The denial of pillow and sheets is common for anyone that might be considered a suicide risk.
I guarantee you he isn't the only prisoner in the United States who sits in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. In fact, I believe that is the common form of solitary confinement.
The fact that he can't exercise in his cell is odd.
They're timing the releases so people have time to digest them, and so they continue to get funding. But the full release has already been handed to the press.
As for being shrouded in secrecy, they won't say where they are based, who there employers are, how they are financed, what they do with the money, or what their selection process is for disclosing what is handed over to them.
They release large chunks of information, often uncensored. They hold back portions for short periods of time only so each release can be digested independently, and to continue their funding. I expect all of the cables to be released publicly within the year, and they have handed the entirety of the cables to certain news outlets.
The Pentagon Papers were held back for over a decade to protect diplomatic relations.
Amnesty International (an organization overlooked in this discussion as a true bastion of peace and decency) rips foreign governments as well. They push for transparency of government abuse. But they look to protect individuals as well. And they rip Wikileaks for not redacting names of civilian volunteers, etc.
Wikileaks is irresponsible in how they handle the materials given to them.
I've honestly read more revolutionary ideas in Wired the past few years than anywhere else. And while I generally don't care for dead-tree editions of anything, I gladly pay $10 a year to help keep Wired a float.
Please mod parent up. I think most people have been approaching this subject with very simplistic views that government secrets are always inherently bad. In reality, we want our government to be open and honest to us on major policy, but there is a real need for government secrets on a number of issues.
Since no one ever RTFA, the gist is that Wikileaks sees things in a very simple, black and white universe. Everything must be open at all times. With the leak of the Pentagon Papers, not all of it was leaked initially. In fact, portions of it were held back for years because the leak would only cause harm to diplomatic relations and it had no bearing on the purpose of the leak (to expose the fact that the US government lied to its people about Vietnam).
The latter part of the article is the important part. It suggests that Wikileaks may force the government to come down hard in its enforcement of laws, and hurt journalism in the long run.
To the former, I personally have no respect for Wikileaks simplistic view of total transparency when they are shrouded in secrecy themselves. As for the latter, I really hope that isn't the case.
If you want to push a program or policy out to 1,000+ desktops, there are a variety of tools out there. And if you want to clone an image, there are a variety of tools out there. VDI is just one of those ways to easily manage a multitude of desktops and keep them consistent.
I'm going to hazard a guess that they handed everything over to the Feds, but not to the public. His defense attorney would be throwing a fit if he was entrapped and there was evidence to prove it.
The remaining chat logs can contain details deemed to be national secrets. Releasing them publicly could get them in legal trouble.
They could also contain information about their other informants/sources, which journalists typically try to protect. Withholding that info would actually be the height of journalistic integrity.
When they first announced Chrome, they also showed saving a file to a thumb drive. The Cr-48 netbooks don't support that in beta, but I assume it will by launch. And while your data is online, you choose which web services to use. And those services aren't necessarily locked.
There are a few cupcakes primarily for the purpose of having extra home games and making more money. But you have to schedule at least one tough out of conference game if you want a chance to rise in the BCS rankings since they factor in strength of schedule.
Two years ago Texas and Oklahoma came down to tie-breakers in BCS rankings to determine who would go to the Big XII title game. Oklahoma played a bunch of tough opponents, and that was the difference that got them in. Texas was punished for their weak schedule.
In a scenario where you just took conference champions in, then non-conference games literally become worthless. Instead of 1-2 tough non-conference games on the schedule, you'd have precisely zero.
And schools like Utah, TCU and Boise State would likely have less chance since no major schools would schedule them.
While people blast the BCS for hurting these small schools, you do realize that Boise State literally wasn't eligible for major bowls like the Orange Bowl before the BCS, but now gets to play in them because of the BCS. And the past two years you had small schools with a legit shot at the national title game even going into the last week of the season.
The BCS isn't perfect, but my point is that neither is a playoff. And if you really examine it, a playoff could be detrimental to college football. Most people assume playoffs are always good, but the situation isn't as simple as that.
Don't get me wrong. Seeing a Game 7 of a playoff series is perhaps as good as it gets, but having really examined the situation I don't want playoffs in college football.
You missed the point. The Patriots were left out while weaker teams made it in. Inherently it is unfair.
And that 9-7 team that made it to the Superbowl was declared the single worst team to ever make an NFL playoffs entering the playoffs. It rewards a team that gets lucky for a few weeks. It does not necessarily determine who is the best team overall every year.
No system is perfect or fair. To categorically declare college football a travesty and suggest that a playoff is automatically better is flawed logic.
And frankly, many schools select their major rival as their last game, and then we have conference championship games. Every week, especially the last few weeks serves as a natural playoff during the regular season.
You suggest copying NCAA basketball.
You do realize of course that NCAA football gets amazing ratings in the regular season, where as NCAA basketball gets terrible ratings during the regular season.
Sure, the tournament gets good ratings, by largely eschewing the entirety of the regular season.
Last year's NCAA basketball final of Duke-Butler was the perfect storm of David vs Goliath, a real life Hoosiers. And that got a 15 rating. The BCS championship game (which everyone supposedly hates and boycotts) got 17.
Meanwhile, a regular season basketball game this weekend will draw a 0.7. Yep, less than 1. While a good regular season football game will draw a 6.
So currently the regular season games are doing 6-8 times better, and the championship game is doing better. Again, why emulate a system that is doing worse?
I hear incessantly that any system that doesn't have a playoff can't crown a champion, and that playoffs are inherently more fair.
A couple years back in the NFL, the Patriots went 11-5 in a very tough division and still stayed home while a 9-7 team in a weak division went to the playoffs. Pundits calls that team perhaps the weakest team to ever make an NFL playoff. That said team got lucky during the playoffs and made the Super Bowl. Clearly, it wasn't one of the two best teams in the league, but it got lucky for a couple of games.
I'm in the minority here, but I really love college football the way it is. Every Saturday is tense and means something. People keep clamoring for a playoff system that would send conference winners to a playoff. Non-conference games would literally be rendered meaningless and no one would schedule a tough non-conference game again. No more Texas/Ohio State games. Be prepared for more Texas/Wichita State games.
While a playoff is possible, it isn't instant magic. No one can agree on what the best playoff format is, or which one is the most fair. College football is still insanely popular currently and I don't see why you should destroy the regular season (the best part) to try and appease the people who don't like college football, and in turn alienate the people who do like it.
Chrome seperated the plugin as a seperate process, which Firefox then copied. But merely having the plugin as a seperate process does not mean the plugin is sandboxed. Flash still has access to install spyware on your computer. By placing the plugin in a sandbox, Flash doesn't have the right to hose your box.
As opposed to the Unix world where a process can be associated with a user and a group and have fine-grained permissions based on the user and group, and then even more so with AppArmor, SE Linux, etc?
In many ways he was the exact opposite of what I would want from a President, which is funny that I find myself defending him from time to time. I think there are a lot of lies and BS about him. The media crucified the guy about shit that largely wasn't true.
But you're right in that he wasn't fiscally conservative. He spent and spent and spent and spent. People said he hated the little guy, but I don't believe that is true.
He was socially conservative however.
Me, I'm all for being socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
I can't stress enough how much I want a new Keen game. Who owns the rights these days? Atari?
If I was a small game development company trying to make a name for myself, this would be a perfect project. There are WAY too many shooters, and it is hard to differentiate yourself in that market, especially on a budget.
But a good platformer can be developed on the cheap. New platformers still find ways to innovate and change gameplay all the time. You can capitalize on the fact that this a known name and might get hyped up by eager geeks, but at the same time the franchise has been dormant long enough that you might get the license real cheap.
I had a large office at my last job. In fact, it was an office designed for three people, but with layoffs it became my office solely. Now I sit in a fairly small 36 square foot cubicle as well, but I don't feel cramped. I don't need to store file folders or anything like that. My desk is large enough for three monitors, my phone, a digital photo frame, and I still have plenty of room.
Our cubicles really only have one tall wall, so we have an open space down a row where I can talk with my coworkers. We all use headsets when we're on calls, and if I take a personal call I just leave my desk area.
Some might say we're learning to accept less, but I actually prefer how social our format is.
I'm not personally aware of Bush having strong ties to Halliburton, but it wouldn't surprise me. I know Cheney used to work for them, but he famously challenged people to look on fact-check.org to verify that he never received money from Halliburton since leaving their employ.
Halliburton profited more from reconstruction in Iraq than going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. I'm not sure how Halliburton profiting proves that Bush was part of a conspiracy on 9/11.
I'd like to go back to my above point. Bush wasn't a clever mastermind. He was simple and transparent. And while most people don't like the guy, you're going to have a hard time selling me on the notion that he signed off on murdering thousands of American civilians.
The problem is that getting him means rolling into Pakistan. And while the conspiracy nuts love to suggest the US wants to invade every country it can, the US in reality has chosen not to go after Bin Laden because it means rolling into Pakistan.
Slashdot Mirror
The denial of pillow and sheets is common for anyone that might be considered a suicide risk.
I guarantee you he isn't the only prisoner in the United States who sits in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. In fact, I believe that is the common form of solitary confinement.
The fact that he can't exercise in his cell is odd.
They're timing the releases so people have time to digest them, and so they continue to get funding. But the full release has already been handed to the press.
As for being shrouded in secrecy, they won't say where they are based, who there employers are, how they are financed, what they do with the money, or what their selection process is for disclosing what is handed over to them.
They release large chunks of information, often uncensored. They hold back portions for short periods of time only so each release can be digested independently, and to continue their funding. I expect all of the cables to be released publicly within the year, and they have handed the entirety of the cables to certain news outlets.
The Pentagon Papers were held back for over a decade to protect diplomatic relations.
Amnesty International (an organization overlooked in this discussion as a true bastion of peace and decency) rips foreign governments as well. They push for transparency of government abuse. But they look to protect individuals as well. And they rip Wikileaks for not redacting names of civilian volunteers, etc.
Wikileaks is irresponsible in how they handle the materials given to them.
You haven't read it in a decade, but you're sure you know what the content is? And that is insightful?
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-10/ff_smartlist
I've honestly read more revolutionary ideas in Wired the past few years than anywhere else. And while I generally don't care for dead-tree editions of anything, I gladly pay $10 a year to help keep Wired a float.
Please mod parent up. I think most people have been approaching this subject with very simplistic views that government secrets are always inherently bad. In reality, we want our government to be open and honest to us on major policy, but there is a real need for government secrets on a number of issues.
Since no one ever RTFA, the gist is that Wikileaks sees things in a very simple, black and white universe. Everything must be open at all times. With the leak of the Pentagon Papers, not all of it was leaked initially. In fact, portions of it were held back for years because the leak would only cause harm to diplomatic relations and it had no bearing on the purpose of the leak (to expose the fact that the US government lied to its people about Vietnam).
The latter part of the article is the important part. It suggests that Wikileaks may force the government to come down hard in its enforcement of laws, and hurt journalism in the long run.
To the former, I personally have no respect for Wikileaks simplistic view of total transparency when they are shrouded in secrecy themselves. As for the latter, I really hope that isn't the case.
Bingo.
If you want to push a program or policy out to 1,000+ desktops, there are a variety of tools out there. And if you want to clone an image, there are a variety of tools out there. VDI is just one of those ways to easily manage a multitude of desktops and keep them consistent.
I'm going to hazard a guess that they handed everything over to the Feds, but not to the public. His defense attorney would be throwing a fit if he was entrapped and there was evidence to prove it.
The remaining chat logs can contain details deemed to be national secrets. Releasing them publicly could get them in legal trouble.
They could also contain information about their other informants/sources, which journalists typically try to protect. Withholding that info would actually be the height of journalistic integrity.
When they first announced Chrome, they also showed saving a file to a thumb drive. The Cr-48 netbooks don't support that in beta, but I assume it will by launch. And while your data is online, you choose which web services to use. And those services aren't necessarily locked.
There are a few cupcakes primarily for the purpose of having extra home games and making more money. But you have to schedule at least one tough out of conference game if you want a chance to rise in the BCS rankings since they factor in strength of schedule.
Two years ago Texas and Oklahoma came down to tie-breakers in BCS rankings to determine who would go to the Big XII title game. Oklahoma played a bunch of tough opponents, and that was the difference that got them in. Texas was punished for their weak schedule.
In a scenario where you just took conference champions in, then non-conference games literally become worthless. Instead of 1-2 tough non-conference games on the schedule, you'd have precisely zero.
And schools like Utah, TCU and Boise State would likely have less chance since no major schools would schedule them.
While people blast the BCS for hurting these small schools, you do realize that Boise State literally wasn't eligible for major bowls like the Orange Bowl before the BCS, but now gets to play in them because of the BCS. And the past two years you had small schools with a legit shot at the national title game even going into the last week of the season.
The BCS isn't perfect, but my point is that neither is a playoff. And if you really examine it, a playoff could be detrimental to college football. Most people assume playoffs are always good, but the situation isn't as simple as that.
Don't get me wrong. Seeing a Game 7 of a playoff series is perhaps as good as it gets, but having really examined the situation I don't want playoffs in college football.
You missed the point. The Patriots were left out while weaker teams made it in. Inherently it is unfair.
And that 9-7 team that made it to the Superbowl was declared the single worst team to ever make an NFL playoffs entering the playoffs. It rewards a team that gets lucky for a few weeks. It does not necessarily determine who is the best team overall every year.
No system is perfect or fair. To categorically declare college football a travesty and suggest that a playoff is automatically better is flawed logic.
And frankly, many schools select their major rival as their last game, and then we have conference championship games. Every week, especially the last few weeks serves as a natural playoff during the regular season.
You suggest copying NCAA basketball.
You do realize of course that NCAA football gets amazing ratings in the regular season, where as NCAA basketball gets terrible ratings during the regular season.
Sure, the tournament gets good ratings, by largely eschewing the entirety of the regular season.
Last year's NCAA basketball final of Duke-Butler was the perfect storm of David vs Goliath, a real life Hoosiers. And that got a 15 rating. The BCS championship game (which everyone supposedly hates and boycotts) got 17.
Meanwhile, a regular season basketball game this weekend will draw a 0.7. Yep, less than 1. While a good regular season football game will draw a 6.
So currently the regular season games are doing 6-8 times better, and the championship game is doing better. Again, why emulate a system that is doing worse?
I hear incessantly that any system that doesn't have a playoff can't crown a champion, and that playoffs are inherently more fair.
A couple years back in the NFL, the Patriots went 11-5 in a very tough division and still stayed home while a 9-7 team in a weak division went to the playoffs. Pundits calls that team perhaps the weakest team to ever make an NFL playoff. That said team got lucky during the playoffs and made the Super Bowl. Clearly, it wasn't one of the two best teams in the league, but it got lucky for a couple of games.
I'm in the minority here, but I really love college football the way it is. Every Saturday is tense and means something. People keep clamoring for a playoff system that would send conference winners to a playoff. Non-conference games would literally be rendered meaningless and no one would schedule a tough non-conference game again. No more Texas/Ohio State games. Be prepared for more Texas/Wichita State games.
While a playoff is possible, it isn't instant magic. No one can agree on what the best playoff format is, or which one is the most fair. College football is still insanely popular currently and I don't see why you should destroy the regular season (the best part) to try and appease the people who don't like college football, and in turn alienate the people who do like it.
Chrome seperated the plugin as a seperate process, which Firefox then copied. But merely having the plugin as a seperate process does not mean the plugin is sandboxed. Flash still has access to install spyware on your computer. By placing the plugin in a sandbox, Flash doesn't have the right to hose your box.
As opposed to the Unix world where a process can be associated with a user and a group and have fine-grained permissions based on the user and group, and then even more so with AppArmor, SE Linux, etc?
The day they announced the Chrome browser they said they would work with Adobe toward this goal.
In many ways he was the exact opposite of what I would want from a President, which is funny that I find myself defending him from time to time. I think there are a lot of lies and BS about him. The media crucified the guy about shit that largely wasn't true.
But you're right in that he wasn't fiscally conservative. He spent and spent and spent and spent. People said he hated the little guy, but I don't believe that is true.
He was socially conservative however.
Me, I'm all for being socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
There is an open source project for an engine to run the first 3 Keen games:
http://clonekeen.sourceforge.net/
I can't stress enough how much I want a new Keen game. Who owns the rights these days? Atari?
If I was a small game development company trying to make a name for myself, this would be a perfect project. There are WAY too many shooters, and it is hard to differentiate yourself in that market, especially on a budget.
But a good platformer can be developed on the cheap. New platformers still find ways to innovate and change gameplay all the time. You can capitalize on the fact that this a known name and might get hyped up by eager geeks, but at the same time the franchise has been dormant long enough that you might get the license real cheap.
I had a large office at my last job. In fact, it was an office designed for three people, but with layoffs it became my office solely. Now I sit in a fairly small 36 square foot cubicle as well, but I don't feel cramped. I don't need to store file folders or anything like that. My desk is large enough for three monitors, my phone, a digital photo frame, and I still have plenty of room.
Our cubicles really only have one tall wall, so we have an open space down a row where I can talk with my coworkers. We all use headsets when we're on calls, and if I take a personal call I just leave my desk area.
Some might say we're learning to accept less, but I actually prefer how social our format is.
I'm curious if there has been any community development with any of these engines now they went open-source?
Just like the Humble Bundle, you can also get a copy of The Witcher 2 without DRM. Pre-order it on GOG.com
I've always loved Commander Keen.
It reminded me a lot of Spaceman Spiff from Calvin and Hobbs, that this was all a boy's imagination.
The levels were challenging without being impossible. And then there was the pogo stick.
War is almost always profitable from contractors.
I'm not personally aware of Bush having strong ties to Halliburton, but it wouldn't surprise me. I know Cheney used to work for them, but he famously challenged people to look on fact-check.org to verify that he never received money from Halliburton since leaving their employ.
Halliburton profited more from reconstruction in Iraq than going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. I'm not sure how Halliburton profiting proves that Bush was part of a conspiracy on 9/11.
I'd like to go back to my above point. Bush wasn't a clever mastermind. He was simple and transparent. And while most people don't like the guy, you're going to have a hard time selling me on the notion that he signed off on murdering thousands of American civilians.
Actually, we've had a fairly good idea where Bin Laden is for years and years.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/18/osama-bin-laden-pakistan-nato
The problem is that getting him means rolling into Pakistan. And while the conspiracy nuts love to suggest the US wants to invade every country it can, the US in reality has chosen not to go after Bin Laden because it means rolling into Pakistan.
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/15-12/ff_futurewar