I'm also not impressed with "guard". The article claims it makes for simpler and easier to maintain code, but I don't buy it. They say it avoids being if/else trees which, if true, would be a good thing. But you can have *simpler* code than "guard" by using if. For example, the following are equivalent:
The "avoid if/else trees" is just a matter of returning from the function early. Guard in no way enables this. Further, the full structure is "guard/else" which separates the keywords while "if not" puts the intention forward immediately.
If this is a "great" or "must have" feature of swift then... meh
what does it mean to publish? Certainly, google translate *transforms* text, but it is only doing a transformation, it is neither "publishing" nor is it "making available". If google translate made available a document that was not otherwise available then that would amount to publishing. What they do is not publishing.
Although some authors try, they have no legal grounds for dictating how something they publish is consumed. For example, I might read a book in a silly voice. This definitely offends some overly sensitive authors, but they have no legal grounds for preventing me from doing so. A translation is, in a legal sense, a mechanical transformation. Its purpose is to not alter, but rather preserve, meaning and intent. It does not creatively alter the original and so is less affecting than reading a book in a silly voice. Historically, "translation" has gone hand-in-hand with publication -- after all, why would someone go to the effort of translating a work without securing the right to publish it and benefit from those sales?
When you say "how can this [tool] exist" you only specify google tools. If you are intending to refer to the blog posting then if the images are in fact copyrighted then it would be up to the copyright holder to take legal action to enforce their rights. They are under no obligation to do so, much less any other entity.
You are also assuming that everything is "protected" by copyright, but this is not the case. There's this thing called "the public domain". Now, true, it is small and growing only ever so slowly, but it does exist. In particular, in the US if the government produces something on the public dime then it is in the public domain. Well, I suppose it can get complicated, but that is a basic premise. And, while credits are listed for photographs in the blog post, there is no indication of copyright. That does not mean the photos are not copyrighted, but it does provide anyone offended by their republication the opportunity to notify the creator.
In short: not everything is under copyright "protection" and for those that are the "protection" largely consists of publication and redistribution (the right to copy), not for how it is presented (whether that is read in a silly voice or something else).
i certainly am not effected by alternating magnetic resonance, lunar or otherwise. I am affected by all kinds of things, though, including what I ate this morning
You do realize that ASCII doesn't have an apostrophe?
Oh, you thought that a single straight quote was the same thing?
Then you're excused -- after all, ignorance is bliss, right?
I just hope you aren't confused into thinking that a back tick is actually a left single quote. If all you have is ASCII then there are no typographic quotes or apostrophes, just single & double straight quotes.
(And this is really boils down to the same problem as the, mostly retired now, folks who insisted that they could use a lower case l for 1 and even interchange 0 and O.)
or maybe you aren't as insightful as you would like to believe?
There's a lot of stupid fanboy kneejerking in any thread involving Microsoft, Apple or Google.
People don't use Windows phone? They are just dumb
People buy Apple instead of Android? Stupid people pay for brand*
People prefer Android to iOS? rip off design and stolen code (java/dalvik debacle)
If your world view requires that most everyone else be stupid then you are most likely overlooking something.
* I only wish this were true. I was just trying to price out an alternative to an iPad Pro and Samsung doesn't have anything equivalent or better for less money. In fact, it looked like the pricing followed the major product features fairly closely. I'm sure that there is a cheaper alternative, but once you branch into no-name territory quality gets really dicey.
Apparently the AC's here have more of a clue about Microsoft's problems here than you do:
1) revenue is not profit. You also have to consider marketing costs, production costs, R&D costs, maintenance costs...
2) Microsoft has been losing money, not rolling in it, from their mobile ventures
3) the US is not the rest of the word, your extrapolation fails.
(I'd have modded someone else up instead of restating the obvious, but as I already commented in the story I can't and currently only two non-AC posts with neither pulling it together.)
the thing is, no matter how good your idea is, Microsoft will never do that. Can't, really. Why?
Because the only real reason to have a *windows* phone is for it to be tied in to Microsoft's other offerings, not to their competitor. If you think there aren't many apps now, what do you think would happen if an emulation layer actually allowed running an apk?
Even your fallback idea of a "backend porting app" fails. All it does is encourage "works mostly, most of the time" incompletely ported non-native applications. And this isn't going to improve anyone's impression of Windows phone either.
The truth is, Windows phone has insignificant market share and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. They can't just be better, they have to be phenomenally better, in order to gain market share.
Google did to mobile devices what Microsoft did to PCs: they got it bundled with the vast majority of hardware. Microsoft worked hard to make *their* version of DOS the de facto standard via bundling with new sales. This became so entrenched that they strong armed OEMs to prevent selling Linux-bundled hardware (even though realistically it was too late to make any difference, it was just part of the reflex by then).
IBM fought back with OS/2, and Microsoft is trying with various Windows phone hardware/software configurations. They still have a chance because mobile devices are replaced at a much faster rate, but there is a real risk of Microsoft being locked out by the ecology. Other posters have mentioned this -- but basically both Apple and Google attempt to lock you in as a customer by getting you to "buy in" to the ecosystem. Run your purchased apps on all devices -- makes it harder to justify buying a device from a competing ecosystem where you will have to re-purchase applications. Store your data in the cloud -- which the ecosystem is designed around so even though you can technically retrieve your data it is not functionally usable from a device in an alternate ecosystem.
Apple's position in mobile appears to be much the same as in desktop: often viewed as boutique, but a solid presence.
Google's position in mobile is effectively Microsoft's on the desktop: the ubiquitous standard (and with the ubiquitous security problems Microsoft used to have).
Microsoft's position in mobile is effectively IBM's on the desktop: vanishing.
It really depends on what the goals of the person are. You don't actually need the precision that lego does in order to create an interoperable part and I have done that with a consumer-grade 3d printer.
However:
You will have nowhere near the durability of a lego part. Not just in terms of strength, but in terms of wear. It will not last.
You will spend a *lot* more money per brick. Its been a while since I've done the calculation, but I'm pretty sure its at least an order of magnitude more expensive to print your own. Especially if you aren't using a consumer-grade printer (stratasys ABS is stupid brittle and very weak, completely unsuitable for the task, and absurdly expensive on top of that).
So why do it? Maybe for giggles (I've done a variety of 3d prints that are not really serious, but just to see if it can be done). Maybe for one-off pieces. It may be worthwhile to print an occasional piece that Lego does not. I've done a variety of those.
Bottom line: any reasonable printer should be able to do it, but *no* 3d printer can match Lego injection molding for quality, durability, price, etc.
where I work, yes, they'd just vent it into the office space. That's what they do with the stratasys printers. Actually, there's no "venting" per se. They just sit in the office and emit.
Sure, these units are sub $100,000 ABS printing units so maybe the really high end stuff is vented. But the comments here about "cheapo bad, expensive good" come off more as astroturfing for/by stratasys and 3d systems than reality.
the stratasys units i'm familiar with aren't vented and, even though no one seems to want to admit to the toxicity of the fumes, forced their relocation and time usage on to people who had no clout. In other words, even without evidence (like presented in this study) as to toxicity, the fumes are so noxious that the printers were moved.
Interestingly, this study affirms a previous study that printing with PLA is little different than other common environmental factors (e.g., cooking) with the dangerous material being ABS.
how are they "cashing in"? If it is freely available, open source, and under a mainstream license (such as Apple, BSD, GPL, Apache) then there are about two ways to make money off of it:
1) sell customized versions 2) reputation from the product
Neither one seems like "cashing in" as it requires them to do work. And the licensing was only one part identified (such as separation of privileges is a failure major point) so "their chosen terms instead of ESF's" is focusing on a single part of the reason.
In fact, the only people who I can see having a gripe would be ESF as this dilutes "their product". Welcome to the world of open source...
What? Going by anecdotal observation? I almost *never* see a pickup that is loaded. It is much much closer to 99.9% are empty all the time.
However, when do I see trucks? I see them in the parking lot at work, or driving to and from work. I'm not particularly surprised that the beds are empty, all things considered (it used to be that I'd see a toolbox in the truck bed, but it seems that would be hard on the pretty liners on the ones I see).
The most often I have seen a truck used to haul things, I was involved in the hauling. And it wasn't during rush hour, but during the day (the last time I took the day off and helped someone move). Ergo, it is possible that pickup trucks used for hauling usually don't compete with rush hour traffic, explaining the nearly 100% lack of evidence they are used for hauling during my routine driving.
In other words, be careful about drawing conclusions from observations. At the least you need to account for observational bias.
How quaint, you think that Tesla can only make a pickup truck if it will satisfy the needs of the customer who buys the most? I can see how you think that, because that is exactly what they have done with their electric car. Oh, wait...
nice story, but apparently you don't realize the black panthers were labeled as terrorists. If you want to be pedantic the term in the 1970s was more often "extremist" than "terrorist" but in this context they are synonyms (which is why the link refers to putting a black panther on the "terrorist" list).
As to the "to everyone's credit there was no violence" you may want to look into the role of the FBI with the Black Panthers.
If you look at the right wing religious extremist and the Black Panthers there is no particular similarity outside a willingness to brandish arms. If that is all it takes for you to paint their respective activities with the same brush, you are missing the details of a lot of recent history.
and when you are too short of calories your body adjusts by lowering metabolism. For how long? That depends on:
1) how great of a shortfall 2) how often there are shortfalls 3) variables with your body that have not been identified
In other words, it *does* matter if you have too little, and it isn't as simple as "averaging out in the long term".
And, speaking in generalizations, when your metabolism is lowered by shortfalls and then you get more what normally happens is the body will stockpile fat like crazy because it is concerned that there will be even more severe shortfalls (no, it doesn't think that, but that is the "motivation" behind the survival mechanism).
On the other hand, you are *not* guaranteed anything. I spent years doing all the things that are supposed to trigger such behavior without success. Anecdotes do not make data -- my point is that individual variation means that *any* of the generalized observations may not be true for any given individual at any given time (and thus possibly never).
But going, "long term average will be about right" is stupid because -- even if that worked for you (anecdote) -- it is well understood that "long term averages" don't mean a thing when it comes to weight loss or gain. Too many confounding variables.
tic-tac-toe is trivial to solve (I did so as a child -- there aren't very many moves) and, yes, the first player wins. Every time. Unless they're you, I guess.
yeah... hebrew wording. Uh huh. You know, there was a cute time-traveling RPG called Time & Time Again that played on that sort of nonsense, although they used Ogham which -- if you believe things asserted without evidence -- is found in places humans have never been.
The "Nordic naval expanse", depending on what you mean by that, is partially true. Eric the Red sailed west from Greenland and landed around Newfoundland, IIRC. They called the indigenous people "skraelings". We know this because there was a return trip so it was recorded. There was at least one more trip out west, but the attempted settlement had been destroyed.
OTOH, there are plenty of made up things about the Norse, including supposed runic inscriptions made before European settlers arrived, around Virginia.
The whole business about Columbus "discovering" the earth being a sphere is pretty much American propaganda. GP was correct, but Columbus did find someone gullible enough to fund his venture (though not as well as he would've liked).
Saying "the Egyptians" or "the Greeks" is misleading at best and incorrect at worst. I can't be assed to find the name of the (greek) philosopher who worked out that the earth was a sphere (not round, that would be a pizza). He is, nowadays, mostly remembered for estimating the diameter of the earth using trigonometry (angle of shadow in wells at noon, one I think in Alexandria, the other maybe in Greece).
The funny thing is that he considered that to be weak evidence for the earth being a sphere. Why? Because it was just math, not real. He had other, "better", reasons for the earth being a sphere, such as there were elephants in India and in Africa. Since one lay to the east and the other to the south, the earth *must* be a sphere for the apparently two separate continents to be a single continent.
But sailors have long known that the earth is a sphere. Why? Because you can see the curvature. You can also see things "fall below the horizon". You can get a similar experience in any wide open place, but water really drives home the point about the horizon being curved. Columbus was (rightly) ridiculed, not because he asserted the earth was a sphere (which those who cared knew), but that he claimed it was very small and that you could take a shortcut to India by going west. And was he ever wrong (not just larger, but the presence of an inconvenient continent to preclude a direct sail).
A few months back I read what research I could find relating to digestion, in particular with a focus on vegetarian vs carnivore, but branching out as the results did. The first big takeaway is that we know almost nothing about digestion. It is quite complex and incredibly variable.
Although there are plenty of assertions about how long it takes to digest meat vs vegetables the truth is that it varies so much that any difference is *obviously* buried in noise. A person might completely digest (that is, shit out the remains) of a food in one day -- and then next week take an entire week before it passes. It is easy to think of the digestive system as being FIFO, but this is simply not the case. While your body is busily trying to digest food A, it may dispatch food's B, C, D, E and F in short order.
But digestion is not only complex and highly variable, it is also very challenging to measure. This appears to be the main explanation for the paucity of research. It just isn't that easy to check on the current status of any given portion of your digestive tract, much less complete monitoring of the entire system. When the summary said "...mapping your internal chemistry..." I laughed a bit. Of course, there isn't any reasonable proposal as to how this could be done on an individual basis because we can't even do it for a single research case.
Don't get me wrong: I think more research will happen and there will be advances, but I think it is a mistake to think we will gain much understanding in the near future. It is much more likely to be a little more understanding in the far future.
Instead of repeating a long post, I'll (try to) keep it short. They are arguing for the law to be *changed* because they have been *breaking* the law. In particular, a court order restricts scope and method, and LEO have been lying to the courts about both. This is the entire point of keeping stingray capabilities secret: they have been lying to the judiciary and, as a result, getting permission through less controlled means for something *less* than what they were actually doing.
Because of increasing judicial awareness (including censure, in some cases) there is an attempt being made to change the law to fit the practice. I'm pretty cynical, but I don't see how such a law could succeed. This is one area in which the laws are fairly harmonious and applied broadly without the usual "... but this time with a computer!" nonsense. For reference read up on the ECPA, Wiretap Act, et al.
Trolls think they're smart, but they're really just wasteful idiots.
It is not legal for the mailman to store the metadata on the outside of your letter.
It is not legal to intercept the routing (e.g., to: address) of an email that bounces through servers -- even though accessing it is necessary to deliver the email.
There's this concept called "necessary for the rendition of service" and it applies both to metadata as well as the content of communication. For example, the Wiretap Act makes it felony to intercept data (contents of communication) -- unless you fall into one of the identified exceptions.
Back in the metaphorical dark ages, a real person -- called an operator -- manually switched lines to make a call. And, inherently, they were connected in to the call. It went something like this: your line is connected to the operator, the operator bridges that to the called line, then disconnects. The thing is, they could (and did) hear anything and everything that was said on the connected line until they dropped out. But this was necessary for the phone system to work. So when the federal government made it a felony to eaves drop they exempted the operators. But they did it through "necessary for the rendition of service".
Back to your so-called analogy, the postal service can intercept/use the metadata -- and if they happen to read the contents of a postcard they are covered as well -- as long it is incidental to the provision of service. Collecting and recording activities are *not* permitted without an exception.
What gets lost here is that there are different legal instruments for obtaining permission. By law, it is not always necessary to get a search warrant, other forms of court order can do depending on the circumstances. And that is what the fighting here is about.
Government/LEO want to pretend that stingrays only collect metadata and so do not need to obtain a search warrant. However there are a couple of problems with this:
1) the truth is they collect metadata *at a minimum* and depending on unit and configuration can be a full blown live data interception -- wiretap, which would require a search warrant
2) they collect data/metadata on everything in the area -- the orders are for limited/targeted activity
This is why they have been lying to the courts and trying to hide the actual capabilities of the stingray devices in use. But judges are starting to find out and it is getting harder for them to get blanket court approval using a procedure that cannot actually provide that approval.
So... since they are losing that fight and having to, in more and more though certainly not all cases, actually follow the legal rules they are trying to get the legal rules changed.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm also not impressed with "guard". The article claims it makes for simpler and easier to maintain code, but I don't buy it. They say it avoids being if/else trees which, if true, would be a good thing. But you can have *simpler* code than "guard" by using if. For example, the following are equivalent:
guard validate(param) else { printError(); return; }
if not validate(param) { printError(); return; }
The "avoid if/else trees" is just a matter of returning from the function early. Guard in no way enables this. Further, the full structure is "guard/else" which separates the keywords while "if not" puts the intention forward immediately.
If this is a "great" or "must have" feature of swift then... meh
what does it mean to publish? Certainly, google translate *transforms* text, but it is only doing a transformation, it is neither "publishing" nor is it "making available". If google translate made available a document that was not otherwise available then that would amount to publishing. What they do is not publishing.
Although some authors try, they have no legal grounds for dictating how something they publish is consumed. For example, I might read a book in a silly voice. This definitely offends some overly sensitive authors, but they have no legal grounds for preventing me from doing so. A translation is, in a legal sense, a mechanical transformation. Its purpose is to not alter, but rather preserve, meaning and intent. It does not creatively alter the original and so is less affecting than reading a book in a silly voice. Historically, "translation" has gone hand-in-hand with publication -- after all, why would someone go to the effort of translating a work without securing the right to publish it and benefit from those sales?
When you say "how can this [tool] exist" you only specify google tools. If you are intending to refer to the blog posting then if the images are in fact copyrighted then it would be up to the copyright holder to take legal action to enforce their rights. They are under no obligation to do so, much less any other entity.
You are also assuming that everything is "protected" by copyright, but this is not the case. There's this thing called "the public domain". Now, true, it is small and growing only ever so slowly, but it does exist. In particular, in the US if the government produces something on the public dime then it is in the public domain. Well, I suppose it can get complicated, but that is a basic premise. And, while credits are listed for photographs in the blog post, there is no indication of copyright. That does not mean the photos are not copyrighted, but it does provide anyone offended by their republication the opportunity to notify the creator.
In short: not everything is under copyright "protection" and for those that are the "protection" largely consists of publication and redistribution (the right to copy), not for how it is presented (whether that is read in a silly voice or something else).
QED
i certainly am not effected by alternating magnetic resonance, lunar or otherwise. I am affected by all kinds of things, though, including what I ate this morning
You do realize that ASCII doesn't have an apostrophe?
Oh, you thought that a single straight quote was the same thing?
Then you're excused -- after all, ignorance is bliss, right?
I just hope you aren't confused into thinking that a back tick is actually a left single quote. If all you have is ASCII then there are no typographic quotes or apostrophes, just single & double straight quotes.
(And this is really boils down to the same problem as the, mostly retired now, folks who insisted that they could use a lower case l for 1 and even interchange 0 and O.)
or maybe you aren't as insightful as you would like to believe?
There's a lot of stupid fanboy kneejerking in any thread involving Microsoft, Apple or Google.
People don't use Windows phone? They are just dumb
People buy Apple instead of Android? Stupid people pay for brand*
People prefer Android to iOS? rip off design and stolen code (java/dalvik debacle)
If your world view requires that most everyone else be stupid then you are most likely overlooking something.
* I only wish this were true. I was just trying to price out an alternative to an iPad Pro and Samsung doesn't have anything equivalent or better for less money. In fact, it looked like the pricing followed the major product features fairly closely. I'm sure that there is a cheaper alternative, but once you branch into no-name territory quality gets really dicey.
Apparently the AC's here have more of a clue about Microsoft's problems here than you do:
1) revenue is not profit. You also have to consider marketing costs, production costs, R&D costs, maintenance costs...
2) Microsoft has been losing money, not rolling in it, from their mobile ventures
3) the US is not the rest of the word, your extrapolation fails.
(I'd have modded someone else up instead of restating the obvious, but as I already commented in the story I can't and currently only two non-AC posts with neither pulling it together.)
the thing is, no matter how good your idea is, Microsoft will never do that. Can't, really. Why?
Because the only real reason to have a *windows* phone is for it to be tied in to Microsoft's other offerings, not to their competitor. If you think there aren't many apps now, what do you think would happen if an emulation layer actually allowed running an apk?
Even your fallback idea of a "backend porting app" fails. All it does is encourage "works mostly, most of the time" incompletely ported non-native applications. And this isn't going to improve anyone's impression of Windows phone either.
The truth is, Windows phone has insignificant market share and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. They can't just be better, they have to be phenomenally better, in order to gain market share.
Google did to mobile devices what Microsoft did to PCs: they got it bundled with the vast majority of hardware. Microsoft worked hard to make *their* version of DOS the de facto standard via bundling with new sales. This became so entrenched that they strong armed OEMs to prevent selling Linux-bundled hardware (even though realistically it was too late to make any difference, it was just part of the reflex by then).
IBM fought back with OS/2, and Microsoft is trying with various Windows phone hardware/software configurations. They still have a chance because mobile devices are replaced at a much faster rate, but there is a real risk of Microsoft being locked out by the ecology. Other posters have mentioned this -- but basically both Apple and Google attempt to lock you in as a customer by getting you to "buy in" to the ecosystem. Run your purchased apps on all devices -- makes it harder to justify buying a device from a competing ecosystem where you will have to re-purchase applications. Store your data in the cloud -- which the ecosystem is designed around so even though you can technically retrieve your data it is not functionally usable from a device in an alternate ecosystem.
Apple's position in mobile appears to be much the same as in desktop: often viewed as boutique, but a solid presence.
Google's position in mobile is effectively Microsoft's on the desktop: the ubiquitous standard (and with the ubiquitous security problems Microsoft used to have).
Microsoft's position in mobile is effectively IBM's on the desktop: vanishing.
It really depends on what the goals of the person are. You don't actually need the precision that lego does in order to create an interoperable part and I have done that with a consumer-grade 3d printer.
However:
You will have nowhere near the durability of a lego part. Not just in terms of strength, but in terms of wear. It will not last.
You will spend a *lot* more money per brick. Its been a while since I've done the calculation, but I'm pretty sure its at least an order of magnitude more expensive to print your own. Especially if you aren't using a consumer-grade printer (stratasys ABS is stupid brittle and very weak, completely unsuitable for the task, and absurdly expensive on top of that).
So why do it? Maybe for giggles (I've done a variety of 3d prints that are not really serious, but just to see if it can be done). Maybe for one-off pieces. It may be worthwhile to print an occasional piece that Lego does not. I've done a variety of those.
Bottom line: any reasonable printer should be able to do it, but *no* 3d printer can match Lego injection molding for quality, durability, price, etc.
where I work, yes, they'd just vent it into the office space. That's what they do with the stratasys printers. Actually, there's no "venting" per se. They just sit in the office and emit.
Sure, these units are sub $100,000 ABS printing units so maybe the really high end stuff is vented. But the comments here about "cheapo bad, expensive good" come off more as astroturfing for/by stratasys and 3d systems than reality.
the stratasys units i'm familiar with aren't vented and, even though no one seems to want to admit to the toxicity of the fumes, forced their relocation and time usage on to people who had no clout. In other words, even without evidence (like presented in this study) as to toxicity, the fumes are so noxious that the printers were moved.
Interestingly, this study affirms a previous study that printing with PLA is little different than other common environmental factors (e.g., cooking) with the dangerous material being ABS.
says the AC who knows all of this high speed stuff, but somehow needs help from others to do anything. Gotcha.
how are they "cashing in"? If it is freely available, open source, and under a mainstream license (such as Apple, BSD, GPL, Apache) then there are about two ways to make money off of it:
1) sell customized versions
2) reputation from the product
Neither one seems like "cashing in" as it requires them to do work. And the licensing was only one part identified (such as separation of privileges is a failure major point) so "their chosen terms instead of ESF's" is focusing on a single part of the reason.
In fact, the only people who I can see having a gripe would be ESF as this dilutes "their product". Welcome to the world of open source...
What? Going by anecdotal observation? I almost *never* see a pickup that is loaded. It is much much closer to 99.9% are empty all the time.
However, when do I see trucks? I see them in the parking lot at work, or driving to and from work. I'm not particularly surprised that the beds are empty, all things considered (it used to be that I'd see a toolbox in the truck bed, but it seems that would be hard on the pretty liners on the ones I see).
The most often I have seen a truck used to haul things, I was involved in the hauling. And it wasn't during rush hour, but during the day (the last time I took the day off and helped someone move). Ergo, it is possible that pickup trucks used for hauling usually don't compete with rush hour traffic, explaining the nearly 100% lack of evidence they are used for hauling during my routine driving.
In other words, be careful about drawing conclusions from observations. At the least you need to account for observational bias.
How quaint, you think that Tesla can only make a pickup truck if it will satisfy the needs of the customer who buys the most? I can see how you think that, because that is exactly what they have done with their electric car. Oh, wait...
nice story, but apparently you don't realize the black panthers were labeled as terrorists. If you want to be pedantic the term in the 1970s was more often "extremist" than "terrorist" but in this context they are synonyms (which is why the link refers to putting a black panther on the "terrorist" list).
https://www.rt.com/usa/black-p...
As to the "to everyone's credit there was no violence" you may want to look into the role of the FBI with the Black Panthers.
If you look at the right wing religious extremist and the Black Panthers there is no particular similarity outside a willingness to brandish arms. If that is all it takes for you to paint their respective activities with the same brush, you are missing the details of a lot of recent history.
shame i ran out of mod points...
anecdote, meet data. Yeah, I know, you two having nothing in common.
and when you are too short of calories your body adjusts by lowering metabolism. For how long? That depends on:
1) how great of a shortfall
2) how often there are shortfalls
3) variables with your body that have not been identified
In other words, it *does* matter if you have too little, and it isn't as simple as "averaging out in the long term".
And, speaking in generalizations, when your metabolism is lowered by shortfalls and then you get more what normally happens is the body will stockpile fat like crazy because it is concerned that there will be even more severe shortfalls (no, it doesn't think that, but that is the "motivation" behind the survival mechanism).
On the other hand, you are *not* guaranteed anything. I spent years doing all the things that are supposed to trigger such behavior without success. Anecdotes do not make data -- my point is that individual variation means that *any* of the generalized observations may not be true for any given individual at any given time (and thus possibly never).
But going, "long term average will be about right" is stupid because -- even if that worked for you (anecdote) -- it is well understood that "long term averages" don't mean a thing when it comes to weight loss or gain. Too many confounding variables.
tic-tac-toe is trivial to solve (I did so as a child -- there aren't very many moves) and, yes, the first player wins. Every time. Unless they're you, I guess.
yeah... hebrew wording. Uh huh. You know, there was a cute time-traveling RPG called Time & Time Again that played on that sort of nonsense, although they used Ogham which -- if you believe things asserted without evidence -- is found in places humans have never been.
The "Nordic naval expanse", depending on what you mean by that, is partially true. Eric the Red sailed west from Greenland and landed around Newfoundland, IIRC. They called the indigenous people "skraelings". We know this because there was a return trip so it was recorded. There was at least one more trip out west, but the attempted settlement had been destroyed.
OTOH, there are plenty of made up things about the Norse, including supposed runic inscriptions made before European settlers arrived, around Virginia.
The whole business about Columbus "discovering" the earth being a sphere is pretty much American propaganda. GP was correct, but Columbus did find someone gullible enough to fund his venture (though not as well as he would've liked).
Saying "the Egyptians" or "the Greeks" is misleading at best and incorrect at worst. I can't be assed to find the name of the (greek) philosopher who worked out that the earth was a sphere (not round, that would be a pizza). He is, nowadays, mostly remembered for estimating the diameter of the earth using trigonometry (angle of shadow in wells at noon, one I think in Alexandria, the other maybe in Greece).
The funny thing is that he considered that to be weak evidence for the earth being a sphere. Why? Because it was just math, not real. He had other, "better", reasons for the earth being a sphere, such as there were elephants in India and in Africa. Since one lay to the east and the other to the south, the earth *must* be a sphere for the apparently two separate continents to be a single continent.
But sailors have long known that the earth is a sphere. Why? Because you can see the curvature. You can also see things "fall below the horizon". You can get a similar experience in any wide open place, but water really drives home the point about the horizon being curved. Columbus was (rightly) ridiculed, not because he asserted the earth was a sphere (which those who cared knew), but that he claimed it was very small and that you could take a shortcut to India by going west. And was he ever wrong (not just larger, but the presence of an inconvenient continent to preclude a direct sail).
A few months back I read what research I could find relating to digestion, in particular with a focus on vegetarian vs carnivore, but branching out as the results did. The first big takeaway is that we know almost nothing about digestion. It is quite complex and incredibly variable.
Although there are plenty of assertions about how long it takes to digest meat vs vegetables the truth is that it varies so much that any difference is *obviously* buried in noise. A person might completely digest (that is, shit out the remains) of a food in one day -- and then next week take an entire week before it passes. It is easy to think of the digestive system as being FIFO, but this is simply not the case. While your body is busily trying to digest food A, it may dispatch food's B, C, D, E and F in short order.
But digestion is not only complex and highly variable, it is also very challenging to measure. This appears to be the main explanation for the paucity of research. It just isn't that easy to check on the current status of any given portion of your digestive tract, much less complete monitoring of the entire system. When the summary said "...mapping your internal chemistry..." I laughed a bit. Of course, there isn't any reasonable proposal as to how this could be done on an individual basis because we can't even do it for a single research case.
Don't get me wrong: I think more research will happen and there will be advances, but I think it is a mistake to think we will gain much understanding in the near future. It is much more likely to be a little more understanding in the far future.
I would say that is illegal. If you can find that you can surely find the accounting of what a "postal cover" is and the requirements for it.
Your argument is akin to someone saying that the NSA's illegal data collection makes it public.
the cowardly trolls are strong in this one.
Instead of repeating a long post, I'll (try to) keep it short. They are arguing for the law to be *changed* because they have been *breaking* the law. In particular, a court order restricts scope and method, and LEO have been lying to the courts about both. This is the entire point of keeping stingray capabilities secret: they have been lying to the judiciary and, as a result, getting permission through less controlled means for something *less* than what they were actually doing.
Because of increasing judicial awareness (including censure, in some cases) there is an attempt being made to change the law to fit the practice. I'm pretty cynical, but I don't see how such a law could succeed. This is one area in which the laws are fairly harmonious and applied broadly without the usual "... but this time with a computer!" nonsense. For reference read up on the ECPA, Wiretap Act, et al.
Trolls think they're smart, but they're really just wasteful idiots.
You are a dumbshit. Or stupid. Or whatever.
It is not legal for the mailman to store the metadata on the outside of your letter.
It is not legal to intercept the routing (e.g., to: address) of an email that bounces through servers -- even though accessing it is necessary to deliver the email.
There's this concept called "necessary for the rendition of service" and it applies both to metadata as well as the content of communication. For example, the Wiretap Act makes it felony to intercept data (contents of communication) -- unless you fall into one of the identified exceptions.
Back in the metaphorical dark ages, a real person -- called an operator -- manually switched lines to make a call. And, inherently, they were connected in to the call. It went something like this: your line is connected to the operator, the operator bridges that to the called line, then disconnects. The thing is, they could (and did) hear anything and everything that was said on the connected line until they dropped out. But this was necessary for the phone system to work. So when the federal government made it a felony to eaves drop they exempted the operators. But they did it through "necessary for the rendition of service".
Back to your so-called analogy, the postal service can intercept/use the metadata -- and if they happen to read the contents of a postcard they are covered as well -- as long it is incidental to the provision of service. Collecting and recording activities are *not* permitted without an exception.
What gets lost here is that there are different legal instruments for obtaining permission. By law, it is not always necessary to get a search warrant, other forms of court order can do depending on the circumstances. And that is what the fighting here is about.
Government/LEO want to pretend that stingrays only collect metadata and so do not need to obtain a search warrant. However there are a couple of problems with this:
1) the truth is they collect metadata *at a minimum* and depending on unit and configuration can be a full blown live data interception -- wiretap, which would require a search warrant
2) they collect data/metadata on everything in the area -- the orders are for limited/targeted activity
This is why they have been lying to the courts and trying to hide the actual capabilities of the stingray devices in use. But judges are starting to find out and it is getting harder for them to get blanket court approval using a procedure that cannot actually provide that approval.
So... since they are losing that fight and having to, in more and more though certainly not all cases, actually follow the legal rules they are trying to get the legal rules changed.