Distribution" of Unix). It's not the only version of Unix, but it's more Unix in origin than say, Ubuntu or Redhat are Linux in origin, as they also inherit significant parts of their origins from GNU utilities. No one with any comprehension of their history would call them "Linux-like", though.
As I've said elsewhere, the jailbreak is the accomplishment.
If you can jailbreak it enough to boot Linux, then using a similar method to open up an SSH daemon on the existing OS to the local network and setting up a local user id to login with should be pretty simple by comparison, right?
Getting Linux to run on something already running FreeBSD is like saying you managed to replace Redhat with Centos on a machine... wow, what a tough task...
I'll go back to configuring Postfix on my new "Unix-like" FreeBSD server so I can ship it out to the data center on Monday...
So they managed to install Linux on a machine already running an OS based on an open source Unix which already comes with a full Linux kernel/software compatibility layer? That's such an amazing accomplishment...
What will they do next, get some ports running on it and make it do useful work? Figure out how to get a unix shell on an OS X machine?
Slashdot Mirror
They could, except the FBI screwed up and changed the cloud password for the phone (locking themselves out of it in an attempt to keep anyone else out of it) and while the County paid for the employer option of being able to reset the PIN on their owned phones, they never actually got around to installing it on their employee's phones. Now they want Apple to bail them out of their mistakes by creating a special version of their phone OS which drops all the PIN code brute force protection.
And they wonder why some of us don't trust the competency of the government to hold and protect special access to every encrypted device we own.... after all, its not like they've had their own top secret personnel vetting files breached and exposed, right? What could possibly go wrong...
Only U.S. companies were impacted like that, not companies in other countries, including multi-nationals with different companies in different countries.
From an anti-embargo article in Forbes: "Moreover, since Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct business in Cuba unimpeded, the sanctions are rather toothless. The State Department has argued that the cost of conducting business in Cuba is only negligibly higher because of the embargo. For American multinational corporations wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba, foreign branches find it easy to conduct exchanges."
From a Clinton Administration State department report: "Rationing has been a staple of Cuban life since the early 1960's. During the early 1990's, Cuba's food consumption deteriorated sharply, when massive amounts of Soviet aid were withdrawn. On its own, without Soviet largesse and abundant food imports, Cuban agriculture was paralyzed by a scarcity of inputs and poor production incentives resulting from collectivism and the lack of appropriate price signals. In pre-Castro Cuba, by contrast, food supplies were abundant." one of many quotes showing that pre-revolution Cuba was much more prosperous and that it's collectivism that's killed Cuba. The only thing that propped Cuba up for a while was the much larger Soviet Union paying them off to be a thorn in the side of the U.S.
A blockade (keeping other people out) isn't the same as an embargo (not trading yourself). Cuba has been free to trade with the other 195 countries in the world. With the cost of shipping from the other side of the world (say, China) extremely low, there is virtually no difference between them trading with the U.S. and trading with the rest of the world. Not only that, but anything made specifically in the U.S. can get to Cuba by just transhipping it via another country. The biggest impact of the embargo has been Cuban access to U.S. financial markets, for which there are many other alternatives out there.
So you're contending the NY Times isn't entitled to any free speech rights when it publishes newspapers and the ACLU can be told by the government which causes they are allowed support?
Because those are corporations...
What you seem to be missing is that corporations are a method/tool people use to exercise their rights. Publishing a movie about a political candidate (as in the case in question, Citizens United) is exactly the type of political speech the constitution was intended to protect.
I strung him along by responding literally to his questions while using a handy FreeBSD server I had sitting there under the table until he gave me their logmein url(which I later reported to logmein support, who promised to close their account), then allowed him to finally make sense of my somewhat responses (I don't see a Start button, but I do have a window I can type that command in... What version am I using? The OS says version 10, etc...) when I finally asked him what kind of computer engineer has never heard of FreeBSD before...
Missing part of a sentence... The "fastest" route for me took me about 30% our of the way from a "direct" route, because there wasn't a direct route along a shortest path.
I used to live in Northern VA and had to commute (like most people there) 50+ minutes each way, and that was only traveling 20 miles, but it was mostly north-south. I'm sure you can do the math on average speed there. The "fastest" route for me took me about
Other than the two east-west freeways, there are typically one, or sometimes as many as two streets which "go through" from one city to the next. It's all small winding highways at best in a North-south direction. That's it. So all the traffic dumps through those north-south streets, even if they're residential streets and even if the drivers are just passing through town. Four-way stops become nightmares at some of those intersections.
They really do need to just bite the bullet and purchase/tear-down some houses to make multiple real routes between towns, rather then have all the traffic hitting mile after mile of residential areas.
But because of the focused money/population/expanding government agencies around the DC area sucking the rest of the country dry, property values are ridiculous the closer you get to DC, on the order of millions of dollars per small house, so you can see why they don't want to have to pay to demolish in order to put new roads in.
The summary is BS. It says the Republicans are trying to change the definition, when what's being argued with is the FCC arbitrarily changing their previous definition:
"As part of its 2015 Broadband Progress Report, the Federal Communications Commission has voted to change the definition of broadband by raising the minimum download speeds needed from 4Mbps to 25Mbps, and the minimum upload speed from 1Mbps to 3Mbps, which effectively triples the number of US households without broadband access."
You may want people to have faster speeds, but changing what terms mean isn't an honest way to go about it. Anything over dial-up or ISDN speeds is technically broadband. If you want to have a standard for 25 MBs internet, call it "4K TV speed" or something, but don't pretend that suddenly the definition of broadband has changed and thus overnight there are 3 times as many people "without broadband" as there were the day before, even though their access speeds didn't change.
The issue was the landing site wasn't properly approved for helicopter landings. Fortunately, the local officials are reasonable and Uber made an agreement with the County to use the Sheriff's landing pad instead so that flights could continue during the festival.
From a follow-up story: "Thanks to the county's proactive outreach, we have developed an alternative landing site for uberCHOPPER that serves riders and accommodates residents," Patterson said.
They're a general user focused company, so they want their data centers to be close to where most of the people in the U.S. are.
Beyond that, then they look for places with existing power and Internet infrastructure they can tap into. This isn't a big mystery.
I can think of at least on prominent Republican who is against it.
The story is about NY and CA. You don't get more Democrat than that. It's not like they'll pass anything without the Dems.
If the Republicans are worse, we'd see similar bills across the GOP-controlled states, yet we don't. Republicans aren't perfect, for sure, but wake up a bit to the Dems, eh?
What's that in decimeters/second?
What's the point in having lots of prefixes defined if you're then going to ignore them and use extra 0's and decimal points instead?
Sorry, pet peeve rant over.
Nope. In fact, if you read the gutenberg link in the summary, it clearly states that she was listed as a co-author. i.e.:
The link says her contributions were greater than the mere "computers" and proves it by stating she co-authored 26 papers, so while there may have been a policy not to list the people who did the underlying math for you (Seen a TI-30Xa listed as a co-author recently?), they clearly listed female contributors.
Trying to get the facts on something through the media is like playing a game of deliberately biased "telephone", however.
She co-authored 26 papers and was listed as an author in a NASA peer-reviewed report. I know the summary makes it sound like she didn't get any credit for her work at the time, but actually following and reading the gutenberg link provided makes the point she was more knowledgeable than the rest because she was credited when normally someone who was just a "computer" wouldn't have been, implying she was more than just another "computer".
The whole "NASA policy" part of the summary is clearly wrong with regards to female "contributors", as she was both female and listed as a co-author in a NASA paper in 1960. It's a confused mishmash of "computers" not being credited, trying to imply that was because they were predominantly female at the time, which simply isn't true. Seen any papers lately where a TI-30Xa is listed as a coauthor? Yeah, me neither.
You're apparently stuck in a left-wing bubble somewhere. Even right after a mass shooting, a majority of the population opposes stricter gun control laws.
Here's the first reference I found in Google from CNN. Care to cite your 80% number study?
Shootings by bad guys tend to last until the first good guy (cop, or not) with a gun arrives.
More guns in responsible private hands in the U.S. results in fewer mass shootings with less victims.
The bad guys will get (or make) guns if they want to. Even in prison. The technology is well understood by anyone who wants to learn it.
So yeah, we'd like to limit mass (and other) shootings by increasing the number of people capable of stopping them. As it turns out, no increase in stricter gun laws is known to have resulted in a lower crime rate.
What's amazing is that even though the Democratic process by which laws are passed in the U.S. is clearly not in favor of stricter gun laws, somehow a supposedly Democratic President refuses the "will of the people" and wants to do anything he can to unilaterally and potentially unconstitutionally (with the mental health stuff) circumvent it.
If the issue is new laws need to be passed that clarify and fund enabling people who are an actual threat to others to have due process of law and have their rights taken away (including getting locked up in an institution, a process the folks with a D after their name destroyed about 30 years ago or so), then yeah, let's have that debate in Congress where it (and other new laws) are supposed to begin.
Yeah, once you have an exploit giving you access to the OS, let alone having it running an open source Unix (rather than some special windows derivative), the bulk of the work has been done.
I'm not "completely wrong in that regard." as my actual statement (which you seem to have read as the opposite meaning) was 'No one with any comprehension of their history would call them "Linux-like"' It sounds like you agree with me on that.
BSD Unix predates the existence of Open Group UNIX certification by 18+ years. Your contention is that Unix didn't exist before 1995?
Here, have a chart from them showing that BSD is Unix, predating their "single specification".
Owning a trademark to say what is certified as a particular specification doesn't override the history of the code in software.
Linux is "Unix-like". It was made to be similar to Unix in behavior, but be based on different underlying code.
FreeBSD is literally Unix (descended from the "Berkely Software Distribution" of Unix). It's not the only version of Unix, but it's more Unix in origin than say, Ubuntu or Redhat are Linux in origin, as they also inherit significant parts of their origins from GNU utilities. No one with any comprehension of their history would call them "Linux-like", though.
As I've said elsewhere, the jailbreak is the accomplishment.
If you can jailbreak it enough to boot Linux, then using a similar method to open up an SSH daemon on the existing OS to the local network and setting up a local user id to login with should be pretty simple by comparison, right?
Yeah, if anything is Unix, BSD is, although there are others with a similar claim.
BSD was the "Berkeley Software Distribution". Distribution of what, you might ask? Of Unix. It's the Berkeley Software Distribution of Unix.
This is like calling Centos or Debian "Linux-like" software.
BSD utilities pre-date the existence of GNU utilities by oh, 10-15 years or so.
Pretty sure they aren't required to make the OS usable.
The accomplishment is the jailbreak.
Getting Linux to run on something already running FreeBSD is like saying you managed to replace Redhat with Centos on a machine... wow, what a tough task...
I'll go back to configuring Postfix on my new "Unix-like" FreeBSD server so I can ship it out to the data center on Monday...
"based on a Unix-like software called FreeBSD"
Wow, the lack of comprehension here is amazing.
So they managed to install Linux on a machine already running an OS based on an open source Unix which already comes with a full Linux kernel/software compatibility layer? That's such an amazing accomplishment...
What will they do next, get some ports running on it and make it do useful work? Figure out how to get a unix shell on an OS X machine?