I think using napalm on a senator is a bit extreme. You could at least try voting against him next election first...
Not if he doesn't live in my jurisdiction. Besides, who doesn't love the smell of napalm in the morning? Believe you me, it would greatly improve the stench wafting over from DC.
same stuff as in every other distro. the same "most advanced desktop environments available today" can be found in hundreds of other distros too. Why not advertise based on what makes slackware different from the rest than taunting the software that everyone else has?
To be honest, Slack isn't likely to pick up a lot of new users since it doesn't make heavy use of GUI config tools that don't link up right with actual config files. Though Slack's system is more reliable and deployable (in my opinion), these days people don't like that. Your average Ubuntu user won't settle for an ncurses based install screen either, won't want to format disks by hand, etc.
As a result, the announcement is likely targeted more at the existing install base than anything, so what matters is how 12 differs from 11 and what exactly comes with it. Which is what they've announced
I'm not advocating that people tell their secrets for the hell of it. I'm just pointing out that it is futile (and wrong, on a basic level) to try and remove EXISTING information from a system. If somebody finds out that you're hiding money in your wife's tampon box, do you try to shut them up by force of law, or do you change what you're doing and let them keep saying whatever they want?
Depends, really. Since there's little cost to moving my hiding place from the wife's feminine hygiene products to...I don't know...the underside of the litterbox, I'd just do that. But if we're talking about plans to a nuclear reactor, I can't just say "Damn! Now we have to build another nuclear reactor!" No, I mitigate the dissemination as much as possible, but prepare for the worst.
Sometimes protection simply depends on restricting flow of information. Just the way it is.
That's the thing here. Sure a little obscurity CAN be used the enhance an already good security setup, but it won't make or break it, and it certainly shouldn't be mandated and supplied via law.
I really think obscurity can be much better than that, determined on a case-by-case basis. I know it's derided among computer security people, because that's an arena where very good, lock-down security is possible. In most other areas of life, that doesn't work as well. So you mix in other tactics as well. Like in war, you want the element of surprise. You don't depend on being able to simply outmuscle your enemy.
I'm also big on using diverse security methods, sort of like an investment portfolio. Obscurity, disinformation, security, the whole bit. Hell, we didn't even cover disinformation - I'd be leaking fake plans for critical infrastructure all over the place. Keeps 'em from knowing what's real in case the real stuff does leak.
None of that means I'd skimp on real security, still. But flaws are often discovered in what was thought to be good security, and if you happened to think that gave you protection, you might find yourself screwed.
What you're defending is the real-world version of security through obscurity.
Yes. I realize the notion of 'security through obscurity' is derided, but it can actually be quite successful. Like with steganography, for instance. I'd never rely upon it solely, but when combined with other means it's not a terrible idea.
Physical security must be designed just like computer security: it works even against someone who knows exactly HOW the system works.
Couldn't agree more. But I'm still not going to give him the plans.
As an example: you can have the best security system in the world, but some criminals will beat it. However, they'll never find the cash I have in the house because we keep it in the wife's, ahem, feminine products. Of course, we also have an alarm. I'm all about combining methods of security, and obscurity is most certainly one of them.
The state isn't taxing Amazon, though. They're requiring Amazon to collect taxes owed by Amazon's customers on behalf of the state. This is how all point-of-sale-collected sales tax works: its not owed by the retailer, but by the consumer, and collected by the retailer both as a convenience (no reporting/payment burden remains) and because consumers have proven remarkably unlikely to actually report and pay the tax themselves.
Thanks for making the semantic distinction, but it doesn't change the matter. The state has no authority or jurisdiction to MAKE Amazon do so, since Amazon has no presence in the state. NY's argument is that by taking referrals from people in New York, that Amazon has a presence there.
That's fairly asinine, as it would mean that anyone who has ever subcontracted any work to a company in New York would be subject to New York sales tax on any business venture they engage in. It's ridiculous, and I would give it about a 5% chance of withstanding judicial scrutiny.
Basically, the old law about not taxing interstate commerce is creating new problems. Solving it will require national legislation and possibly a Constitutional amendment. This ain't something NY can do on their own.
Of course, you can argue the fairness of a sales tax as well (its possibly one of the most regressive forms of taxation ever introduced), but it is the law in most of the US.
Oh, sales taxes don't even compare to FICA and capital gains tax rates in terms of the "regressive tax" category. Sales taxes are at least a flat tax. Compare that to FICA and cap gains - let's see, people who *don't* work for a living but instead live off of trust funds pay the lowest tax rate? I love that one.
Except the US has a very different tax system to most of Europe. The closest they have is something called "Sales Tax", and that varies from state to state. (As I understand it, it's also only levied on goods sold within the state, not goods brought in from another state or, for that matter, another country).
Very true. Other differences between sales tax and my understanding of VAT;
*It's only levied on final sale - if a middleman has a federal tax ID as a reseller, he pays no sales tax.
*Similarly, it does not apply to transporting goods between states lines. In fact, that is a very old law, that states can't collect duties on goods transported between them. That law is part of the issue here, since states can't tax commerce outside their jurisdiction.
*I do believe the US collects import tarriffs as other countries do, but as you point out that is completely separate from sales tax. i don't even think the individual states would have the authority to put taxes on imports.
*As pointed out elsewhere, jurisdictions at all levels enact different sales taxes, not just states. The county can do it, as can cities. Also, there are often exceptions for food and other necessary items, or reduced rates. You can see why no retailer wants to have to deal with all that.
As a matter of law, I'm guessing (as a layperson) that the state has no leg to stand on. They don't have a legal right to tax businesses that have no presence in the state, and I'm guessing their legal theory about referrals is total bunk. Just because you get a referral from someone in New York doesn't mean you have a presence in New York.
So it comes down to the old, "it's all right with me if it's up for free, but when you want to start charging for it, I'm going to have to come down on you."
Seems to me that's a pretty fair brightline between 'fan' and 'competitor'.
Just so we're talking about the same thing - the choice is between computers with windows and no computers, right? Because I'd certainly rather give them Linux, but if it came down to compromising a lesser goal to reach a greater one (literacy), I'll do that.
Additionally, I would strenuously disagree with your characterization in the link, though I agree in general that band-aid solutions don't work. However, giving kids education gets straight to number one on your list regardless. In fact, if I were to wear an MS apologist hat (in which I'm woefully miscast, but I digress) I'd say that giving them tools that the vast majority of the participants world's economy are using would help them far more. And if you believe so strenuously that employing any sort of closed source software is inherently evil, I'd strongly suggest petitioning universities in the US where these evils are being perpetrated as we speak.
The computers are a means to an end. For these kids who want to learn to read, the operating system will be largely transparent. Expecting them to care more about their operating system than the 99% of people who currently use computers seems to be to be a fantasy.
Do you really think that giving them Open Source software will give them some sort of structure that will cause some formative change in their society? Come on.
It all comes down to Maslow's heirarchy of needs. Expecting people to care about the idiosyncracies of an operating system when teaching their kids to read is itself a tenuous priority is completely nuts. Deciding that not giving them computers AT ALL if they don't run Linux is completely selfish and makes clear where priorities lie. It's not about teaching kids in Africa to read, it's about spreading ones own agenda.
He's making the point that some medicine might stop the pain, for now, while addicting you for life - for the sake of assuring the drug pusher a good income.
I got the point - simplistic as it is - but I can't believe anyone would be enough of an ass to make that analogy. I mean, that's almost Godwin's law kind of bad. If you've ever seen anyone struggle with real addiction, it's not particularly apt.
A lot of us see the Microsoft platform as a means for those kids to read textbooks that also closes them out from broader options (like learning how to self-govern their nation's IT infrastructure) and creates a lifelong addiction for their nation on Microsoft software.
And I think that's short-sighted to the point of being preposterous. As the rest of the world has proven, work can be done on MS software. It may not be the best alternative in the eyes of a lot of people - even me - but I'm pretty sure that kids in Africa would be better off with Windows machines than nothing. Or how about both? Let them decide. I think we've spent too many decades playing our paternalistic role of deciding we know best about what will work for Africa when, for the most part, we have no clue.
What's really going on is that the people who see OSS as a religion instead of a tool see this massive number of people who can be started with OSS without having to break any MS habits, who can then be used as marketshare to defeat Windows worldwide. I get the plan. But the education of African children is being used as a pawn in a war of whose OS will win. I mean, really, which is the greater good? If widespread literacy in the third world required me to use Windows for the rest of my life, I'd do it. Doesn't mean I'd like it, but still.
Since we're going with bad analogies today, here's mine: that stance is like saying that we'll refuse to feed Africa with inferior staples such as rice and corn, instead letting them starve unless we can feed them filet mignon. If we ask the Africans, I bet they'll take a 90% solution rather than making an all-or-nothing bet.
This is another one of those idealist vs. pragmatist tests. I'm a pragmatist. I hate using Windows, but I'm sane enough to realize that it's probably in these kids' best interest to have some computer vs. no computer. Even in this country, only OS dorks like us actually care. I think it's actually rather self-centered and egotistical to push our ideals regarding computer operating systems on kids who really just need to learn how to read. Even if Clippy's teaching them.
I believe a number of the available tuner cards can be made to work with a mac.
And if you're looking for TV tuner options, you're going to be limited to a limited # of channels due to the satellite/cable companies. You either need a box or cablecard (which only works on a couple devices and sucks in general).
You'll need a cable box, sure. But with a tuner card (and an IR repeater) that's still at least one less box.
It should be unsurprising that a project that, from the top, embraced openness as a central precept has attracted lots of people for whom such openness is an important ideal, and who are quite disappointed when the leader of the project suddenly embraces a proprietary technology and suggests shifting effort to supporting that technology.
But it's funny as hell when said idealists have to make a conscious choice between their open-source principles and getting more computers in the hands of kids (by selling out to the closed-source companies). Surely one wouldn't rather that some poor kid in Africa had no computer relative to a Windows machine?
Twitter has multiple accounts... we get it! Apparently you still haven't realized that almost nobody cares. You and the other retards that post drivel every time he posts are no better than spammers.
I'll buy the argument that the mini should offer a beefier video card. But slots seem like major overkill.
Do consider that a large proportion of the people who find the Mac mini attractive are applying it to home theater sorts of applications. Many such people want it to have TV tuner capabilities, which would be a good reason to have at least one slot. The alternative is a separate box.
Since other elements are more common, couldnt certain types of the less heavy radioactive elements just be decay remnants of unbibium?
Not if those other elements are both more common and less stable than the new guy. Though since thorium is extremely stable, I suppose that couldn't be ruled out. Unlikely though, since the energy required to form this stuff would be monstrous.
Presumably this guy was formed as a very rare event in a supernova, with a (relatively) substantial portion of the original material remaining. If the half life is over 100 million years as claimed then the math could work out - for instance, assuming 150 million year HL, a 4.5 billion year age of the earth, and their claimed 10^-12 concentration of the stuff in thorium would have given an original concentration of 0.1% of the stuff in thorium at the time of the creation of the earth.
This is why the world is afraid of the states. In no other first world country do you need to 'defend' your home its purely an american thing.
Is that a fact? Home burglaries have been eriadicated in the rest of the first world? I'm glad to hear it. Somehow, though, I think you're mistaken.
If your home is such a big problem that you NEED a shotgun to protect yourself you really NEED to move.
Not everyone has the luxury. Not to mention which, criminals have caught on to the fact that nice expensive homes in the suburbs have the best loot. Nice try, though.
Apparently you are living in some sort of post-apocalyptic nightmare where firearms are needed to stop your neighbors.
Read the original submission. It's not some sort of post-apocalyptic nightmare, it's burglars. Beyond simple robbery, riots happen too, like most US cities in 1968. And LA 1992. And lest you think this is an American thing, I'll show you some pictures of Paris last year where things got quite a bit out of hand.
Before I get accused of being a gun nut, I'll disclose that I've never owned nor fired a gun. I personally think the risk isn't worth it with two small children in my home, but if the crime rate in my area went up dramatically I might think about it - though I'd buy a hell of a safe and put trigger locks on the gun. But I take offense at the typical condescending anti-American attitude, as well as the naive, idyllic notion that all problems can be solved without violence. 99.99%+ of the time, they can. But the problem is that other 0.01%. If I get to the point that I believe my family would be safer with a gun in the house, I'll buy one and be trained in its use.
That may well be, but it's legitimate to ask whether that rule needs to be adapted to changing technology.
Don't see why. So you're claiming that if someone had their paper diary or tax records or nudie mags in their car, that would be searchable, but not if it's on the computer? Doesn't make sense to me. It's the same basic argument that the net nanny crowd makes when they get bent out of shape about "think of the children" type problems, that the computer is different and deserves special legislation. Our argument is always that the problem hasn't changed, just the medium. Same thing here. You either have 4th Amendment rights at the border or you don't. (And you don't). Whether it's in a book or a laptop doesn't matter, I don't see laptops getting special protection.
I'm aware there's a common "you only have to worry about that if you have something to hide" response, but I'd like to turn that around and suggest that you only don't have to worry if you have complete trust in the authorities, all the way up the chain of command, not to abuse collected information. So do you? Completely?
Hell no. Which is why I shalln't be bringing my personal laptop out of the country. Just like I won't be bringing my tax documents, reams of personal correspondence, or other materials. If you know the law, and you don't want it searched, leave it at home.
I'm actually a big 4th amendment supporter, and I don't subscribe to the "if you don't have anything to hide" theory. That doesn't fly. But at the border, we've decided people don't have the same rights they do once inside the country. You can debate whether that policy is fair, but computers don't play into that decision.
There's a reason we put things into hard copy. It's so that we always have them. Might be a waste of trees, also might be a great idea if the world has an unfortunate energy crisis looming...
In such a scenario, I'm betting that lack of access to Wikipedia won't be among my chief concerns.
It has been the law, but this new one applies to electronic data on a laptop.
Don't see any reason to assume it would be different for electronic data. Right to search is right to search.
If anyone honestly believes that anyone coming into the country would attempt to bring some sort of sensitive or malicious information into the country on a laptop is obviously severely naÃve.
Absolutely not. This guy brought in kiddie porn, by the same standard you'd have to be naive to believe anyone would be that stupid. Yet it happened. Not all criminals are masterminds. And even smart ones get sloppy.
The idea being: you absorb as much as possible in your weird ferroabsorptive paint, but what you have to reflect, you reflect in thin lines rather than in broad arcs, and if possible you reflect them upwards, away from the radar receivers.
Right, so you want it to bounce away, but definitely not bounce back. As the original response pointed out, bouncing the radar back to it's source would result in a lot of unhappiness for the occupants of the plane.
Slashdot Mirror
I think using napalm on a senator is a bit extreme. You could at least try voting against him next election first...
Not if he doesn't live in my jurisdiction. Besides, who doesn't love the smell of napalm in the morning? Believe you me, it would greatly improve the stench wafting over from DC.
It smells like hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy doesn't smell anywhere near as good as napalm. Say, that gives me an idea...
same stuff as in every other distro. the same "most advanced desktop environments available today" can be found in hundreds of other distros too. Why not advertise based on what makes slackware different from the rest than taunting the software that everyone else has?
To be honest, Slack isn't likely to pick up a lot of new users since it doesn't make heavy use of GUI config tools that don't link up right with actual config files. Though Slack's system is more reliable and deployable (in my opinion), these days people don't like that. Your average Ubuntu user won't settle for an ncurses based install screen either, won't want to format disks by hand, etc.
As a result, the announcement is likely targeted more at the existing install base than anything, so what matters is how 12 differs from 11 and what exactly comes with it. Which is what they've announced
I'm not advocating that people tell their secrets for the hell of it. I'm just pointing out that it is futile (and wrong, on a basic level) to try and remove EXISTING information from a system. If somebody finds out that you're hiding money in your wife's tampon box, do you try to shut them up by force of law, or do you change what you're doing and let them keep saying whatever they want?
Depends, really. Since there's little cost to moving my hiding place from the wife's feminine hygiene products to...I don't know...the underside of the litterbox, I'd just do that. But if we're talking about plans to a nuclear reactor, I can't just say "Damn! Now we have to build another nuclear reactor!" No, I mitigate the dissemination as much as possible, but prepare for the worst.
Sometimes protection simply depends on restricting flow of information. Just the way it is.
That's the thing here. Sure a little obscurity CAN be used the enhance an already good security setup, but it won't make or break it, and it certainly shouldn't be mandated and supplied via law.
I really think obscurity can be much better than that, determined on a case-by-case basis. I know it's derided among computer security people, because that's an arena where very good, lock-down security is possible. In most other areas of life, that doesn't work as well. So you mix in other tactics as well. Like in war, you want the element of surprise. You don't depend on being able to simply outmuscle your enemy.
I'm also big on using diverse security methods, sort of like an investment portfolio. Obscurity, disinformation, security, the whole bit. Hell, we didn't even cover disinformation - I'd be leaking fake plans for critical infrastructure all over the place. Keeps 'em from knowing what's real in case the real stuff does leak.
None of that means I'd skimp on real security, still. But flaws are often discovered in what was thought to be good security, and if you happened to think that gave you protection, you might find yourself screwed.
What you're defending is the real-world version of security through obscurity.
Yes. I realize the notion of 'security through obscurity' is derided, but it can actually be quite successful. Like with steganography, for instance. I'd never rely upon it solely, but when combined with other means it's not a terrible idea.
Physical security must be designed just like computer security: it works even against someone who knows exactly HOW the system works.
Couldn't agree more. But I'm still not going to give him the plans.
As an example: you can have the best security system in the world, but some criminals will beat it. However, they'll never find the cash I have in the house because we keep it in the wife's, ahem, feminine products. Of course, we also have an alarm. I'm all about combining methods of security, and obscurity is most certainly one of them.
The state isn't taxing Amazon, though. They're requiring Amazon to collect taxes owed by Amazon's customers on behalf of the state. This is how all point-of-sale-collected sales tax works: its not owed by the retailer, but by the consumer, and collected by the retailer both as a convenience (no reporting/payment burden remains) and because consumers have proven remarkably unlikely to actually report and pay the tax themselves.
Thanks for making the semantic distinction, but it doesn't change the matter. The state has no authority or jurisdiction to MAKE Amazon do so, since Amazon has no presence in the state. NY's argument is that by taking referrals from people in New York, that Amazon has a presence there.
That's fairly asinine, as it would mean that anyone who has ever subcontracted any work to a company in New York would be subject to New York sales tax on any business venture they engage in. It's ridiculous, and I would give it about a 5% chance of withstanding judicial scrutiny.
Basically, the old law about not taxing interstate commerce is creating new problems. Solving it will require national legislation and possibly a Constitutional amendment. This ain't something NY can do on their own.
Of course, you can argue the fairness of a sales tax as well (its possibly one of the most regressive forms of taxation ever introduced), but it is the law in most of the US.
Oh, sales taxes don't even compare to FICA and capital gains tax rates in terms of the "regressive tax" category. Sales taxes are at least a flat tax. Compare that to FICA and cap gains - let's see, people who *don't* work for a living but instead live off of trust funds pay the lowest tax rate? I love that one.
Except the US has a very different tax system to most of Europe. The closest they have is something called "Sales Tax", and that varies from state to state. (As I understand it, it's also only levied on goods sold within the state, not goods brought in from another state or, for that matter, another country).
Very true. Other differences between sales tax and my understanding of VAT;
*It's only levied on final sale - if a middleman has a federal tax ID as a reseller, he pays no sales tax.
*Similarly, it does not apply to transporting goods between states lines. In fact, that is a very old law, that states can't collect duties on goods transported between them. That law is part of the issue here, since states can't tax commerce outside their jurisdiction.
*I do believe the US collects import tarriffs as other countries do, but as you point out that is completely separate from sales tax. i don't even think the individual states would have the authority to put taxes on imports.
*As pointed out elsewhere, jurisdictions at all levels enact different sales taxes, not just states. The county can do it, as can cities. Also, there are often exceptions for food and other necessary items, or reduced rates. You can see why no retailer wants to have to deal with all that.
As a matter of law, I'm guessing (as a layperson) that the state has no leg to stand on. They don't have a legal right to tax businesses that have no presence in the state, and I'm guessing their legal theory about referrals is total bunk. Just because you get a referral from someone in New York doesn't mean you have a presence in New York.
I get about 4 miles per taco. Seriously, though, biking to work is a shitload more fun than driving.
hahaha, no. The site in know way is a competitor. In is about the books. It's not like the person is writing Harry Potter books.
As if it wouldn't occur to Rowling to publish an encyclopedia of all things Harry Potter?
So it comes down to the old, "it's all right with me if it's up for free, but when you want to start charging for it, I'm going to have to come down on you."
Seems to me that's a pretty fair brightline between 'fan' and 'competitor'.
And if TV is anything to go off of, all the ducks have to be totally fugly.
Just so we're talking about the same thing - the choice is between computers with windows and no computers, right? Because I'd certainly rather give them Linux, but if it came down to compromising a lesser goal to reach a greater one (literacy), I'll do that.
Additionally, I would strenuously disagree with your characterization in the link, though I agree in general that band-aid solutions don't work. However, giving kids education gets straight to number one on your list regardless. In fact, if I were to wear an MS apologist hat (in which I'm woefully miscast, but I digress) I'd say that giving them tools that the vast majority of the participants world's economy are using would help them far more. And if you believe so strenuously that employing any sort of closed source software is inherently evil, I'd strongly suggest petitioning universities in the US where these evils are being perpetrated as we speak.
The computers are a means to an end. For these kids who want to learn to read, the operating system will be largely transparent. Expecting them to care more about their operating system than the 99% of people who currently use computers seems to be to be a fantasy.
Do you really think that giving them Open Source software will give them some sort of structure that will cause some formative change in their society? Come on.
It all comes down to Maslow's heirarchy of needs. Expecting people to care about the idiosyncracies of an operating system when teaching their kids to read is itself a tenuous priority is completely nuts. Deciding that not giving them computers AT ALL if they don't run Linux is completely selfish and makes clear where priorities lie. It's not about teaching kids in Africa to read, it's about spreading ones own agenda.
And I say this as a Linux advocate.
He's making the point that some medicine might stop the pain, for now, while addicting you for life - for the sake of assuring the drug pusher a good income.
I got the point - simplistic as it is - but I can't believe anyone would be enough of an ass to make that analogy. I mean, that's almost Godwin's law kind of bad. If you've ever seen anyone struggle with real addiction, it's not particularly apt.
A lot of us see the Microsoft platform as a means for those kids to read textbooks that also closes them out from broader options (like learning how to self-govern their nation's IT infrastructure) and creates a lifelong addiction for their nation on Microsoft software.
And I think that's short-sighted to the point of being preposterous. As the rest of the world has proven, work can be done on MS software. It may not be the best alternative in the eyes of a lot of people - even me - but I'm pretty sure that kids in Africa would be better off with Windows machines than nothing. Or how about both? Let them decide. I think we've spent too many decades playing our paternalistic role of deciding we know best about what will work for Africa when, for the most part, we have no clue.
What's really going on is that the people who see OSS as a religion instead of a tool see this massive number of people who can be started with OSS without having to break any MS habits, who can then be used as marketshare to defeat Windows worldwide. I get the plan. But the education of African children is being used as a pawn in a war of whose OS will win. I mean, really, which is the greater good? If widespread literacy in the third world required me to use Windows for the rest of my life, I'd do it. Doesn't mean I'd like it, but still.
Since we're going with bad analogies today, here's mine: that stance is like saying that we'll refuse to feed Africa with inferior staples such as rice and corn, instead letting them starve unless we can feed them filet mignon. If we ask the Africans, I bet they'll take a 90% solution rather than making an all-or-nothing bet.
This is another one of those idealist vs. pragmatist tests. I'm a pragmatist. I hate using Windows, but I'm sane enough to realize that it's probably in these kids' best interest to have some computer vs. no computer. Even in this country, only OS dorks like us actually care. I think it's actually rather self-centered and egotistical to push our ideals regarding computer operating systems on kids who really just need to learn how to read. Even if Clippy's teaching them.
Surely you wouldn't rather than some poor kid in Africa had no medicine relative to a couple pounds of Heroin?
I really hope you're joking.
Except that there are no tuner cards for Mac.
I believe a number of the available tuner cards can be made to work with a mac.
And if you're looking for TV tuner options, you're going to be limited to a limited # of channels due to the satellite/cable companies. You either need a box or cablecard (which only works on a couple devices and sucks in general).
You'll need a cable box, sure. But with a tuner card (and an IR repeater) that's still at least one less box.
It should be unsurprising that a project that, from the top, embraced openness as a central precept has attracted lots of people for whom such openness is an important ideal, and who are quite disappointed when the leader of the project suddenly embraces a proprietary technology and suggests shifting effort to supporting that technology.
But it's funny as hell when said idealists have to make a conscious choice between their open-source principles and getting more computers in the hands of kids (by selling out to the closed-source companies). Surely one wouldn't rather that some poor kid in Africa had no computer relative to a Windows machine?
Twitter has multiple accounts... we get it! Apparently you still haven't realized that almost nobody cares. You and the other retards that post drivel every time he posts are no better than spammers.
Shutup twitter.
I'll buy the argument that the mini should offer a beefier video card. But slots seem like major overkill.
Do consider that a large proportion of the people who find the Mac mini attractive are applying it to home theater sorts of applications. Many such people want it to have TV tuner capabilities, which would be a good reason to have at least one slot. The alternative is a separate box.
Since other elements are more common, couldnt certain types of the less heavy radioactive elements just be decay remnants of unbibium?
Not if those other elements are both more common and less stable than the new guy. Though since thorium is extremely stable, I suppose that couldn't be ruled out. Unlikely though, since the energy required to form this stuff would be monstrous.
Presumably this guy was formed as a very rare event in a supernova, with a (relatively) substantial portion of the original material remaining. If the half life is over 100 million years as claimed then the math could work out - for instance, assuming 150 million year HL, a 4.5 billion year age of the earth, and their claimed 10^-12 concentration of the stuff in thorium would have given an original concentration of 0.1% of the stuff in thorium at the time of the creation of the earth.
This is why the world is afraid of the states. In no other first world country do you need to 'defend' your home its purely an american thing.
Is that a fact? Home burglaries have been eriadicated in the rest of the first world? I'm glad to hear it. Somehow, though, I think you're mistaken.
If your home is such a big problem that you NEED a shotgun to protect yourself you really NEED to move.
Not everyone has the luxury. Not to mention which, criminals have caught on to the fact that nice expensive homes in the suburbs have the best loot. Nice try, though.
Apparently you are living in some sort of post-apocalyptic nightmare where firearms are needed to stop your neighbors.
Read the original submission. It's not some sort of post-apocalyptic nightmare, it's burglars. Beyond simple robbery, riots happen too, like most US cities in 1968. And LA 1992. And lest you think this is an American thing, I'll show you some pictures of Paris last year where things got quite a bit out of hand.
Before I get accused of being a gun nut, I'll disclose that I've never owned nor fired a gun. I personally think the risk isn't worth it with two small children in my home, but if the crime rate in my area went up dramatically I might think about it - though I'd buy a hell of a safe and put trigger locks on the gun. But I take offense at the typical condescending anti-American attitude, as well as the naive, idyllic notion that all problems can be solved without violence. 99.99%+ of the time, they can. But the problem is that other 0.01%. If I get to the point that I believe my family would be safer with a gun in the house, I'll buy one and be trained in its use.
That may well be, but it's legitimate to ask whether that rule needs to be adapted to changing technology.
Don't see why. So you're claiming that if someone had their paper diary or tax records or nudie mags in their car, that would be searchable, but not if it's on the computer? Doesn't make sense to me. It's the same basic argument that the net nanny crowd makes when they get bent out of shape about "think of the children" type problems, that the computer is different and deserves special legislation. Our argument is always that the problem hasn't changed, just the medium. Same thing here. You either have 4th Amendment rights at the border or you don't. (And you don't). Whether it's in a book or a laptop doesn't matter, I don't see laptops getting special protection.
I'm aware there's a common "you only have to worry about that if you have something to hide" response, but I'd like to turn that around and suggest that you only don't have to worry if you have complete trust in the authorities, all the way up the chain of command, not to abuse collected information. So do you? Completely?
Hell no. Which is why I shalln't be bringing my personal laptop out of the country. Just like I won't be bringing my tax documents, reams of personal correspondence, or other materials. If you know the law, and you don't want it searched, leave it at home.
I'm actually a big 4th amendment supporter, and I don't subscribe to the "if you don't have anything to hide" theory. That doesn't fly. But at the border, we've decided people don't have the same rights they do once inside the country. You can debate whether that policy is fair, but computers don't play into that decision.
There's a reason we put things into hard copy. It's so that we always have them. Might be a waste of trees, also might be a great idea if the world has an unfortunate energy crisis looming ...
In such a scenario, I'm betting that lack of access to Wikipedia won't be among my chief concerns.
It has been the law, but this new one applies to electronic data on a laptop.
Don't see any reason to assume it would be different for electronic data. Right to search is right to search.
If anyone honestly believes that anyone coming into the country would attempt to bring some sort of sensitive or malicious information into the country on a laptop is obviously severely naÃve.
Absolutely not. This guy brought in kiddie porn, by the same standard you'd have to be naive to believe anyone would be that stupid. Yet it happened. Not all criminals are masterminds. And even smart ones get sloppy.
The idea being: you absorb as much as possible in your weird ferroabsorptive paint, but what you have to reflect, you reflect in thin lines rather than in broad arcs, and if possible you reflect them upwards, away from the radar receivers.
Right, so you want it to bounce away, but definitely not bounce back. As the original response pointed out, bouncing the radar back to it's source would result in a lot of unhappiness for the occupants of the plane.
In light of this recent information regarding Ben Stein's teaching methods, Ferris Bueller's decision to skip school looks better and better.
Way to go, Bueller.