Which satellites, exactly, get anywhere near a LaGrange point? Nothing in orbit, that's for sure.
I ask because it sounds like you're throwing out "space" words without knowing what they mean.
The nearest LaGrange points are very very far from satellites. Geosynchronous satellites are ~35,000 km (the highest orbit we really use), compared to the L4/L5 LaGrange points at ~380,000 km. Nothing is going to just drift over there. Anything in Earth orbit is either staying there for a long time or burning up on its way down.
If we allow our wealthiest and most powerful citizens to be opportunistic scum whenever they feel like it, we should offer the same option to our least-privileged citizens as well.
No criminal charges and full payouts for all tickets purchased.
Either that, or we need to talk about reworking the rules for everybody.
What about when the power goes out? Are we just supposed to stop being able to make purchases?
I've experienced a power outage while shopping maybe 3-4 times in my life, but the response has always been the same. After about 5-10 minutes, they usher everybody out.
I don't know if they're more worried about liability or theft, but most businesses are willing to shut down during an outage.
It adds a monetary cost as well as a knowledge barrier to small traders, flea market stall holders and self employed tradespeople.
It's minimal. If they can setup their S-corp or C-corp, it's doable. If they can setup their accounting books, it's doable. If they can file their taxes without professional help, it's definitely within their reach.
You can get a chip-capable card reader for your Android phone for around $100, so it's cheaper than most cash registers.
The panopticon wasn't built around government, but advertising.
We could eliminate this with privacy laws. Too bad no one is interested though.
Simply, it's another centralising trend at a time when people should be keeping well away from it.
Centralization and decentralization are trends. There are always players moving against the prevailing trend.
When there is no cash discount, the extra cost of the credit card purchase is 'baked in' to the price that everyone pays, including the people using cash
You're acting like there is only a cost associated with card payments and ignoring the other side of the equation. There are costs and risks associated with handling cash. Employee theft, cashier errors, robbery. Time spent making change, counting the till, and running deposits.
The idea that cash-payers are somehow getting screwed is likely a fairy tale---and irrelevant to boot. Businesses don't offer discounts for using the self-checkout lanes even though it lets them cover 10+ checkouts with a single employee.
I could just as easily justify a "self-checkout discount". There isn't one because it's not worth the hassle to implement, and not enough people care anyway. I.e., it's not a good business decision in spite of the difference in costs.
"Mozilla engineers have already started work on adding support for WebExtensions in Thunderbird, albeit there's no concrete deadline when this feature will land in a stable release, nor when Thunderbird will stop supporting legacy add-ons."
Adding to this, they will shift away from C++/Javascript/XUL to "web technologies". Now I can't find a language spec for "web technologies", so it sounds like neither one of us knows exactly where they're headed.
Taking all of this into consideration, their press release boils down to: We don't know what we're doing or when, but it's going to be great.
I'll respond with either "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" depending on what the other person has said. It's not hard to be good-willed and accommodating.
People worried about either diversity or "the war on Christmas" need to relax. Easily 9/10 Christmas traditions were stolen from Pagan faiths in the first place, so it's more of a generic European tradition than a Christian one anyway.
The rich don't have free cards either. There are still yearly or monthly fees involved, just as with a bank account.
I very much doubt that. I am by no means wealthy, and none of my credit cards carry an annual fee.
Obviously, I'd pay interest if I carried a balance from month to month, but that is true of any debt. As long as I pay my bill on time, I don't pay a penny more than what I would have paid in cash.
In what world are web developers not responsible for ensuring that their code runs properly on all supported platforms?
It's not like this is a new thing. Web sites have been presenting different markup or style sheets to IE, NN, Opera, Chrome, etc for years---just so a page will look the same.
If you are seriously concerned that developers can't test against the Edge engine, then you are worrying about some low-tier morons that you don't want writing code for your business in the first place.
How many good Samaritans are going to run into a situation where the police themselves are in danger?
How many cowboys are going to run in with guns drawn and cause problems? Will responding civilians be able to identify plain-clothes officers?
How long until gangs or other cop-haters start watching for these alerts so they can save their friends or ambush the responders?
This is the worst idea I have heard in a long, long time. But, hey, this country loves paying lip service to cops. This is a stupid, dangerous gesture.
This has to change. There has to be a better paradigm.
Dead wrong.
When 99% of the market wants either Android or iOS, there is no economically viable alternative. Users are financially locked into each platforms by their respective app stores, so a new competitor is extremely unlikely. Privacy-minded, user-centric operating systems on phones will remain niche for the forseeable future.
As things stand, you can install Lineage on almost anything that ships with Android. That's about as good as it's going to get.
First of all, OP isn't talking about injecting frequency. He was merely clarifying that the Australian grid runs at 50 Hz in case Americans are confused since the US grid runs at 60 Hz. Comprehend first, criticize second.
But if you're so much smarter than everybody else, including the experts cited in the article, then maybe you can explain how everyone else is wrong.
Since the London police are using variations in the grid frequency in their forensic work, you could even get some people out of jail. After all, if frequency fluctuations are impossible---as implied by you---then clearly their experts are deluded, and they are convicting people unjustly.
Your criticism is ill-considered for the following reasons:
1. They compared between and among groups. Young people with lower sync during sleep performed worse than young people with higher sync during sleep. Same for the older group. They deliberately controlled for age in order to eliminate it as a confounding variable.
2. They are not measuring the quality of sleep. They are measuring how two specific types of brain activity affect memory. Did you read the entire summary, or did you knee-jerk?
3. There is independent work that supports the claim that long-term memories are formed (or finalized) during sleep. The causative element was never entirely clear before, and this study is a further investigation of that well-documented phenomenon.
Perhaps this study uncovered the sole cause of forgetfulness; perhaps they have only discovered one contributing factor out of a multitude. Either way, it demonstrates one observable thing which clearly influences another. Good science.
The fact that it seems to explain why older people are more forgetful---well, that's just icing on the cake.
When you accuse someone of malfeasance, you bear the burden of proving your accusations. If there is no proof, then the allegations should be dismissed entirely.
what evidence could they present to back up their accusation?
They would only need an email or a statement.
If anyone leaned on the FCC, that person would have to speak, write, type, etc to convey what they want and to offer an incentive for complying. Any document or witness statement could serve as evidence. But there is nothing.
Wheeler himself could come forward if he felt pressured. Especially now---he has left the FCC, and Obama is out of office. Yet he still speaks out in favor of net neutrality, which is a pretty strong indicator that he has a sincere belief.
The only way to know for sure is to compress it further and find out.
Some content is adversely affected by lowering the bitrate. Some is not. Also, the encoder and decoder play a role, so you may get different results simply by viewing the content from a different machine/player. It's not purely a black-and-white issue.
Most cable companies are broadcasting content at a significantly lower quality resolution and/or bitrate than you can get on Blu-ray. It partly depends on what each channel sends to them, but they can and do upsample, downsample, or compress the streams that they receive via satellite.
Why doesn't it scale? Is their any fundamental reason they couldn't use an LTE like technology to broadcast using similar (RF) bandwidth as LTE (I'm using broadcast to mean 1 sender many receivers)?
Most companies are moving to video over IP, which is a 1-to-1 transmission. This allows viewing on demand, which is generally a desirable feature and often profitable.
Technically, IP does support multicasting, so they could do broadcasts. However, no new services are doing this, and even traditional cable companies are starting to offer IPTV services. What you are describing is possible, but no one expects it because the industry is moving away from it.
I would be thrilled if they did this and offered channels a la carte, but I'm not expecting either. The channel bundling is a contractual requirement from the content producers, so it will probably continue in some form. They will have to accommodate bundled channels in any broadcast scheme.
E.g., ESPN tells Comcast that they have to choose between carrying every ESPN channel or none. Bundling works across brands as well. Viacom owns BET, MTV, and Nickelodeon---do you ever see a cable package that includes one of those channels without the others?
I understand CFAA runs rampant and is abused everywhere
These guys deliberately pushed malicious code onto devices that didn't belong to them. Fuck them, they belong in jail. This is one of the few times where the law did exactly what it needs to do.
at what point does the company who deployed to production a shitty product with a shitty default password assume responsibility?
Negligence and poor craftsmanship are not usually crimes. Like it or not, that's how it is. But they can get you sued.
Unsecured devices with no authentication or widely-known default passwords definitely qualify as negligence. There are security principles that address this situation, and they are older than I am.
what it is NOT doing is changing how people vote at all
That is a grotesquely ignorant view. You do not need to change political opinions to affect the democratic process.
First of all, I agree that a typical Facebook post will not change a person's beliefs. Most opinions are too deeply ingrained to be overturned by a single argument---no matter how well-formulated.
However, agitation can affect voter turnout. If you systematically provoke one side and demoralize the other, you can cause a change in the distribution of votes without changing the underlying voter preferences.
Obviously, you could offer the argument that choosing not to vote is an entirely separate decision. But if that is the case, then why do both parties in the US run "get out the vote" campaigns? Because voter engagement and turnout are as important as their actual political preferences, if not more so.
There isn't anything out there that can handle Acrobat, MS office, Outlook, Exchange and other items, other than Windows.
Your problem is vague at best. Exchange runs on a server, and Outlook runs on a desktop. You could replace them with a variety of applications. Which specific features are you worried about?
There are quite a few PDF editors out there, and MS Office will run on Linux under WINE if you really, really want to make it an issue because "Open Office isn't 100% compatible".
Oh, AD capability is a must out of the box.
Modern Linux distros can join an Active Directory domain. If you're worried about that, you're a bit out of touch.
With Linux, "out of the box" is always debatable since you can enable or remove any OS features. Ubuntu includes Likewise, and Redhat has ADCLI---those are the default tools, but you have choices. Unlike Windows, you can choose from a variety of packages to provide directory services.
A lot of corporate employees are stuck with Outlook. It's pretty much a default application since everyone "needs" Office.
Still, Outlook can be configured to display text-only emails. The option is there, but I'd bet most organizations don't have the will to turn it off in spite of any objections---or whining, whatever you'd like to call it.
Android apps are fairly limited in what they can do, and in the absence of a root exploit, they can't go beyond their stated permissions
You're talking about an entirely different security model. Android apps are isolated from each other, and they generally cannot manage the operating system.
In a desktop environment, you typically cannot isolate applications in the same way. Maybe if everyone rewrote their applications to place nice that way---but that's a lot of work and a long time away.
In a server environment, you have applications which monitor/manage other applications, and often applications which monitor/manage the operating system itself. If it is difficult to bring the Android security model to the desktop, it is virtually impossible to do so for servers.
Overall, the idea would be great if it weren't completely unworkable.
If you're seeing a lot of Linux and Mac clients on the network, then that's what your frontline needs to support. Ideally, they would be allocated workstations for learning and testing.
FYI, both Macs and Linux machines can be joined to the domain. You can use an application like Centrify, or you can use native tools if your distro includes them. Centrify is extremely useful if you want to use domain accounts on Linux machines.
There are management applications that can control non-Windows systems; most of them also give you more comprehensive management than Group Policy for Windows as well. If you feel your environment is spiraling out of control, look into tools like Tivoli, BigFix, SCCM, Puppet, or Chef.
If you've ever gotten a Microsoft certification, you would know they are absolutely useless for teaching you anything about administering the system. If I'm charitable---and I'm not---I'd say that 90% of the exam covers stupid features that you either know intimately (because you use them) or will forget within the month.
Since I'm not being charitable, I'll go ahead and say that I lose respect for anyone who speaks highly of their MS certs. Spending an hour on the Technet is a better use of time. And that's true even if it's the forums rather than Microsoft-published content.
By all means, put the MCSE/MCSA/etc on your resume if you have it. Some places care about those things, and having that cert proves you're literate. But that's about it.
How do I know? An old employer decided that everyone with privileged access to servers required certification. The class was a joke, and the test was a joke. Microsoft certifications aren't a training tool at all---which what OP was asking for. They aren't even a good assessment tool.
Slashdot Mirror
Which satellites, exactly, get anywhere near a LaGrange point? Nothing in orbit, that's for sure.
I ask because it sounds like you're throwing out "space" words without knowing what they mean.
The nearest LaGrange points are very very far from satellites. Geosynchronous satellites are ~35,000 km (the highest orbit we really use), compared to the L4/L5 LaGrange points at ~380,000 km. Nothing is going to just drift over there. Anything in Earth orbit is either staying there for a long time or burning up on its way down.
If we allow our wealthiest and most powerful citizens to be opportunistic scum whenever they feel like it, we should offer the same option to our least-privileged citizens as well.
No criminal charges and full payouts for all tickets purchased.
Either that, or we need to talk about reworking the rules for everybody.
What about when the power goes out? Are we just supposed to stop being able to make purchases?
I've experienced a power outage while shopping maybe 3-4 times in my life, but the response has always been the same. After about 5-10 minutes, they usher everybody out.
I don't know if they're more worried about liability or theft, but most businesses are willing to shut down during an outage.
It adds a monetary cost as well as a knowledge barrier to small traders, flea market stall holders and self employed tradespeople.
It's minimal. If they can setup their S-corp or C-corp, it's doable. If they can setup their accounting books, it's doable. If they can file their taxes without professional help, it's definitely within their reach.
You can get a chip-capable card reader for your Android phone for around $100, so it's cheaper than most cash registers.
The panopticon wasn't built around government, but advertising.
We could eliminate this with privacy laws. Too bad no one is interested though.
Simply, it's another centralising trend at a time when people should be keeping well away from it.
Centralization and decentralization are trends. There are always players moving against the prevailing trend.
When there is no cash discount, the extra cost of the credit card purchase is 'baked in' to the price that everyone pays, including the people using cash
You're acting like there is only a cost associated with card payments and ignoring the other side of the equation. There are costs and risks associated with handling cash. Employee theft, cashier errors, robbery. Time spent making change, counting the till, and running deposits.
The idea that cash-payers are somehow getting screwed is likely a fairy tale---and irrelevant to boot. Businesses don't offer discounts for using the self-checkout lanes even though it lets them cover 10+ checkouts with a single employee.
I could just as easily justify a "self-checkout discount". There isn't one because it's not worth the hassle to implement, and not enough people care anyway. I.e., it's not a good business decision in spite of the difference in costs.
"Mozilla engineers have already started work on adding support for WebExtensions in Thunderbird, albeit there's no concrete deadline when this feature will land in a stable release, nor when Thunderbird will stop supporting legacy add-ons."
Adding to this, they will shift away from C++/Javascript/XUL to "web technologies". Now I can't find a language spec for "web technologies", so it sounds like neither one of us knows exactly where they're headed.
Taking all of this into consideration, their press release boils down to: We don't know what we're doing or when, but it's going to be great.
refusing to do business with people who don't have credit cards is blatantly discriminatory
In the US, there are a handful of things you can't discriminate against. "Not having a credit card" isn't on that list.
I'll respond with either "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" depending on what the other person has said. It's not hard to be good-willed and accommodating.
People worried about either diversity or "the war on Christmas" need to relax. Easily 9/10 Christmas traditions were stolen from Pagan faiths in the first place, so it's more of a generic European tradition than a Christian one anyway.
He conveniently italicized the part that proves you're wrong, and you argue as though it wasn't right there in front of you.
Why are your delusions about US currency so important to you?
The rich don't have free cards either. There are still yearly or monthly fees involved, just as with a bank account.
I very much doubt that. I am by no means wealthy, and none of my credit cards carry an annual fee.
Obviously, I'd pay interest if I carried a balance from month to month, but that is true of any debt. As long as I pay my bill on time, I don't pay a penny more than what I would have paid in cash.
That presumes that the failure...
In what world are web developers not responsible for ensuring that their code runs properly on all supported platforms?
It's not like this is a new thing. Web sites have been presenting different markup or style sheets to IE, NN, Opera, Chrome, etc for years---just so a page will look the same.
If you are seriously concerned that developers can't test against the Edge engine, then you are worrying about some low-tier morons that you don't want writing code for your business in the first place.
How many good Samaritans are going to run into a situation where the police themselves are in danger?
How many cowboys are going to run in with guns drawn and cause problems? Will responding civilians be able to identify plain-clothes officers?
How long until gangs or other cop-haters start watching for these alerts so they can save their friends or ambush the responders?
This is the worst idea I have heard in a long, long time. But, hey, this country loves paying lip service to cops. This is a stupid, dangerous gesture.
This has to change. There has to be a better paradigm.
Dead wrong.
When 99% of the market wants either Android or iOS, there is no economically viable alternative. Users are financially locked into each platforms by their respective app stores, so a new competitor is extremely unlikely. Privacy-minded, user-centric operating systems on phones will remain niche for the forseeable future.
As things stand, you can install Lineage on almost anything that ships with Android. That's about as good as it's going to get.
First of all, OP isn't talking about injecting frequency. He was merely clarifying that the Australian grid runs at 50 Hz in case Americans are confused since the US grid runs at 60 Hz. Comprehend first, criticize second.
But if you're so much smarter than everybody else, including the experts cited in the article, then maybe you can explain how everyone else is wrong.
Since the London police are using variations in the grid frequency in their forensic work, you could even get some people out of jail. After all, if frequency fluctuations are impossible---as implied by you---then clearly their experts are deluded, and they are convicting people unjustly.
I encourage you to reach out to the Dr Cooper quoted in the article at http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...
Please straighten him out and get those innocent men set free.
Your criticism is ill-considered for the following reasons:
1. They compared between and among groups. Young people with lower sync during sleep performed worse than young people with higher sync during sleep. Same for the older group. They deliberately controlled for age in order to eliminate it as a confounding variable.
2. They are not measuring the quality of sleep. They are measuring how two specific types of brain activity affect memory. Did you read the entire summary, or did you knee-jerk?
3. There is independent work that supports the claim that long-term memories are formed (or finalized) during sleep. The causative element was never entirely clear before, and this study is a further investigation of that well-documented phenomenon.
Perhaps this study uncovered the sole cause of forgetfulness; perhaps they have only discovered one contributing factor out of a multitude. Either way, it demonstrates one observable thing which clearly influences another. Good science.
The fact that it seems to explain why older people are more forgetful---well, that's just icing on the cake.
When you accuse someone of malfeasance, you bear the burden of proving your accusations. If there is no proof, then the allegations should be dismissed entirely.
what evidence could they present to back up their accusation?
They would only need an email or a statement.
If anyone leaned on the FCC, that person would have to speak, write, type, etc to convey what they want and to offer an incentive for complying. Any document or witness statement could serve as evidence. But there is nothing.
Wheeler himself could come forward if he felt pressured. Especially now---he has left the FCC, and Obama is out of office. Yet he still speaks out in favor of net neutrality, which is a pretty strong indicator that he has a sincere belief.
The only way to know for sure is to compress it further and find out.
Some content is adversely affected by lowering the bitrate. Some is not. Also, the encoder and decoder play a role, so you may get different results simply by viewing the content from a different machine/player. It's not purely a black-and-white issue.
Most cable companies are broadcasting content at a significantly lower quality resolution and/or bitrate than you can get on Blu-ray. It partly depends on what each channel sends to them, but they can and do upsample, downsample, or compress the streams that they receive via satellite.
Why doesn't it scale? Is their any fundamental reason they couldn't use an LTE like technology to broadcast using similar (RF) bandwidth as LTE (I'm using broadcast to mean 1 sender many receivers)?
Most companies are moving to video over IP, which is a 1-to-1 transmission. This allows viewing on demand, which is generally a desirable feature and often profitable.
Technically, IP does support multicasting, so they could do broadcasts. However, no new services are doing this, and even traditional cable companies are starting to offer IPTV services. What you are describing is possible, but no one expects it because the industry is moving away from it.
I would be thrilled if they did this and offered channels a la carte, but I'm not expecting either. The channel bundling is a contractual requirement from the content producers, so it will probably continue in some form. They will have to accommodate bundled channels in any broadcast scheme.
E.g., ESPN tells Comcast that they have to choose between carrying every ESPN channel or none. Bundling works across brands as well. Viacom owns BET, MTV, and Nickelodeon---do you ever see a cable package that includes one of those channels without the others?
I understand CFAA runs rampant and is abused everywhere
These guys deliberately pushed malicious code onto devices that didn't belong to them. Fuck them, they belong in jail. This is one of the few times where the law did exactly what it needs to do.
at what point does the company who deployed to production a shitty product with a shitty default password assume responsibility?
Negligence and poor craftsmanship are not usually crimes. Like it or not, that's how it is. But they can get you sued.
Unsecured devices with no authentication or widely-known default passwords definitely qualify as negligence. There are security principles that address this situation, and they are older than I am.
what it is NOT doing is changing how people vote at all
That is a grotesquely ignorant view. You do not need to change political opinions to affect the democratic process.
First of all, I agree that a typical Facebook post will not change a person's beliefs. Most opinions are too deeply ingrained to be overturned by a single argument---no matter how well-formulated.
However, agitation can affect voter turnout. If you systematically provoke one side and demoralize the other, you can cause a change in the distribution of votes without changing the underlying voter preferences.
Obviously, you could offer the argument that choosing not to vote is an entirely separate decision. But if that is the case, then why do both parties in the US run "get out the vote" campaigns? Because voter engagement and turnout are as important as their actual political preferences, if not more so.
There isn't anything out there that can handle Acrobat, MS office, Outlook, Exchange and other items, other than Windows.
Your problem is vague at best. Exchange runs on a server, and Outlook runs on a desktop. You could replace them with a variety of applications. Which specific features are you worried about?
There are quite a few PDF editors out there, and MS Office will run on Linux under WINE if you really, really want to make it an issue because "Open Office isn't 100% compatible".
Oh, AD capability is a must out of the box.
Modern Linux distros can join an Active Directory domain. If you're worried about that, you're a bit out of touch.
With Linux, "out of the box" is always debatable since you can enable or remove any OS features. Ubuntu includes Likewise, and Redhat has ADCLI---those are the default tools, but you have choices. Unlike Windows, you can choose from a variety of packages to provide directory services.
A lot of corporate employees are stuck with Outlook. It's pretty much a default application since everyone "needs" Office.
Still, Outlook can be configured to display text-only emails. The option is there, but I'd bet most organizations don't have the will to turn it off in spite of any objections---or whining, whatever you'd like to call it.
Android apps are fairly limited in what they can do, and in the absence of a root exploit, they can't go beyond their stated permissions
You're talking about an entirely different security model. Android apps are isolated from each other, and they generally cannot manage the operating system.
In a desktop environment, you typically cannot isolate applications in the same way. Maybe if everyone rewrote their applications to place nice that way---but that's a lot of work and a long time away.
In a server environment, you have applications which monitor/manage other applications, and often applications which monitor/manage the operating system itself. If it is difficult to bring the Android security model to the desktop, it is virtually impossible to do so for servers.
Overall, the idea would be great if it weren't completely unworkable.
If you're seeing a lot of Linux and Mac clients on the network, then that's what your frontline needs to support. Ideally, they would be allocated workstations for learning and testing.
FYI, both Macs and Linux machines can be joined to the domain. You can use an application like Centrify, or you can use native tools if your distro includes them. Centrify is extremely useful if you want to use domain accounts on Linux machines.
There are management applications that can control non-Windows systems; most of them also give you more comprehensive management than Group Policy for Windows as well. If you feel your environment is spiraling out of control, look into tools like Tivoli, BigFix, SCCM, Puppet, or Chef.
If you've ever gotten a Microsoft certification, you would know they are absolutely useless for teaching you anything about administering the system. If I'm charitable---and I'm not---I'd say that 90% of the exam covers stupid features that you either know intimately (because you use them) or will forget within the month.
Since I'm not being charitable, I'll go ahead and say that I lose respect for anyone who speaks highly of their MS certs. Spending an hour on the Technet is a better use of time. And that's true even if it's the forums rather than Microsoft-published content.
By all means, put the MCSE/MCSA/etc on your resume if you have it. Some places care about those things, and having that cert proves you're literate. But that's about it.
How do I know? An old employer decided that everyone with privileged access to servers required certification. The class was a joke, and the test was a joke. Microsoft certifications aren't a training tool at all---which what OP was asking for. They aren't even a good assessment tool.