Really? I have friends who splash out $1000s on their hobbies, whether it is robots or R/C. This is a steal in comparison to some more expensive and consuming hobbies, especially considering the (underpowered but still excellent) FPGA. You can get similar hardware for far less or far better hardware for a bit less right now directly from Xilinx if that is your thing. Are the Open Source requirements met by those similar hardware alternatives, I wonder? I mean, there must be a reason they would design their own and not use alternatives - they're not stupid people, after all.
"The FBI paid Verizon $2,500 apiece to upgrade 1,140 old telephone switches"
You're right. It does look like FBI paid several different Verizons each to upgrade 1,140 switches. It should have been written "The FBI paid Verizon to upgrade 1,140...switches at $2,500 apiece".
Sorry.
Although in this case Verizon is still the recipient.
Ah, I see what you're getting at. I hadn't considered that they'd gotten their grammar wrong - I just assumed they'd deleted another recipient, which is still possible, I suppose, though the *low* number of $ does sort of imply that it isn't a single payment. I think I actually misread that and inserted a virtual 'million' somewhere where there wasn't any.
Me too./. wasn't accessible for the first few months I was here - back in late 2003 - but has been ever since.
Wikipedia stopped working sometime last week, iirc, though it seemed like it was working for some of my friends at their work (no, they're not using VPN/etc). If I changed my IP address (it's dynamic/routable), then I could sometimes access it. Strange to be sure - almost sounds more like a networking issue in CNC.
millions of iPhones/iTouches sold begs to differ about it never catching on. One product (or, arguably, two) doesn't mean it has 'caught on".
In any case, I've only seen a few iPhones/iTouches since they were introduced - it might be common in the US, but I wouldn't say that is necessary true anywhere else particularly. Not that 'catching on' only in the US is anything to sneeze at, especially from a $ standpoint, but still. From what I've read, some people like it and some people hate it.
If they cannot find enough evidence to say conclusively that she did it, then I don't see how you can.
Trials have restrictions on what they can admit. Trials have legal standards. Trials don't exist to determine whether people did things. They exist to determine if people broke the law. You must have done something, and that something must have been against the law. And if she did do it but the courts can't prove it, she still did it, so why shouldn't I believe that truth? Because if the courts can't find that she did it, I'd personally prefer to believe them than what you believe.
The courts have standards for a reason - because, without them, the system is not "just"; and that's my whole point.
Your position on this case makes your whole law system pointless, as far as I can see.
And your position seems to be that the law system can determine whether or not a person committed an act. Not true. My position is that if the court can't determine if a person is guilty, after hearing all the evidence with all the most skilled people arguing for and against and all the resources of the police/etc, then I'm fairly sure you can't determine if she's guilty or not either
I hate to break it to you, but whether a person did or did not do something is not something that can be declared by a court later. The court findings don't manage to change history.
she says she is innocent.
I haven't seen that. I've seen where she said she didn't create the account (which agrees with the charges and statements of others involved). It seems to me that she has denied the charges, whatever they are.
If you want her to be charged and tried for something else, then that's another matter, isn't it?
But no where have I seen her say "I never contacted her online in my name or under the identity of Josh." Nor have I seen any declarations of innocence. If you have those, let me know. Of course not - that's what the trial is for, to determine (beyond reasonable doubt, yadda yadda) if she is guilty, or not.
At this point, she is addressing specific points of fact that make it seem like she wasn't involved, without actually denying involvement.
I have no requirement to presume innocence. That's the court's job. There is proof that someone harrassed her online and that she committed suicide after. There are multiple people swearing under oath that the "mastermind" is the accused. That's a proponderance of the evidence, and enough for me to make a decision. The court has different guidelines and legal standards I don't have to follow, so my findings on the facts do not have anything to do with the courts. You seem to not understand that the facts and the court findings do not agree in many cases, and the truth is never dictated by the court, but is separate. The court system can not and does not try to find "truth." And you are complaining that if the truth and the courts are in conflict, we should agree with the courts, and I assert that is absurd. Bla bla bla. If the court can't find someone guilty, then it's for a good reason, irrespective of if he/she are indeed guilty. If you can't handle that, then complain to your government, or take the law into your own hands, if you like.
This is boring. I won't reply to your next post, so please, feel free to have the final word.
While you might have some kind of a point there, in that it's difficult to know when to and when not to intervene, to counter your argument, I would say that, for a start Japan was invading other countries, and for a second, the US didn't stick their nose in, it was dragged in kicking and screaming...I could probably go on, but there's little point....I'll let you have the last word.
ok, fair enough, but that isn't the intervention I'm talking about. The US sticking their noses in where it wasn't wanted is a common occurance and I'm not surprised you're confused as to which one I mean.
IINM, I'm talking about this - note that it appears to be written by your own government, and is surprisingly frank (IMO).
Lots of people seem to single out nuclear bombs but I wonder why. Is it because they make war so easy to "win"? Is this so much different to a conventional bomb of corresponding 'size'?
I guess they aren't too much different to other weapons in the WMD category...
Post summary: two cheap shots, but nothing else of substance.
By your second point, I assume you're talking about WW II, to which I would point out that the US didn't intervene since that would imply they made a choice. IINM, they were forced into it on both fronts.
As for the definition of 'inevitable', clearly I mean inevitable had the US not intervened.
Dude, the entire Android stack is (or is going to be) Open Source.. Oh, ok. That's news to me. I thought the reason Verizon doesn't want to join Android is because it isn't open. We'll have to wait and see, I guess.
As for using point-to-point data to do voice over bluetooth, yes, you can do that, if you want to re-invent the wheel, just don't expect any sane operating support to do it because Symbian supports voice over bluetooth to headsets only, not to other handsets. Or at least it did when I was a Symbian developer, they might have add support since then. So, you don't know then. I don't either, actually. It's plausible, I suppose, but things change.
It seems like your saying that Symbian doesn't allow 'cool' applications, so long as 'cool' is defined as applications you can't develop.
Talking about S60 here (UIQ is also Symbian), there *is* a bluetooth API of course. There's even a bluetooth point-to-multipoint example. The FAQ (which seems a little out of date to me) says:
# Do Nokia's phones support point-to-multipoint? #
Nokia phones having Symbian OS support point-to-multipoint as a master. Thus, it is possible to develop an application that establishes multiple links from a Nokia phone to other devices. As a slave, the phone can only have one active Bluetooth connection. A master/slave switch is not supported.
Series 40 devices support only point-to-point connections. (Note that Series 40 is not Symbian)
This also mentions multiplayer games using bluetooth, so I can't help but wonder how they work, *if* what you say is true:
Bluetooth technology.... developers can, for example, create exciting multiplayer games, industrial and remote-control applications, and wireless enhancements. Also, IINM, while Android is open in the sense a 'window' is open, it isn't open in the sense that a 'door' is open. IE, you are also reliant on the API being available - you cannot add your own or bypass it. Yes, you can see how it works, and spot bugs/etc. You might also be able to develop a hack or other (as people do with Symbian actually, though there's more guess work), but I don't think you're really talking about hacking here, are you? In any case, don't Android apps run in a virtual machine - which would mean that they can only access the resources in the virtual machine which is via an API (I'm not clear on this)?
I'm genuinely curious why you think 'cool' things aren't possible on Symbian. I have had a look and there are some restrictions which could account for your position, but I'm wondering what *your* reasons are.
and their Nokia site is in both Chinese (I'm guessing Mandarin, but I really have no clue) FYI, Mandarin is a spoken language, and they speak Cantonese in HK (mostly)[1]. The written languages are 'traditional Chinese' and 'simplified Chinese', for former being what they use in HK (and Taiwan?).
[1] IINM Cantonese is a English 'corruption' of the word Guangdongese, Guangdong being the neighbouring province. Having said that, I can't see it's all that similar a word. So, like "Peking" being the western word for "Beijing", I wonder if it isn't that the Chinese are now using a different word, or pronunciation has changed. I'd be interested to know, if anyone has any knowledge on the matter:)
While I continue to 'find fault' with your argument, as you say, it is pointless to continue.
I just not that, as you say:
just as many Taiwanese generally believe themselves...the sole legitimate gov't of both Taiwan and China. Both the PRC and ROC consider themselves (on some level at least) to be sole legitimate gov't of you:"Taiwan and China"/me:"all of China, including Taiwan". Since that is true, it seems everyone agrees that it is all "China", as I claimed.
The governance and independence of Taiwan from the PRC is clear, and, IMO (and yours, it would seem) indisputable. If that was your only point, then we agree.
My only point is that it is still "China" and it belongs to "the people" as a whiole. The only reason it is independent at all is because the people of China were prevented from taking their civil war to it's inevitable conclusion - ie the destruction (can't think of a better word) of the ROC; hence my history link. Of course, that is also an assumption - who knows what would have happened if the US hadn't stuck their "noses in".
Everyone's talking about it like she's been found guilty already. Has the case been judged on already and I missed it?
She did or did not do the act. Right. That's why I said "*found* guilty".
She is a woman that did harrass someone else online. There is no evidence against that statement, and a pile for it. Well, just reading the article, and knowing no previous history of the case, I see one piece of such evidence - she says she is innocent.
Furthermore, the courts are there for a reason. Trials have a purpose. If they cannot find enough evidence to say conclusively that she did it, then I don't see how you can.
If you think you know better, then go talk to the prosecutors and give them your evidence.
If she is 'let off' on a technicality, then I could see your point, but that hasn't happened yet.
Yes, you have a right to your own opinion, but that's all it is. It doesn't change if she is guilty or not either, just like the courts or a trial doesn't change it.
Your position on this case makes your whole law system pointless, as far as I can see.
...and yet you believe her when she said she did it?
When I've seen situations like this on TV, the lawyers usually discount *everything* they say, and just use the evidence. That seems to be more reasonable to me than to only believe some things they say.
However, she is claiming to be innocent, no matter what she may have said in the past. Someone can admit to something for any number of reasons - sometimes to hide an even worse 'something'.
Do you really think this action deserves the death penalty? Do they have that in California?
Point: avoid making assumptions. Well, I think I apologised for that. However, I think the mistake was understandable, personally.
I also think you are sounding an aweful lot like my mum.
It seems to me that people just want the courts to decide if she is guilty. Perhaps you're right. I'll see if I can read them more in that light.
however she was/is 49 years old, preying on a 13 year old... thats, just flatout fucking bullshit.
we're talking about a 40-odd year old woman who knew the victim deliberately crafting a fake persona and instigating it into her life. Knowing that the target - a child - had mental issues, this deranged pathetic excuse for a human being nevertheless persisted in her campaign to deceive the child, involving as many of her own daughter's friends as possible....The woman deserves what is coming, and I will laugh happily every time I hear her family has suffered misfortune
If the 40 year old woman hadn't pushed her over the edge by deliberately tormenting Nope...I don't want to bother reading any more since I've read them already. It seems clear to me that the vast majority of posters are assuming her guilt already.
Slashdot Mirror
Are there any Open Source objectives better met by their own product compared to an alternative?
Hmm.
"The FBI paid Verizon $2,500 apiece to upgrade 1,140 old telephone switches"
You're right. It does look like FBI paid several different Verizons each to upgrade 1,140 switches. It should have been written "The FBI paid Verizon to upgrade 1,140
Sorry.
Ah, I see what you're getting at. I hadn't considered that they'd gotten their grammar wrong - I just assumed they'd deleted another recipient, which is still possible, I suppose, though the *low* number of $ does sort of imply that it isn't a single payment. I think I actually misread that and inserted a virtual 'million' somewhere where there wasn't any.Although in this case Verizon is still the recipient.
Yeah, nothing to see here
Some kind soul has tagged this story as 'China'.
I, for one, am kind of curious what this story has to do with China.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself, but what you said is agreeing with what I said.
In the examples you gave, there are multiple recipients - ie more than one child and more than one pencil.
In the article, there was only one - Verizon - so no need for the word 'apiece', unless they deleted another recipient.
Perhaps I misunderstood *your* point too?
IINM, normal usage of the word "apiece" implies multiple recipients - eg "My children received pocket money of $10 apiece." which means I was out $20.
Think there was a previous deletion that was successfully hidden and there's actually another recipient involved?
Me too. /. wasn't accessible for the first few months I was here - back in late 2003 - but has been ever since.
Wikipedia stopped working sometime last week, iirc, though it seemed like it was working for some of my friends at their work (no, they're not using VPN/etc). If I changed my IP address (it's dynamic/routable), then I could sometimes access it. Strange to be sure - almost sounds more like a networking issue in CNC.
I believe those numbers, but I still don't know *why* they're like they are.
I'm in Beijing now, and s/w engineers get paid crap wages and often are required to work overtime without extra pay too.
What is this "short-sidedness" the gp referred to? I thought he'd just miss-typed "short-sightedness", but you seem to validate his usage.
millions of iPhones/iTouches sold begs to differ about it never catching on. One product (or, arguably, two) doesn't mean it has 'caught on".
In any case, I've only seen a few iPhones/iTouches since they were introduced - it might be common in the US, but I wouldn't say that is necessary true anywhere else particularly. Not that 'catching on' only in the US is anything to sneeze at, especially from a $ standpoint, but still. From what I've read, some people like it and some people hate it.
Trials have restrictions on what they can admit. Trials have legal standards. Trials don't exist to determine whether people did things. They exist to determine if people broke the law. You must have done something, and that something must have been against the law. And if she did do it but the courts can't prove it, she still did it, so why shouldn't I believe that truth? Because if the courts can't find that she did it, I'd personally prefer to believe them than what you believe.
The courts have standards for a reason - because, without them, the system is not "just"; and that's my whole point. Your position on this case makes your whole law system pointless, as far as I can see.
And your position seems to be that the law system can determine whether or not a person committed an act. Not true. My position is that if the court can't determine if a person is guilty, after hearing all the evidence with all the most skilled people arguing for and against and all the resources of the police/etc, then I'm fairly sure you can't determine if she's guilty or not either I hate to break it to you, but whether a person did or did not do something is not something that can be declared by a court later. The court findings don't manage to change history.
she says she is innocent.
I haven't seen that. I've seen where she said she didn't create the account (which agrees with the charges and statements of others involved). It seems to me that she has denied the charges, whatever they are.
If you want her to be charged and tried for something else, then that's another matter, isn't it? But no where have I seen her say "I never contacted her online in my name or under the identity of Josh." Nor have I seen any declarations of innocence. If you have those, let me know. Of course not - that's what the trial is for, to determine (beyond reasonable doubt, yadda yadda) if she is guilty, or not. At this point, she is addressing specific points of fact that make it seem like she wasn't involved, without actually denying involvement.
I have no requirement to presume innocence. That's the court's job. There is proof that someone harrassed her online and that she committed suicide after. There are multiple people swearing under oath that the "mastermind" is the accused. That's a proponderance of the evidence, and enough for me to make a decision. The court has different guidelines and legal standards I don't have to follow, so my findings on the facts do not have anything to do with the courts. You seem to not understand that the facts and the court findings do not agree in many cases, and the truth is never dictated by the court, but is separate. The court system can not and does not try to find "truth." And you are complaining that if the truth and the courts are in conflict, we should agree with the courts, and I assert that is absurd. Bla bla bla. If the court can't find someone guilty, then it's for a good reason, irrespective of if he/she are indeed guilty. If you can't handle that, then complain to your government, or take the law into your own hands, if you like.
This is boring. I won't reply to your next post, so please, feel free to have the final word.
While you might have some kind of a point there, in that it's difficult to know when to and when not to intervene, to counter your argument, I would say that, for a start Japan was invading other countries, and for a second, the US didn't stick their nose in, it was dragged in kicking and screaming...I could probably go on, but there's little point....I'll let you have the last word.
ok, fair enough, but that isn't the intervention I'm talking about. The US sticking their noses in where it wasn't wanted is a common occurance and I'm not surprised you're confused as to which one I mean.
IINM, I'm talking about this - note that it appears to be written by your own government, and is surprisingly frank (IMO).
Lots of people seem to single out nuclear bombs but I wonder why. Is it because they make war so easy to "win"? Is this so much different to a conventional bomb of corresponding 'size'?
I guess they aren't too much different to other weapons in the WMD category...
Post summary: two cheap shots, but nothing else of substance.
By your second point, I assume you're talking about WW II, to which I would point out that the US didn't intervene since that would imply they made a choice. IINM, they were forced into it on both fronts.
As for the definition of 'inevitable', clearly I mean inevitable had the US not intervened.
It seems like your saying that Symbian doesn't allow 'cool' applications, so long as 'cool' is defined as applications you can't develop.
Talking about S60 here (UIQ is also Symbian), there *is* a bluetooth API of course. There's even a bluetooth point-to-multipoint example. The FAQ (which seems a little out of date to me) says
#
Nokia phones having Symbian OS support point-to-multipoint as a master. Thus, it is possible to develop an application that establishes multiple links from a Nokia phone to other devices. As a slave, the phone can only have one active Bluetooth connection. A master/slave switch is not supported.
Series 40 devices support only point-to-point connections. (Note that Series 40 is not Symbian)
This also mentions multiplayer games using bluetooth, so I can't help but wonder how they work, *if* what you say is true
developers can, for example, create exciting multiplayer games, industrial and remote-control applications, and wireless enhancements. Also, IINM, while Android is open in the sense a 'window' is open, it isn't open in the sense that a 'door' is open. IE, you are also reliant on the API being available - you cannot add your own or bypass it. Yes, you can see how it works, and spot bugs/etc. You might also be able to develop a hack or other (as people do with Symbian actually, though there's more guess work), but I don't think you're really talking about hacking here, are you? In any case, don't Android apps run in a virtual machine - which would mean that they can only access the resources in the virtual machine which is via an API (I'm not clear on this)?
I'm genuinely curious why you think 'cool' things aren't possible on Symbian. I have had a look and there are some restrictions which could account for your position, but I'm wondering what *your* reasons are.
[1] IINM Cantonese is a English 'corruption' of the word Guangdongese, Guangdong being the neighbouring province.
Having said that, I can't see it's all that similar a word. So, like "Peking" being the western word for "Beijing", I wonder if it isn't that the Chinese are now using a different word, or pronunciation has changed. I'd be interested to know, if anyone has any knowledge on the matter
I just not that, as you say
The governance and independence of Taiwan from the PRC is clear, and, IMO (and yours, it would seem) indisputable. If that was your only point, then we agree.
My only point is that it is still "China" and it belongs to "the people" as a whiole. The only reason it is independent at all is because the people of China were prevented from taking their civil war to it's inevitable conclusion - ie the destruction (can't think of a better word) of the ROC; hence my history link. Of course, that is also an assumption - who knows what would have happened if the US hadn't stuck their "noses in".
She did or did not do the act. Right. That's why I said "*found* guilty". She is a woman that did harrass someone else online. There is no evidence against that statement, and a pile for it. Well, just reading the article, and knowing no previous history of the case, I see one piece of such evidence - she says she is innocent.
Furthermore, the courts are there for a reason. Trials have a purpose. If they cannot find enough evidence to say conclusively that she did it, then I don't see how you can.
If you think you know better, then go talk to the prosecutors and give them your evidence.
If she is 'let off' on a technicality, then I could see your point, but that hasn't happened yet.
Yes, you have a right to your own opinion, but that's all it is. It doesn't change if she is guilty or not either, just like the courts or a trial doesn't change it.
Your position on this case makes your whole law system pointless, as far as I can see.
...and yet you believe her when she said she did it?
When I've seen situations like this on TV, the lawyers usually discount *everything* they say, and just use the evidence. That seems to be more reasonable to me than to only believe some things they say.
I read one poster call this murder.
Lets assume she did do it.
I wonder if suicide was her aim or, if she knew that suicide would be the result, she would have done it.
I guess people can get pretty fanatical about their children in the US, so if she thought her child was being threatened anything is possible.
Even 'foregone conclusions' need to be proved in a court of law.
Anyway...getting bored of this. GN.
Well, that is additional evidence to me.
However, she is claiming to be innocent, no matter what she may have said in the past. Someone can admit to something for any number of reasons - sometimes to hide an even worse 'something'.
Do you really think this action deserves the death penalty? Do they have that in California?
I also think you are sounding an aweful lot like my mum. It seems to me that people just want the courts to decide if she is guilty. Perhaps you're right. I'll see if I can read them more in that light. however she was/is 49 years old, preying on a 13 year old... thats, just flatout fucking bullshit. we're talking about a 40-odd year old woman who knew the victim deliberately crafting a fake persona and instigating it into her life. Knowing that the target - a child - had mental issues, this deranged pathetic excuse for a human being nevertheless persisted in her campaign to deceive the child, involving as many of her own daughter's friends as possible....The woman deserves what is coming, and I will laugh happily every time I hear her family has suffered misfortune If the 40 year old woman hadn't pushed her over the edge by deliberately tormenting Nope...I don't want to bother reading any more since I've read them already. It seems clear to me that the vast majority of posters are assuming her guilt already.