The Chromium home page tells people to download Google Chrome. Then, if they persist in thinking that they really want Chromium, it tells them to download the source code and build it themselves.
Given those things, is it really so surprising that most people use Chrome instead of Chromium?
No, Ferguson looks like a lot of people jumping to a conclusion based on their biases and incomplete information. When young blacks in the South used to be the victims of it, we used to call that a "lynching".
You've got that backwards: it's Darren Wilson who allegedly did something similar to lynching. What "a lot of people" are doing is calling for that allegation to be properly investigated, which is exactly the opposite of jumping to conclusions!
This fundamental belief is also part of the reasoning for US interventionism abroad.
That may indeed be part of the reasoning for interventionism, but such reasoning is faulty. The Constitution says that the US Government is prohibited from infringing people's rights, but it doesn't say that the US Government is obligated to prevent (or indeed, even justified in choosing to prevent) other sovereign states from infringing on people's rights.
The first amendment does jack shit for an iranian citizen in iran.
The First Amendment restricts what the US Government is allowed to do. The US Government is indeed prohibited from violating the First Amendment rights of an Iranian in Iran. Actions of non-US entities (e.g., the Iranian government), however, are outside the scope of the document -- it's not the US Government's job to stop anybody else from infringing Iranians' rights; only to refrain from doing so itself.
the foreign gov't *can* authorize search ("hacking") of those servers, even if it's a US citizen. If the foreign gov't allows it, then the Constitution is irrelevant: it's as if the foreign gov't did it and handed over the data to the US.
Sure, the foreign government could allow the hacking and hand over the data. But that doesn't magically give the data any legal weight; it's just hearsay. Using it as evidence should still require a warrant!
If the "people" referred to by the 4th Amendment and the "people of the several states" referred to by Article 1, Section 2 were the same group, then there would have been no need to write the "of the several states" part.
What I meant was that you appeared to find the idea that there exists a "universal leftist tendency to ignore unpleasant facts" to be itself unpleasant, and consequently ignored it. You gotta admit, that's pretty ironic (independently of the merits of the claim itself, whether you are a "leftist" or not, or anything else). I was amused, anyway...
There are US laws that prevent the hacking of US computers because US citizens have protections from the government. Non-citizens are not protected by the constitution and have no such rights.
Oh really? Let's take a look at the 4th Amendment in question:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Hmm... that's funny, it says "people," not "citizens." What does that mean? Oh, right, it means it actually applies to all people whether they're US citizens or not!
Not to mention, that's beside the point because the government is alleging that Silk Road is owned by a US citizen anyway.
Remember, the government is trying to argue that Silk Road was owned by Ulbricht, a US citizen. So what they're really claiming is that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to a US citizen's papers and effects, if they happen to be physically located outside of the borders of the US. The Constitution imposes no such limitation; therefore, this is clearly unconstitutional.
The government's argument also begs the question -- and I mean that in its proper sense, as in, the government is making a circular argument. From the summary:
"They said, 'Given that the SR Server was hosting a blatantly criminal website, it would have been reasonable for the FBI to 'hack' into it in order to search it, as any such 'hack' would simply have constituted a search of foreign property known to contain criminal evidence, for which a warrant was not necessary.' "
There is no such thing as a "blatantly criminal" anything until it has be ruled as such in a court of law. Getting a warrant is exactly what they must do as a first step towards proving something is illegal; they don't get to simply "assume" it's illegal and skip that step. It is exactly the job of the judge issuing the warrant -- and nobody else -- to decide what is "given!"
That concept is so basic and fundamental that it's an axiom upon which the entire US legal system is founded; it boggles the mind to think that any lawyer so incompetent as to make such an argument could even exist!
Insulation, on the other hand, has been improved (or at least, our understanding that using a lot of it is actually kind of a good idea has been improved).
Increase resources, reduce population, or reduce standard of living. It's a simple if difficult choice.
You forgot "or increase technology." Surely you can agree that (for example) lighting your house with LEDs and doing your computing on something like a Haswell laptop is not a lower standard of living than lighting your house with gas lamps and doing your computing on a PDP-11... but it uses a whole lot less energy!
There are some suggestions that he was aware, from previous visitors to North America, including those going to the rich fishing grounds off the coast, that America existed and that by sailing relatively south was seeking to miss it.
1. You can figure out the protocol of a packet by things other than the packet header. If something says its a low-latency thing (e.g. a video feed) but has the characteristics of a web page load, then treat it as a web page load.
2. People don't spoof bittorrent as HTTP because they want to drown out everybody's HTTP; they do so because the ISP is imposing massive, punitive throttling. If the ISPs had acted in good faith -- by QoSing bittorrent only to the extent needed to prevent slowdowns of other people's traffic rather than squeezing it down to a trickle to "stop the dirty EEEVUL pirates!!!" -- hardly anybody would bother to switch to HTTP. The ISPs are bad actors and are bringing it upon themselves.
Thing is, how do you write the law so that it doesn't mess with legit QoS, but doesn't have loopholes that allow companies to throttle traffic they don't like? It isn't an easy answer.
"You may throttle based on protocol (e.g. http, ftp, sip, bittorrent) but not by packet origin or destination."
If I have to choose between allowing traffic to be prioritized by which sender has given the biggest bribe or prohibiting that along with prohibiting prioritizing by packet type (i.e., QoS)... then I'll choose to prohibit QoS because preventing bribe-prioritization is worth it!
Unlimited data, first 2GB unthrottled, rest at edge speeds. Unlimited text. 100 voice minutes (add a voip provider, and unlimited voice for pennies more).
Did they change it or something? I have that plan, except its 5GB of 4G data. (And although I've never hit it, I was under the impression that it was unlimited 3G afterward.)
Also, VoIP is zero pennies more if you use Google Voice (with Hangouts). Otherwise, the cheapest third-party VoIP providers tend to charge something like $2-$3/month.
Now that we're being careful about using wifi its not clear that we even need much of a data plan.
I've got a $30/month 5GB plan with T-Mobile. (Actually, $30.75/month including taxes -- yes, that's total.) Even through I rely completely on VoIP for all my calls, I'm still within range of Wi-Fi so often that I've never even made it to 500MB, let alone 5GB. I'm now shopping for an even cheaper plan.
There is absolutely no reason to let Verizon rape your wallet unless you consistently need to stream video somewhere where only they have coverage.
The fact that there were able to add so much (stuff like virutal desktops (yes, i know Linux has had it for over a decade)) without raising the minimum requirements shows that they actually care about performance and are doing a good job.
You've got to be kidding me. Virtual desktops require not much more than splitting the data structure that holds the list of windows into N pieces (for N desktops), an integer to keep track of which one you're on, and a couple of event handlers to switch between them. If that sort of thing is enough to force you to raise minimum requirements then you need to quit using bogosort to keep your window list in the right order!
But are the rest of the displays also made by Honeywell? Unless they're intentionally diverse in design, this seems like the kind of problem that could affect all the displays simultaneously.
We have to make the laws that are reasonable to our time. The Constitution allowed slavery, for instance, and no vote for women.
Yeah, and when times changed it got amended. But the right to bear arms hasn't been amended, and until it does, it still stands as the law of the land that all arms are included.
Does it make sense now for individuals to buy and sell full-auto weapons? "Assault rifles"? Flamethrowers? Surface-to-air missles?
Absolutely! How else is the public supposed to support a revolt against tyranny? (That is what the 2nd Amendment is for, you know... it's a rule written by violent revolutionaries for violent revolutionaries.)
[I]n a time when most sane people [believe] that the power of the police, the SOPs of the police, and the hiring practices of the police need a makeover it is yet another black eye
Indeed: "fuck the police" is now something even middle-class white men say!
Slashdot Mirror
The Chromium home page tells people to download Google Chrome. Then, if they persist in thinking that they really want Chromium, it tells them to download the source code and build it themselves.
Given those things, is it really so surprising that most people use Chrome instead of Chromium?
You've got that backwards: it's Darren Wilson who allegedly did something similar to lynching. What "a lot of people" are doing is calling for that allegation to be properly investigated, which is exactly the opposite of jumping to conclusions!
Well said! However:
That may indeed be part of the reasoning for interventionism, but such reasoning is faulty. The Constitution says that the US Government is prohibited from infringing people's rights, but it doesn't say that the US Government is obligated to prevent (or indeed, even justified in choosing to prevent) other sovereign states from infringing on people's rights.
The First Amendment restricts what the US Government is allowed to do. The US Government is indeed prohibited from violating the First Amendment rights of an Iranian in Iran. Actions of non-US entities (e.g., the Iranian government), however, are outside the scope of the document -- it's not the US Government's job to stop anybody else from infringing Iranians' rights; only to refrain from doing so itself.
Sure, the foreign government could allow the hacking and hand over the data. But that doesn't magically give the data any legal weight; it's just hearsay. Using it as evidence should still require a warrant!
If the "people" referred to by the 4th Amendment and the "people of the several states" referred to by Article 1, Section 2 were the same group, then there would have been no need to write the "of the several states" part.
We have seen that. It looks like Ferguson.
What I meant was that you appeared to find the idea that there exists a "universal leftist tendency to ignore unpleasant facts" to be itself unpleasant, and consequently ignored it. You gotta admit, that's pretty ironic (independently of the merits of the claim itself, whether you are a "leftist" or not, or anything else). I was amused, anyway...
Oh really? Let's take a look at the 4th Amendment in question:
Hmm... that's funny, it says "people," not "citizens." What does that mean? Oh, right, it means it actually applies to all people whether they're US citizens or not!
Not to mention, that's beside the point because the government is alleging that Silk Road is owned by a US citizen anyway.
Remember, the government is trying to argue that Silk Road was owned by Ulbricht, a US citizen. So what they're really claiming is that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to a US citizen's papers and effects, if they happen to be physically located outside of the borders of the US. The Constitution imposes no such limitation; therefore, this is clearly unconstitutional.
The government's argument also begs the question -- and I mean that in its proper sense, as in, the government is making a circular argument. From the summary:
There is no such thing as a "blatantly criminal" anything until it has be ruled as such in a court of law. Getting a warrant is exactly what they must do as a first step towards proving something is illegal; they don't get to simply "assume" it's illegal and skip that step. It is exactly the job of the judge issuing the warrant -- and nobody else -- to decide what is "given!"
That concept is so basic and fundamental that it's an axiom upon which the entire US legal system is founded; it boggles the mind to think that any lawyer so incompetent as to make such an argument could even exist!
So what? They are what we call "accomplices!"
I can't tell if you're joking, trolling, or if the irony was accidental.
See also: Nexus 5.
Insulation, on the other hand, has been improved (or at least, our understanding that using a lot of it is actually kind of a good idea has been improved).
You forgot "or increase technology." Surely you can agree that (for example) lighting your house with LEDs and doing your computing on something like a Haswell laptop is not a lower standard of living than lighting your house with gas lamps and doing your computing on a PDP-11... but it uses a whole lot less energy!
Actually, he didn't have much of a choice in sailing south. Turning north is how you get blown back to Europe.
1. You can figure out the protocol of a packet by things other than the packet header. If something says its a low-latency thing (e.g. a video feed) but has the characteristics of a web page load, then treat it as a web page load.
2. People don't spoof bittorrent as HTTP because they want to drown out everybody's HTTP; they do so because the ISP is imposing massive, punitive throttling. If the ISPs had acted in good faith -- by QoSing bittorrent only to the extent needed to prevent slowdowns of other people's traffic rather than squeezing it down to a trickle to "stop the dirty EEEVUL pirates!!!" -- hardly anybody would bother to switch to HTTP. The ISPs are bad actors and are bringing it upon themselves.
"You may throttle based on protocol (e.g. http, ftp, sip, bittorrent) but not by packet origin or destination."
Gee, that wasn't so hard after all!
If I have to choose between allowing traffic to be prioritized by which sender has given the biggest bribe or prohibiting that along with prohibiting prioritizing by packet type (i.e., QoS)... then I'll choose to prohibit QoS because preventing bribe-prioritization is worth it!
Did they change it or something? I have that plan, except its 5GB of 4G data. (And although I've never hit it, I was under the impression that it was unlimited 3G afterward.)
Also, VoIP is zero pennies more if you use Google Voice (with Hangouts). Otherwise, the cheapest third-party VoIP providers tend to charge something like $2-$3/month.
I've got a $30/month 5GB plan with T-Mobile. (Actually, $30.75/month including taxes -- yes, that's total.) Even through I rely completely on VoIP for all my calls, I'm still within range of Wi-Fi so often that I've never even made it to 500MB, let alone 5GB. I'm now shopping for an even cheaper plan.
There is absolutely no reason to let Verizon rape your wallet unless you consistently need to stream video somewhere where only they have coverage.
You've got to be kidding me. Virtual desktops require not much more than splitting the data structure that holds the list of windows into N pieces (for N desktops), an integer to keep track of which one you're on, and a couple of event handlers to switch between them. If that sort of thing is enough to force you to raise minimum requirements then you need to quit using bogosort to keep your window list in the right order!
But are the rest of the displays also made by Honeywell? Unless they're intentionally diverse in design, this seems like the kind of problem that could affect all the displays simultaneously.
Yeah, and when times changed it got amended. But the right to bear arms hasn't been amended, and until it does, it still stands as the law of the land that all arms are included.
Absolutely! How else is the public supposed to support a revolt against tyranny? (That is what the 2nd Amendment is for, you know... it's a rule written by violent revolutionaries for violent revolutionaries.)
Indeed: "fuck the police" is now something even middle-class white men say!