This was commercial single channel ISDN, but still... crazy to see cellular data service actually becoming WORSE than similar landlocked service from 1999.
Actually, landlocked services have less of a excuse to cap bandwidth consumption. Wireless services have a limited amount of spectrum that needs to be fairly allocated amongst its users. Wired services? Not so much.
As mentioned, the ISDN is/was a guaranteed bandwidth service (really a partial T1 line) -- you can't oversubscribe it like they do with consumer-grade services. Add to this that ISDN had a distance-from-trunk-degradation curve, and the bandwidth limitations were actually somewhat similar to the limited spectrum issue.
However, as I stated, spectrum itself doesn't appear to be the issue here, as it's not being saturated, and the auctions themselves when spread across the entire subscriber base are peanuts.
So the reason for the caps has to either be last mile infrastructure costs or trunk costs -- or as a way of differentiating service levels and artificially inflating certain service levels I suppose.
Has anyone looked into how caps/bandwidth compares to countries who didn't build up a landline infrastructure, where the players aren't all entrenched landline behemoths already?
Or, is John Gilmore actually doing exactly what the NSA wants? Are there a bunch of other "contributors" whose code was rejected, who actually work for the NSA and are trying to slip their own backdoor updates into the codebase?
I can easily see the NSA playing both sides of this. In fact, I can't NOT see them playing both sides of this.
Crime is present in every neighborhood. Methods may vary.
White collar crime has a larger reach, and generally doesn't affect you at your physical location that much.
A similar app for corporations, linked against white collar crime stats, to indicate where you should and shouldn't spend/invest your money might be a good idea though....
How is bypassing neighborhoods with a high crime rate "racism", unless you yourself are saying high crime areas ALWAYS have people of a certain race...
Of course they don't. Take a look at Paris. The bad ones are full of arabs and the terrible ones are full of blacks.
If you go to Brussels it's completely the other way round.
Or, go to Shanghai, where the bad ones are full of Chinese and the terrible ones are full of Chinese.
Guess what? you find them in the great areas too....
(I know, that takes it a bit far, but using Paris as an example made me laugh -- half the city is made up of first or second generation French, with a large portion coming from Algeria and Portugal)
Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. What does race have to do with crime-ridden neighbourhoods? EVERYTHING, as you must obviously know, unless you've been living under a rock for the past fifty years. You idiot. Do you seriously think most white people are going to just carry on watching our countries being destroyed by third world parasites? If they're so wonderful, why are they here? Why aren't they making their OWN countries better? Because they're NOT wonderful, because they're parasites, because they've come to steal OUR countries from us, like the losers they are. Did I mention that you were an idiot?
Blacks: 13% of the population 85% of the crime rate 64% of the prison population Blacks.
This got modded insightful?
Did someone forget their history about how Europeans (multiple "races") and Africans (multiple "races") arrived in North America, and what happened to the people that arrived because they were nomadic, not because they wanted to exploit the land and get something for free? How about Rwanda, the one country in modern history that had races created arbitrarily?
The first line is partially right -- we can't separate race (which I interpret to be a combination of a person's genetic tree combined with social background and ancestral home) from crime rates, mostly because crime itself depends on social interactions, which depends on a host of other things. While race isn't responsible for crime, the combined social and legal systems do play a large role in creating racial ghettos. As do people who see race as a major player in the weakening of power of their own "race".
There is definitely a fine line between utility and racism in this case. How does one overcome cries of racism while still maintaining accurate data? One could of course discount race from the algorithms but I imagine having a user rate a neighborhood as 'safe' or 'not safe' or even 'dangerous' does from a technical point. Of course, the wetware inserting the rating could be using race as a reason for the rating.
There's no fine line; it's a Venn diagram, with significantly overlapping areas. If you're doing anything that involves social profiling, you're not going to avoid cries of racism, as even in this day and age, racial background is a strong indicator of social grouping. Just yesterday the article came out mentioning that people tend to become friends with people who have similar DNA. Race is nothing more than a combination of history and a few chromosomes; it'd be silly to think that sometimes, that might be the similar DNA that causes social clustering (just like sometimes it's other structures).
This said, the whole idea of "safe/dangerous" neighbourhoods is often very subjective, as others have pointed out. Whether you're safe depends more on whether you stand out and whether you understand the local dangers than anything else. Take someone from Orlando and drop them in the middle of Seward, and it's not going to be a very safe place for them. Drop someone from Seward in the middle of Orlando, you'll have similar issues.
So I don't think the article's premise actually holds much water -- we aren't clustering "unclean" people together; people just socialize with people who are like them in some way -- even if that way is only income.
A better method of finding desirable routes might be via social network -- "x proportion of people in this area are within 3 degrees of separation from you on Facebook. Proceed?"
There's a reason why you only see interfaces like this in the movies, and it's not because the technology isn't there. It's because waving your hands in the air for a whole workday sucks.
While true, there are many people stuck doing this -- mostly outside of computer-task work.
On the upside, this could get people to step away from their screens (staring at a computer monitor for a whole workday sucks) and stand up from time to time (sitting for a whole workday is bad for your health). Using hand motions may actually balance out your fitness with your effort, and using a decent 3D display would be helpful for your eyes.
While this is true, it was more expensive to lay ISDN back to the trunk in 1999. And ISDN was single-user; cellular is a broadcast frequency, and they haven't saturated it. Therefore, the initial outlay is expensive (prohibitive to small players even), but the band rental divided up among the number of cellular subscribers is so tiny as to be hardly worth noting. The cost of space rental for towers and microtowers far outweighs that cost. And yet, on a per-subscriber level, that's still a tiny cost.
Anyone else have an idea? The money has to be going somewhere, otherwise one of the carriers would just drop the caps.
I remember when I was capped at 8GB/mo... then my ISP upped the limit to 20GB/mo. The year? 1999 IIRC. This was commercial single channel ISDN, but still... crazy to see cellular data service actually becoming WORSE than similar landlocked service from 1999. When the data transfer speeds (even at the trunk) are so significantly better, and with single channel ISDN (this has guaranteed bandwidth) going back then for the same price a cellular data plan goes for today, something's wrong. Now the one caveat here is that you've got a ton more customers using the trunk, and it obviously can't live up to the same SLA for consumer cellular data that ISDN does, but then why is the service so expensive?
OK, how long will it take until the DRM running on the "cloud" OCR provider recognizes what's going on, and puts a stop to this? The Mac should be capable of running a local OCR. What happens at home stays at home... what happens "in the cloud" is everyone's business.
Overall, this would be a cool thing to set up... start it, go to work, then come home and have the whole book on your laptop. Just get rid of the "cloud middleman".
As others have mentioned, this is totally unecessary to get around the DRM -- if you've purchased the eBook, you've got the key and can just strip the DRM yourself. You can do your entire eBook collection in under 5 minutes. This is purely to make a statement regarding DRM and the analog hole.
"I'll show you the number of Americans and non-Americans killed by American corporate and governmental greed and negligence." Hahaha big bad america, eh? BRING IT ON, you fucking douchecanoe.
For an extra 2 cents, I'll throw in stats on non-American corporate and governmental greed and negligence... it'll contribute just as much to the conversation.
When you decline to install something you expect that it doesn't get installed. Parallels is going to burn a lot of trust by pulling this stunt. The cost of acquiring their customers has certainly got to exceed the profit from people who decide that they will change their mind and want to run this software anyways.
At a bare minimum they need to start by building a package that will remove all traces post haste for the anyone that wants it. For people that don't want to run the package explicit instructions need to be made available about how to completely remove this. Any number of companies have screwed up royally before this, those that are still respected are the ones that instituted proper damage control.
This is not the first time Parallels has failed to uninstall things; I ran an installer of a trial product of theirs a few years back, and after uninstalling, still had to go in manually and clean up some components that wanted to run some sort of service. I haven't touched Parallels since. VirtualBox allows me to write my own additions, and if I need something more polished, VMWare Fusion is still rock solid.
So it will be interesting to see Parallels' response to thiis, as it definitely puts their (paid) installer solidly in the category of Potentially Unwanted Application alongside the CNet downloader and all the bundleware coming out of Russia and China.
I've been using Parallels over VMWare Fusion for a few years now (there has been some good bundle pricing on it, and there were some features it had that VMWare lacked at the time when I was deciding, though I don't recall what those were now).
Unless this turns out to be a tempest in a teacup or otherwise invented or overblown, I won't be doing that anymore, and VMWare will have gained back a customer.
Dan Aris
Why not just use VirtualBox? Or are you not touching that due to Oracle having their fingers in it?
Within the last 10 years, both the United States and Israel have been busted for faking intelligence for supporting military strikes. The IDF, all of three years ago, was caught dubbing hair on fire anti-semitic slurs onto tapes from the Freedom Flotilla.
And, of course, remember that the U.S. and Israel have already committed multiple acts of war upon Iran, whether by Stuxnet or assassinating their nuclear scientists.
Bringing Israel into it muddies the waters in this case though, as Israel is against bringing a non-Muslim nation in to attack their Neighbor. They want Syria to be stable, and don't want another Iraq popping up right beside them, especially with Palestine situated where it is. The US is on its own on this one.
And here I thought you'd got control of yourself, cold fjord; all the submissions have been bumping up your karma rating, and I hadn't seen anything inflammatory from you lately.
Being unsurprised at tit-for-tat has nothing to do with being an Anti-US sympathizer. What you'll find though is that there are a growing number of people who are against the US government's foreign policy, because it costs lives, often without appearing to have any benefit to the US as a whole (only to businesses who have a vested interest in some foreign country).
When Israel says "let the Muslim world handle this" and the UN almost unilaterally takes a "don't touch this" attitude, then some nation issues orders to retaliate if the US conducts an unprovoked assault on another nation, when said nation is known to be high on the list of "next targets", WHY IS THE US GOVERNMENT IGNORING THE REST OF THE WORLD, INCLUDING MANY OF ITS OWN CITIZENS, TO CONSIDER ATTACKING, AND THEN IS IN A HUFF WHEN ANOTHER NATION GIVES ITS OPERATIVES SIMILAR INSTRUCTIONS?
You can't have it both ways, as your comments about 9/11 so clearly indicate.
Show me the number of Americans killed by terrorists, averaged over the past decade -- I'll show you the number of Americans and non-Americans killed by American corporate and governmental greed and negligence. Neither have much of anything to do with this discussion.
He's doing this to raise attention. For every 10 people who pirate it, someone will actually buy it.
Anyone who would pirate it wouldn't actually buy it anyway -- this is corporation-grade penetration testing software. The ne'er do wells have already cracked it without his help, and anyone else who would have a use for it would have no incentive to crack it.
Providing the source code so that testers can verify what it does is useful though. Looks like you don't have to "crack" anything to find the scripts though.
So you're right -- this generates visibility with pretty much no downside to the author.
The question now is: will we be wiped out by global warming before the next ice age hits?
What's this mechanism for "wiping out" humanity by slightly getting warmer? Are we going to forget to take off our jackets and turn on the AC?
Why do you assume that we're only going to get slightly warmer before the next ice age? If you stick a frog in a pot and turn on the heat, it gets slightly warmer by the minute... until it boils. Humankind's interference in climate change is introducing a variable that, as far as we know, never existed before. It could be that the effect is so small that it gets completely overridden by the natural cycles -- or it could be that it's just enough to derail those cycles and send them down another path. The truth is, we don't know, and while climate science is getting more sciency, everything is conjecture at this point (on both sides of the argument). But as there's a measured change, we should take that change seriously and look into it.
This is beside the point that the climate is more than just the air -- if the world's oceans get slightly warmer, that's going to thoroughly mess with the ecology. We're already seeing migration patterns of sea life change significantly, and we're seeing extinction of some marine species. That will affect the entire food chain. So not only will we be turning on the AC, we'll no longer be eating many kinds of seafood, nor animals that consume that seafood, nor animals that consume them. This will also affect the global algae bloom, which in turn will affect the "natural" gas emissions/absorptions more than cutting down a bunch of trees ever would.
But the truth is, we really don't know how things will turn out, because we're only beginning to scratch the surface of how it all actually works.
I am TEMPTED to reply with the short version of this argument, that goes as follows:
SCIENCE, bitches!
However, I'd tell you how I'm confident of my information. We call it "Geology", and it's what I studied and did 20+ years ago, before I evolved into an IT Geek. Specifically, Quaternary Geology, which, amongst other things, chronicles the glaciations of the past 2.6 million years. Which is proven by land structures, glacial remains like drumlins and moraines, and radio-isotopic dating of various types used to date those structures.
I also note the longer-term average climate based on the extensive fossil and geological record, as evidenced by not just radio-dating, but standard principles like "unless overturned (which can be detected easily by examination of the rocks), lower strata are older than younger strata. Paleomagnetic data yields approximate latitude, so we KNOW most of what is now the US and Europe were swampy jungles, which require a significantly warmer and wetter climate than they currently enjoy. And before you mention Continental Drift, paleomagnetic data was crucial in supporting that theory, as well.
So again, I say to your boggling: SCIENCE, bitches!!!
Good solid response. This is exactly what I was looking for as far as information, as we don't actually see enough of this posted; most people opt for the short answer. However, people studying climatology (call it bunk or pseudoscience if you will) are measuring similar values regarding climate. As they don't have as much geologic data to use, they can only trust their data back as far as it was recorded, which puts a completely different time window on it.
Maybe I misunderstood you and your giggling was due to the whole issue being inconsequential on the geologic timeframe; but to dismiss something that may be affecting us now because it doesn't match up with what has happened during the period in which HSS isn't even a blip on the timeline is to miss the point -- if you're driving a car and it's going through all sorts of dips and turns, all it takes is a bit of over-correction and you're off the road. Messing with climate COULD move us from being in an Inter-glacial period to being at the end of the last glacial period this world ever sees (unlikely, but possible). Every time I see the new information coming out of Mars missions, I take it as a bit more of a warning that we need to learn more about how we're impacting naturally occurring climate change, as it's highly likely that at this point we're having a measurable impact on it that *may* break the geologically-based projections.
All I can say about global warming is that when I was a kidd these same people where saying we where headed to and Ice Age. You have alot of people who belive it and don't belive it. As to the scientist, well they follow the money, even a cursory look would tell you that.
Interestingly, I think they're likely correct on both fronts: we're in an InterGlacial period if the trends are to be believed, and we're messing with our environment enough to affect global temperatures during this period.
The question now is: will we be wiped out by global warming before the next ice age hits? Or, will our mucking about prevent the next ice age, and cause Earth to look like Mars when the "ice age" was supposed to end and climate warms further?
But you're right; scientists go where there's grant money. To a scientist, there's nothing wrong with attempting to prove the opposite of what you've already proved; if it withstands scrutiny, it advances knowledge just that much further. The problem comes when the scrutineers don't know enough to draw the appropriate conclusions from the actual findings -- and this dumbed down stuff is what the public gets to see. Usually the actual data collected is actually useful and interesting (unless politics gets involved and massages the historical data, as has happened in the US with climate measurements).
Can we agree in future not to post news items having to do with climate "science" unless we are at the same time including links to debunkers of said news?
It's obvious to everyone that the wheels have come off this particular scam. Obvious to everyone, that is, except to those whose livelihood depends on them continuing to find new ways of makinjg hockey sticks.
Are you saying that it's not obvious to Canadians here? Probably not obvious to Alaskans either, or the Danish -- the three groups that can look outside and see the immediate effects of the climate "science" "scam".
Personally though, I'm more concerned with the dead zones in the pacific ocean (caused by human pollution); these are likely affecting climate (and ecology) way more than our GHG emissions.
I rather giggle at "Man-Made Global Warming". Primarily, because the planet has been in an Ice Age for the past 2-3 million years: we are merely between continental glacial advances.
The HISTORIC climate for most of the US was hot and swampy for the past several hundred million years. Since genus homo has only been around for the last 2 million years or so, you can't even blame us for human-induced global COOLING. . .
I rather boggle at you giggling at observed effects of human activity on our climate, while at the same time taking as fact that our planet has been in an Ice Age for the past 2-3 million years, despite not having observed this yourself.
The other boggling thing is to see that you don't seem to understand the difference between natural global climate changes and temporally localized man-made climate change, and that both can happen *at the same time* and influence each other. When you want warm water from a tap, do you pour cold water and wait for it to warm up, hot water and wait for it to cool down, or just adjust the two to get what you want?
The fact that the planet is perfectly capable of getting really hot and cold on its own cycle is of no comfort to HSS when we realize that through our own efforts, we can quickly (geologically speaking) make this rock uninhabitable for HSS in a way that would take MUCH longer if left to itself. Of course, the opposite is also true: we can also make this rock MORE habitable for HSS for much longer - hopefully long enough for us to learn how to adapt/escape and continue on as a species.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that it matters, but you can't fool God.
This holds true whether you're a devout deist or an atheist.
I suppose pantheists may disagree however.
This was commercial single channel ISDN, but still... crazy to see cellular data service actually becoming WORSE than similar landlocked service from 1999.
Actually, landlocked services have less of a excuse to cap bandwidth consumption. Wireless services have a limited amount of spectrum that needs to be fairly allocated amongst its users. Wired services? Not so much.
As mentioned, the ISDN is/was a guaranteed bandwidth service (really a partial T1 line) -- you can't oversubscribe it like they do with consumer-grade services. Add to this that ISDN had a distance-from-trunk-degradation curve, and the bandwidth limitations were actually somewhat similar to the limited spectrum issue.
However, as I stated, spectrum itself doesn't appear to be the issue here, as it's not being saturated, and the auctions themselves when spread across the entire subscriber base are peanuts.
So the reason for the caps has to either be last mile infrastructure costs or trunk costs -- or as a way of differentiating service levels and artificially inflating certain service levels I suppose.
Has anyone looked into how caps/bandwidth compares to countries who didn't build up a landline infrastructure, where the players aren't all entrenched landline behemoths already?
Or, is John Gilmore actually doing exactly what the NSA wants? Are there a bunch of other "contributors" whose code was rejected, who actually work for the NSA and are trying to slip their own backdoor updates into the codebase?
I can easily see the NSA playing both sides of this. In fact, I can't NOT see them playing both sides of this.
Crime is present in every neighborhood. Methods may vary.
White collar crime has a larger reach, and generally doesn't affect you at your physical location that much.
A similar app for corporations, linked against white collar crime stats, to indicate where you should and shouldn't spend/invest your money might be a good idea though....
Of course they don't. Take a look at Paris. The bad ones are full of arabs and the terrible ones are full of blacks.
If you go to Brussels it's completely the other way round.
Or, go to Shanghai, where the bad ones are full of Chinese and the terrible ones are full of Chinese.
Guess what? you find them in the great areas too....
(I know, that takes it a bit far, but using Paris as an example made me laugh -- half the city is made up of first or second generation French, with a large portion coming from Algeria and Portugal)
Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. What does race have to do with crime-ridden neighbourhoods? EVERYTHING, as you must obviously know, unless you've been living under a rock for the past fifty years. You idiot. Do you seriously think most white people are going to just carry on watching our countries being destroyed by third world parasites? If they're so wonderful, why are they here? Why aren't they making their OWN countries better? Because they're NOT wonderful, because they're parasites, because they've come to steal OUR countries from us, like the losers they are.
Did I mention that you were an idiot?
Blacks:
13% of the population
85% of the crime rate
64% of the prison population
Blacks.
This got modded insightful?
Did someone forget their history about how Europeans (multiple "races") and Africans (multiple "races") arrived in North America, and what happened to the people that arrived because they were nomadic, not because they wanted to exploit the land and get something for free? How about Rwanda, the one country in modern history that had races created arbitrarily?
The first line is partially right -- we can't separate race (which I interpret to be a combination of a person's genetic tree combined with social background and ancestral home) from crime rates, mostly because crime itself depends on social interactions, which depends on a host of other things. While race isn't responsible for crime, the combined social and legal systems do play a large role in creating racial ghettos. As do people who see race as a major player in the weakening of power of their own "race".
There is definitely a fine line between utility and racism in this case. How does one overcome cries of racism while still maintaining accurate data? One could of course discount race from the algorithms but I imagine having a user rate a neighborhood as 'safe' or 'not safe' or even 'dangerous' does from a technical point. Of course, the wetware inserting the rating could be using race as a reason for the rating.
There's no fine line; it's a Venn diagram, with significantly overlapping areas. If you're doing anything that involves social profiling, you're not going to avoid cries of racism, as even in this day and age, racial background is a strong indicator of social grouping. Just yesterday the article came out mentioning that people tend to become friends with people who have similar DNA. Race is nothing more than a combination of history and a few chromosomes; it'd be silly to think that sometimes, that might be the similar DNA that causes social clustering (just like sometimes it's other structures).
This said, the whole idea of "safe/dangerous" neighbourhoods is often very subjective, as others have pointed out. Whether you're safe depends more on whether you stand out and whether you understand the local dangers than anything else. Take someone from Orlando and drop them in the middle of Seward, and it's not going to be a very safe place for them. Drop someone from Seward in the middle of Orlando, you'll have similar issues.
So I don't think the article's premise actually holds much water -- we aren't clustering "unclean" people together; people just socialize with people who are like them in some way -- even if that way is only income.
A better method of finding desirable routes might be via social network -- "x proportion of people in this area are within 3 degrees of separation from you on Facebook. Proceed?"
What is this "alt tab" of which you speak?
Here of course.
There's a reason why you only see interfaces like this in the movies, and it's not because the technology isn't there. It's because waving your hands in the air for a whole workday sucks.
While true, there are many people stuck doing this -- mostly outside of computer-task work.
On the upside, this could get people to step away from their screens (staring at a computer monitor for a whole workday sucks) and stand up from time to time (sitting for a whole workday is bad for your health). Using hand motions may actually balance out your fitness with your effort, and using a decent 3D display would be helpful for your eyes.
Still sucks though.
While this is true, it was more expensive to lay ISDN back to the trunk in 1999. And ISDN was single-user; cellular is a broadcast frequency, and they haven't saturated it. Therefore, the initial outlay is expensive (prohibitive to small players even), but the band rental divided up among the number of cellular subscribers is so tiny as to be hardly worth noting. The cost of space rental for towers and microtowers far outweighs that cost. And yet, on a per-subscriber level, that's still a tiny cost.
Anyone else have an idea? The money has to be going somewhere, otherwise one of the carriers would just drop the caps.
I remember when I was capped at 8GB/mo... then my ISP upped the limit to 20GB/mo.
The year? 1999 IIRC.
This was commercial single channel ISDN, but still... crazy to see cellular data service actually becoming WORSE than similar landlocked service from 1999. When the data transfer speeds (even at the trunk) are so significantly better, and with single channel ISDN (this has guaranteed bandwidth) going back then for the same price a cellular data plan goes for today, something's wrong.
Now the one caveat here is that you've got a ton more customers using the trunk, and it obviously can't live up to the same SLA for consumer cellular data that ISDN does, but then why is the service so expensive?
OK, how long will it take until the DRM running on the "cloud" OCR provider recognizes what's going on, and puts a stop to this? The Mac should be capable of running a local OCR. What happens at home stays at home... what happens "in the cloud" is everyone's business.
Overall, this would be a cool thing to set up... start it, go to work, then come home and have the whole book on your laptop. Just get rid of the "cloud middleman".
As others have mentioned, this is totally unecessary to get around the DRM -- if you've purchased the eBook, you've got the key and can just strip the DRM yourself. You can do your entire eBook collection in under 5 minutes. This is purely to make a statement regarding DRM and the analog hole.
But this isn't just an end user format! The idea is to set this music free so that it can be used in other projects, remixed, remastered, anything.
Here come the Chopin Dubstep remixes....
"I'll show you the number of Americans and non-Americans killed by American corporate and governmental greed and negligence."
Hahaha big bad america, eh? BRING IT ON, you fucking douchecanoe.
For an extra 2 cents, I'll throw in stats on non-American corporate and governmental greed and negligence... it'll contribute just as much to the conversation.
When you decline to install something you expect that it doesn't get installed. Parallels is going to burn a lot of trust by pulling this stunt. The cost of acquiring their customers has certainly got to exceed the profit from people who decide that they will change their mind and want to run this software anyways.
At a bare minimum they need to start by building a package that will remove all traces post haste for the anyone that wants it. For people that don't want to run the package explicit instructions need to be made available about how to completely remove this. Any number of companies have screwed up royally before this, those that are still respected are the ones that instituted proper damage control.
This is not the first time Parallels has failed to uninstall things; I ran an installer of a trial product of theirs a few years back, and after uninstalling, still had to go in manually and clean up some components that wanted to run some sort of service. I haven't touched Parallels since. VirtualBox allows me to write my own additions, and if I need something more polished, VMWare Fusion is still rock solid.
So it will be interesting to see Parallels' response to thiis, as it definitely puts their (paid) installer solidly in the category of Potentially Unwanted Application alongside the CNet downloader and all the bundleware coming out of Russia and China.
I've been using Parallels over VMWare Fusion for a few years now (there has been some good bundle pricing on it, and there were some features it had that VMWare lacked at the time when I was deciding, though I don't recall what those were now).
Unless this turns out to be a tempest in a teacup or otherwise invented or overblown, I won't be doing that anymore, and VMWare will have gained back a customer.
Dan Aris
Why not just use VirtualBox? Or are you not touching that due to Oracle having their fingers in it?
Within the last 10 years, both the United States and Israel have been busted for faking intelligence for supporting military strikes. The IDF, all of three years ago, was caught dubbing hair on fire anti-semitic slurs onto tapes from the Freedom Flotilla.
And, of course, remember that the U.S. and Israel have already committed multiple acts of war upon Iran, whether by Stuxnet or assassinating their nuclear scientists.
Bringing Israel into it muddies the waters in this case though, as Israel is against bringing a non-Muslim nation in to attack their Neighbor. They want Syria to be stable, and don't want another Iraq popping up right beside them, especially with Palestine situated where it is. The US is on its own on this one.
And here I thought you'd got control of yourself, cold fjord; all the submissions have been bumping up your karma rating, and I hadn't seen anything inflammatory from you lately.
Being unsurprised at tit-for-tat has nothing to do with being an Anti-US sympathizer. What you'll find though is that there are a growing number of people who are against the US government's foreign policy, because it costs lives, often without appearing to have any benefit to the US as a whole (only to businesses who have a vested interest in some foreign country).
When Israel says "let the Muslim world handle this" and the UN almost unilaterally takes a "don't touch this" attitude, then some nation issues orders to retaliate if the US conducts an unprovoked assault on another nation, when said nation is known to be high on the list of "next targets", WHY IS THE US GOVERNMENT IGNORING THE REST OF THE WORLD, INCLUDING MANY OF ITS OWN CITIZENS, TO CONSIDER ATTACKING, AND THEN IS IN A HUFF WHEN ANOTHER NATION GIVES ITS OPERATIVES SIMILAR INSTRUCTIONS?
You can't have it both ways, as your comments about 9/11 so clearly indicate.
Show me the number of Americans killed by terrorists, averaged over the past decade -- I'll show you the number of Americans and non-Americans killed by American corporate and governmental greed and negligence. Neither have much of anything to do with this discussion.
He's doing this to raise attention. For every 10 people who pirate it, someone will actually buy it.
Anyone who would pirate it wouldn't actually buy it anyway -- this is corporation-grade penetration testing software. The ne'er do wells have already cracked it without his help, and anyone else who would have a use for it would have no incentive to crack it.
Providing the source code so that testers can verify what it does is useful though. Looks like you don't have to "crack" anything to find the scripts though.
So you're right -- this generates visibility with pretty much no downside to the author.
The question now is: will we be wiped out by global warming before the next ice age hits?
What's this mechanism for "wiping out" humanity by slightly getting warmer? Are we going to forget to take off our jackets and turn on the AC?
Why do you assume that we're only going to get slightly warmer before the next ice age? If you stick a frog in a pot and turn on the heat, it gets slightly warmer by the minute... until it boils. Humankind's interference in climate change is introducing a variable that, as far as we know, never existed before. It could be that the effect is so small that it gets completely overridden by the natural cycles -- or it could be that it's just enough to derail those cycles and send them down another path. The truth is, we don't know, and while climate science is getting more sciency, everything is conjecture at this point (on both sides of the argument). But as there's a measured change, we should take that change seriously and look into it.
This is beside the point that the climate is more than just the air -- if the world's oceans get slightly warmer, that's going to thoroughly mess with the ecology. We're already seeing migration patterns of sea life change significantly, and we're seeing extinction of some marine species. That will affect the entire food chain. So not only will we be turning on the AC, we'll no longer be eating many kinds of seafood, nor animals that consume that seafood, nor animals that consume them. This will also affect the global algae bloom, which in turn will affect the "natural" gas emissions/absorptions more than cutting down a bunch of trees ever would.
But the truth is, we really don't know how things will turn out, because we're only beginning to scratch the surface of how it all actually works.
I am TEMPTED to reply with the short version of this argument, that goes as follows:
SCIENCE, bitches!
However, I'd tell you how I'm confident of my information. We call it "Geology", and it's what I studied and did 20+ years ago, before I evolved into an IT Geek. Specifically, Quaternary Geology, which, amongst other things, chronicles the glaciations of the past 2.6 million years. Which is proven by land structures, glacial remains like drumlins and moraines, and radio-isotopic dating of various types used to date those structures.
I also note the longer-term average climate based on the extensive fossil and geological record, as evidenced by not just radio-dating, but standard principles like "unless overturned (which can be detected easily by examination of the rocks), lower strata are older than younger strata. Paleomagnetic data yields approximate latitude, so we KNOW most of what is now the US and Europe were swampy jungles, which require a significantly warmer and wetter climate than they currently enjoy. And before you mention Continental Drift, paleomagnetic data was crucial in supporting that theory, as well.
So again, I say to your boggling: SCIENCE, bitches!!!
Good solid response. This is exactly what I was looking for as far as information, as we don't actually see enough of this posted; most people opt for the short answer. However, people studying climatology (call it bunk or pseudoscience if you will) are measuring similar values regarding climate. As they don't have as much geologic data to use, they can only trust their data back as far as it was recorded, which puts a completely different time window on it.
Maybe I misunderstood you and your giggling was due to the whole issue being inconsequential on the geologic timeframe; but to dismiss something that may be affecting us now because it doesn't match up with what has happened during the period in which HSS isn't even a blip on the timeline is to miss the point -- if you're driving a car and it's going through all sorts of dips and turns, all it takes is a bit of over-correction and you're off the road. Messing with climate COULD move us from being in an Inter-glacial period to being at the end of the last glacial period this world ever sees (unlikely, but possible). Every time I see the new information coming out of Mars missions, I take it as a bit more of a warning that we need to learn more about how we're impacting naturally occurring climate change, as it's highly likely that at this point we're having a measurable impact on it that *may* break the geologically-based projections.
Where do you pee?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/nasa-osmotic-water-bag/
http://gizmodo.com/the-sweat-to-water-purifier-real-life-dune-still-suit-826806326
All I can say about global warming is that when I was a kidd these same people where saying we where headed to and Ice Age. You have alot of people who belive it and don't belive it. As to the scientist, well they follow the money, even a cursory look would tell you that.
Interestingly, I think they're likely correct on both fronts: we're in an InterGlacial period if the trends are to be believed, and we're messing with our environment enough to affect global temperatures during this period.
The question now is: will we be wiped out by global warming before the next ice age hits? Or, will our mucking about prevent the next ice age, and cause Earth to look like Mars when the "ice age" was supposed to end and climate warms further?
But you're right; scientists go where there's grant money. To a scientist, there's nothing wrong with attempting to prove the opposite of what you've already proved; if it withstands scrutiny, it advances knowledge just that much further. The problem comes when the scrutineers don't know enough to draw the appropriate conclusions from the actual findings -- and this dumbed down stuff is what the public gets to see. Usually the actual data collected is actually useful and interesting (unless politics gets involved and massages the historical data, as has happened in the US with climate measurements).
Can we agree in future not to post news items having to do with climate "science" unless we are at the same time including links to debunkers of said news?
It's obvious to everyone that the wheels have come off this particular scam. Obvious to everyone, that is, except to those whose livelihood depends on them continuing to find new ways of makinjg hockey sticks.
Are you saying that it's not obvious to Canadians here? Probably not obvious to Alaskans either, or the Danish -- the three groups that can look outside and see the immediate effects of the climate "science" "scam".
Personally though, I'm more concerned with the dead zones in the pacific ocean (caused by human pollution); these are likely affecting climate (and ecology) way more than our GHG emissions.
I rather giggle at "Man-Made Global Warming". Primarily, because the planet has been in an Ice Age for the past 2-3 million years: we are merely between continental glacial advances.
The HISTORIC climate for most of the US was hot and swampy for the past several hundred million years. Since genus homo has only been around for the last 2 million years or so, you can't even blame us for human-induced global COOLING. . .
I rather boggle at you giggling at observed effects of human activity on our climate, while at the same time taking as fact that our planet has been in an Ice Age for the past 2-3 million years, despite not having observed this yourself.
The other boggling thing is to see that you don't seem to understand the difference between natural global climate changes and temporally localized man-made climate change, and that both can happen *at the same time* and influence each other. When you want warm water from a tap, do you pour cold water and wait for it to warm up, hot water and wait for it to cool down, or just adjust the two to get what you want?
The fact that the planet is perfectly capable of getting really hot and cold on its own cycle is of no comfort to HSS when we realize that through our own efforts, we can quickly (geologically speaking) make this rock uninhabitable for HSS in a way that would take MUCH longer if left to itself. Of course, the opposite is also true: we can also make this rock MORE habitable for HSS for much longer - hopefully long enough for us to learn how to adapt/escape and continue on as a species.