He was actually talking about 100 years ago, not 2000. In 1911, what could possibly still be called "modern times," the infant mortality rate was about 10%, and the maternal mortality rate was about 1% (Around 9 in 1000 births killed the mother).
You have that backwards. Batteries (at least high end lithium ion batteries) have an efficiency of about 90%, and pumped storage is about 70%. Good job.
First amendment rights have been ruled to cover deliberate lies designed to mislead customers. I don't think false advertising laws would hold up in court anymore.
That's Johnathan Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. "Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad." I don't remember what the Lesser Internet Fuckwad Theory is, it's been years since I took Intro to Internetrics.
They do. You can limit them to X total coupons sold. You can also make them "one per customer" although customers will get violent if you try to enforce that just because it says so on the coupon.
Even though I have my phone set up to sync my calendar so I can set appointments and meetings on my laptop and have it reflected on my phone, it still asks you whenever you make an appointment if you want that to be a Phone-only appointment, or a Google Calendar appointment which will be synched (but even then only manually unless you've enabled autosync in the menu). As far as I can tell Phone-only is the default and cannot be changed, so even if on a particular phone "Calendar Sync" is on by default, you'll have to specifically make a Google Calendar appointment for it to ever leave your phone.
You can likewise turn off contact syncing. When I got my phone, all those syncs were set according to what I wanted as part of the setup process. They aren't hidden opt-out features, though that may depend on manufacturer/carrier tinkering, since they all like to streamline the setup process.
Yeah, if your car gets stolen and you say to your insurance company "Yeah I keep the keys in the ignition and never lock it, don't you fucking assholes blame the victim here, he had no right to steal my property!" you're not getting your claim approved. Just like if, say, a prison's doors aren't designed to be kick-proof, and a prisoner kicks one down and escapes, that's his fault, not the prisons! Don't blame the victim!
Oh really, when he says that virtually all of the SCADA software is designed to handle blind UDP broadcast over that kind of cable, your counter is "TCP wouldn't work and the software would have to be specifically written to handle it"? Astonishing.
But it does make it a bullshit medical claim. Unlike the USA which allows anything short of absolute lies on it's packaging. "Carbohydrates may help prevent starvation. CocaCola is an excellent source of carbohydrates". Sorry, but if there's nothing special about the product in that regard, it's misleading. If the intent was not to mislead, then they don't have a reason to put it there at all.
I can only speak for Google Talk, not for the Apple chat thing, but the amount of bandwidth is tiny. I use Google Talk all the time instead of texting, and the bandwidth used up isn't even worth mentioning, and I'm only on a 500MB data plan!
Actually if you did this you'd get a trillion dollar fine. This is a $200 payment for each song they infringed. Not per copy, per song. They sold them over and over and over and over. They paid a microscopic fraction of the profit they made by selling songs they did not have rights to.
The point is they are "animal shelters" that actually euthanize animals within minutes of "rescuing" them. Like, you give your dog up, they promise to find it a new home, they drive off, they euthanize it while driving, dump it in a a fast food restaurant's dumpster, then drive to the next pickup. Somehow all non-PETA animal shelters manage to not have a kill rate of 99.7%
Actually, your phone submits a list of AP MAC addresses to Google, and Google records those along with your phone's GPS data (if available), or it sends you your approximate location (if GPS data isn't available). This new thing will tell your phone what SSIDs to ignore, but not only does Google not publish the SSID location database, they don't even have one. These people are in a massive panic over somebody learning their MAC address.
If this is a violation, then every single piece of software linked against the kernel headers is also a GPL violation. Even other GPL'd software, since none of those ever include the header files they were built against as part of their source package, so they have all failed to meet the requirement of distributing the "corresponding source code".
Yes, they are included. But they are imported by non-GPL software, and he is arguing that if you #include any Linux header files, you are in violation of the GPL because even IF you also license your code under the GPL, you didn't distribute the Linux headers with your source, so you did not fully distribute your source code. And if you ever in the past have violated the GPL, you have lost your rights FOREVER and can never get them back, so fixing your "mistake" will not bring you back into compliance. And with recent Oracle v. Google rulings that APIs and headers are copyright and cannot be used without a license, they may be right.
lim_{x->infinity} x/(x+1) = 1, so asymptotically there's no difference between the two phrases;) This is also a great justification for ignoring off-by-one errors of all sorts!
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I don't see the part that says "Any reasonable searches must be inefficient so that the cost acts as a deterrent for misuse". Lots of posters on Slashdot think that's in there, but it isn't. It's always been established the "unreasonable" means that a person expects privacy, and society accepts that expectation as reasonable. Nobody can expect not to be seen in public, so no warrant is required to follow a person to see where they go. As said, there's no law that requires inefficiency. So if data can be gathered, nothing requires that it remain just as difficult as it was in the 1700s. Otherwise helicopter surveillance wouldn't be allowed without a warrant, since they didn't have helicopters when the fourth amendment was written!
The Fourth Amendment issue is that the GPS device records data even when the person has an expectation of privacy. The fact that a GPS is cheaper than paying an office to physically tail the person is completely irrelevant. There are other issues, like trespass to plant it, the fact that it slightly increases the target's gas bill, etc. But none of those involve the fact that police aren't supposed to use cheap technology, either...
The first one might be sinister, but you'd have to know where the meeting was. If it was at a Starbucks (and most meetings are!), well, I've seen three cop cars at a starbucks at once, with 5 cops all sitting on the patio. Presumably they came together. If I had been in the parking lot at the time I bet they'd all "at various times" have driven right behind me! On the other hand, if they were in an abandoned parking lot and these cops were circling them, then that's more sinister.
But the second paragraph is beyond absurd. So, the cops are trying to intimidate the reporter...and they bring an undercover guy and pretend he's filling up a gas can, as a cover story? Why bother? You don't want to have a cover story for your intimidation or the person being intimidated might not notice!
Slashdot Mirror
He was actually talking about 100 years ago, not 2000. In 1911, what could possibly still be called "modern times," the infant mortality rate was about 10%, and the maternal mortality rate was about 1% (Around 9 in 1000 births killed the mother).
You have that backwards. Batteries (at least high end lithium ion batteries) have an efficiency of about 90%, and pumped storage is about 70%. Good job.
First amendment rights have been ruled to cover deliberate lies designed to mislead customers. I don't think false advertising laws would hold up in court anymore.
According to TFA, 99.6% of all pairs in the entire database are connected by 5 degrees, and 92% by 4 degrees.
That's Johnathan Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. "Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad." I don't remember what the Lesser Internet Fuckwad Theory is, it's been years since I took Intro to Internetrics.
They do. You can limit them to X total coupons sold. You can also make them "one per customer" although customers will get violent if you try to enforce that just because it says so on the coupon.
Even though I have my phone set up to sync my calendar so I can set appointments and meetings on my laptop and have it reflected on my phone, it still asks you whenever you make an appointment if you want that to be a Phone-only appointment, or a Google Calendar appointment which will be synched (but even then only manually unless you've enabled autosync in the menu). As far as I can tell Phone-only is the default and cannot be changed, so even if on a particular phone "Calendar Sync" is on by default, you'll have to specifically make a Google Calendar appointment for it to ever leave your phone.
You can likewise turn off contact syncing. When I got my phone, all those syncs were set according to what I wanted as part of the setup process. They aren't hidden opt-out features, though that may depend on manufacturer/carrier tinkering, since they all like to streamline the setup process.
Yeah, if your car gets stolen and you say to your insurance company "Yeah I keep the keys in the ignition and never lock it, don't you fucking assholes blame the victim here, he had no right to steal my property!" you're not getting your claim approved. Just like if, say, a prison's doors aren't designed to be kick-proof, and a prisoner kicks one down and escapes, that's his fault, not the prisons! Don't blame the victim!
Oh really, when he says that virtually all of the SCADA software is designed to handle blind UDP broadcast over that kind of cable, your counter is "TCP wouldn't work and the software would have to be specifically written to handle it"? Astonishing.
But it does make it a bullshit medical claim. Unlike the USA which allows anything short of absolute lies on it's packaging. "Carbohydrates may help prevent starvation. CocaCola is an excellent source of carbohydrates". Sorry, but if there's nothing special about the product in that regard, it's misleading. If the intent was not to mislead, then they don't have a reason to put it there at all.
So you're saying that drinking carbonated beverages and sports drinks cannot prevent dehydration?
I can only speak for Google Talk, not for the Apple chat thing, but the amount of bandwidth is tiny. I use Google Talk all the time instead of texting, and the bandwidth used up isn't even worth mentioning, and I'm only on a 500MB data plan!
Actually if you did this you'd get a trillion dollar fine. This is a $200 payment for each song they infringed. Not per copy, per song. They sold them over and over and over and over. They paid a microscopic fraction of the profit they made by selling songs they did not have rights to.
The point is they are "animal shelters" that actually euthanize animals within minutes of "rescuing" them. Like, you give your dog up, they promise to find it a new home, they drive off, they euthanize it while driving, dump it in a a fast food restaurant's dumpster, then drive to the next pickup. Somehow all non-PETA animal shelters manage to not have a kill rate of 99.7%
Good thing Google records MAC addresses not SSID then?
Actually, your phone submits a list of AP MAC addresses to Google, and Google records those along with your phone's GPS data (if available), or it sends you your approximate location (if GPS data isn't available). This new thing will tell your phone what SSIDs to ignore, but not only does Google not publish the SSID location database, they don't even have one. These people are in a massive panic over somebody learning their MAC address.
If this is a violation, then every single piece of software linked against the kernel headers is also a GPL violation. Even other GPL'd software, since none of those ever include the header files they were built against as part of their source package, so they have all failed to meet the requirement of distributing the "corresponding source code".
Yes, they are included. But they are imported by non-GPL software, and he is arguing that if you #include any Linux header files, you are in violation of the GPL because even IF you also license your code under the GPL, you didn't distribute the Linux headers with your source, so you did not fully distribute your source code. And if you ever in the past have violated the GPL, you have lost your rights FOREVER and can never get them back, so fixing your "mistake" will not bring you back into compliance. And with recent Oracle v. Google rulings that APIs and headers are copyright and cannot be used without a license, they may be right.
lim_{x->infinity} x/(x+1) = 1, so asymptotically there's no difference between the two phrases ;) This is also a great justification for ignoring off-by-one errors of all sorts!
No original research.
I don't see the part that says "Any reasonable searches must be inefficient so that the cost acts as a deterrent for misuse". Lots of posters on Slashdot think that's in there, but it isn't. It's always been established the "unreasonable" means that a person expects privacy, and society accepts that expectation as reasonable. Nobody can expect not to be seen in public, so no warrant is required to follow a person to see where they go. As said, there's no law that requires inefficiency. So if data can be gathered, nothing requires that it remain just as difficult as it was in the 1700s. Otherwise helicopter surveillance wouldn't be allowed without a warrant, since they didn't have helicopters when the fourth amendment was written!
The Fourth Amendment issue is that the GPS device records data even when the person has an expectation of privacy. The fact that a GPS is cheaper than paying an office to physically tail the person is completely irrelevant. There are other issues, like trespass to plant it, the fact that it slightly increases the target's gas bill, etc. But none of those involve the fact that police aren't supposed to use cheap technology, either...
The first one might be sinister, but you'd have to know where the meeting was. If it was at a Starbucks (and most meetings are!), well, I've seen three cop cars at a starbucks at once, with 5 cops all sitting on the patio. Presumably they came together. If I had been in the parking lot at the time I bet they'd all "at various times" have driven right behind me! On the other hand, if they were in an abandoned parking lot and these cops were circling them, then that's more sinister.
But the second paragraph is beyond absurd. So, the cops are trying to intimidate the reporter...and they bring an undercover guy and pretend he's filling up a gas can, as a cover story? Why bother? You don't want to have a cover story for your intimidation or the person being intimidated might not notice!
NP-Hard means it can be used to solve any NP-Complete problem. Not the opposite of that, like you seem to think...
There's no rule about bigger on smaller. If there was it would be impossible to make even a single move, ever.
500,000,000 downloads, 300,000,000 minutes PER DAY, 105,120,000,000 minutes total. Or, ~3.5 hours per download.