To be fair, it's not the people that are obsessed with guns, it's the government, and that's what people want defense from. Per capita an American police officer is six times more likely to be guilty of homicide, two and a half times as likely to be guilty of sexual assault, their homes are more likely to have issues with domestic violence, they're more likely to be guilty of theft...and the government is going around giving them tanks, UAVs, bombs, military weapons with military armor...we have police departments that are more heavily armed than our boys in Iraq were! And when the government is going around heavily arming one of the more violent segments of society, I think it's understandable for people to want to be able to defend themselves.
You do realize that, when backing up onto "the cloud", that data is going to end up on hard drives too, right? Despite the name, it didn't magically get stored in air.
Oh, sure, there'd be some extra space purchased since individuals will probably keep higher margins of free space than a cloud provider...but then again, that cloud provider is more likely to have RAID or other redundancies and internal backups, using more drives.
I didn't think slow internet is going to drive up the profits of the drive makers that much.
Primary advantage of SSDs is latency...and that's going to improve no matter how fast the connection is. But USB 3.0 is pretty Damn fast, with a theoretical max around 5 Gbps. SATA couldn't hit that until fairly recently. Of course, neither could USB...but they're nearly on par now.
Where the hell are you getting this information about truecrypt being closed-source? Go look at their website; the code is there.
"TrueCrypt is open-source and free software. The complete source code of TrueCrypt (written in C, C++, and assembly) is freely available for peer review..."
"TrueCrypt is open-source and free software. The complete source code of TrueCrypt (written in C, C++, and assembly) is freely available for peer review..."
Pretty sure it doesn't, because the second PC doesn't start downloading until the first PC has fully finished uploading. And it takes twice the time to upload as it does to download, which would only really make sense if it's going to the cloud, since my downstream bandwidth is twice my upstream.
I don't need gig speeds, but I certainly need N...when running speed tests I've broken 56mbps. To the open internet, on wifi. I no longer think about what I might like to download for tomorrow or two days from now; it's now only about what I want to download for ten minutes from now. And it is awesome.
Yeah, that was my thought. I was given a similar seeming product as a gift once -- it was basically a hoodie, where the pockets had holes in the sides (behind a velcro flap so crap didn't fall out, so that was at least nice) which led to a series of velcro loops up the inside of the zipper that you were supposed to route your headphone cable through. Which is the dumbest idea ever -- I don't understand why anyone would want that. It takes 10 freakin minutes to get the damn cable routed, and then if you wanna take the hoodie off but still use the headphones you've gotta sit there taking them back out.
The one other nice feature -- totally unrelated -- was that the pockets sealed closed with rare earth magnets...but those ripped right out after a couple months.
_REPUBLICAN_ logic? This is coming from Obama. It's the logic of those in power; they call themselves by different names but they hold the same fundamental ideology.
Of course, Obama has also called himself a Republican, so perhaps you're less incorrect than it may seem...
His official policy is that anyone hit by a drone strike is officially considered to be an enemy combatant. Not that they only fire if they can prove these people are guilty, but that the fact that they fired is considered evidence of guilt. That's not taking responsibility, that a pre-emptive cover-up. And it's a complete perversion of the historical western legal principles.
If another nation did this to us we would consider it an act of war and retaliate. Yet when we do it, it's apparently not an act of war because it requires no declaration of war. If someone is in another sovereign nation, it is up to that nation to decide what that person can and cannot legally do and enforce that as needed. We don't get to be the world's police force; that's not how it works. If that nation is assisting this person in acts of war against us, then we can use existing legal frameworks to deal with that - things like sanctions and war.
Of course, maybe if we respected the sovereignty of other nations as we expect from them they'd be willing to work with us to police this sort of thing. All we're gaining by doing this is more enemies around the world.
The proper completion would be that the DA _claims_ they are part of or somehow assisting a large criminal organization without needing to offer any proof of this assertion.
That's the point. That's why everyone is so pissed about this. It's not about killing terrorists in foreign countries. It's that Obama (or one of his advisors) are judge, jury, and executioner. Actually, more than that, the same person is also the cop and detective. Even if they do nothing malicious, people make mistakes. In this case, a mistake could mean the death of American citizens. And they've made zero effort to try to prevent that. In fact, the entire point of this new policy is to actively dismantle the very systems designed to prevent that.
That should actually be a very simple determination. In most of the countries where these done strikes occur, there has been no declaration of war by congress. How can it be a wartime action when there is no war?
One problem: this isn't about wars. This is to justify strikes in places like Pakistan (currently one of the most common) and areas of Africa (upcoming) where _we are not at war_. Therefore these are "police actions" carried out unilaterally by the executive branch.
How would you feel if the Queen of England decided that she personally had the right to execute anyone in America today, without charge, without trial, without our government's consent, and without a declaration of war? Replace the Queen with Obama and America with Pakistan and that _exactly_ the situation we have here.
We get it; you don't like taxes. Fine. But you don't get to invent your own dictionary where you redefine words and then "correct" people who are actually using those words correctly. That is not a legitimate form of argument.
Pay is defined as "to give someone money for work done." Just because you don't agree with the money being given or how much is being given does not change the fact that the government is giving someone money in exchange for some form of work or service.
That I'm fine with. Kill social and moral regulation entirely...If I want to marry another dude or shoot up drugs that's not your concern....end our imperial wars...and restore same financial regulations and taxes. Hell if you end the wars you may not need to do much with taxes....though I'd still favor a system that promotes greater wealth equality. High rate flat tax with the first 30k or so exempt, something like that...or just a wall st. transaction tax...
That's what most socialists want....or at least where we'd like to start or actions we would strongly support.
In America it seems that most people who identify as Libertarians are anarcho-capitalists...So as an anarcho-syndicalist I agree completely on the political side of their ideology, but cannot tolerate the cultural/economic aspect.
"removing your power in the name of liberties while giving more power to the wealthy" is a problem of the Libertarian philosophy in general. They propose to abolish or equalize political power while pretending economic power is not a form of power at all...thus making the wealthy into oligarchs with absolute power over their domain.
It's not just about the price of minerals increasing...the cost of retrieval is decreasing at the same time.
The ship that collects these will be unmanned and probably fairly cheap...speed isn't a major concern either...really is worth it if the value of materials returned is less than the value of the fuel to get your thing in orbit. We're probably not there yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if we could come close to breaking even if we could snag a fairly large asteroid with a good composition. But of course that still means large scale use of this is quite a ways off...nobody's going to launch a commercial venture with such a high startup cost for just the promise of breaking even....I doubt this will be commercially viable until we've got a better way of getting crap into space. Could potentially use some kind of small, high power rail launcher for this though since there's no humans that need to survive the acceleration.
Yes; it's the digital equivalent to a sit-in; the fact that it is considered to be illegal is absurd.
But even if you disagree, the entire reason a DDOS is illegal is because the intent is to shut down the site. If my site is so poorly coded that a single visitor crashes the server, you think I'd have any luck going to the FBI asking them to investigate the "criminal" responsible? Of course not. It was not a coordinated attack; it was not an intentional attempt to shut down the site; it was one guy downloading some papers that he had every right to download. If their servers can't handle the load they should add some rate limiting or something.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, it's not the people that are obsessed with guns, it's the government, and that's what people want defense from. Per capita an American police officer is six times more likely to be guilty of homicide, two and a half times as likely to be guilty of sexual assault, their homes are more likely to have issues with domestic violence, they're more likely to be guilty of theft...and the government is going around giving them tanks, UAVs, bombs, military weapons with military armor...we have police departments that are more heavily armed than our boys in Iraq were! And when the government is going around heavily arming one of the more violent segments of society, I think it's understandable for people to want to be able to defend themselves.
You do realize that, when backing up onto "the cloud", that data is going to end up on hard drives too, right? Despite the name, it didn't magically get stored in air.
Oh, sure, there'd be some extra space purchased since individuals will probably keep higher margins of free space than a cloud provider...but then again, that cloud provider is more likely to have RAID or other redundancies and internal backups, using more drives.
I didn't think slow internet is going to drive up the profits of the drive makers that much.
Primary advantage of SSDs is latency...and that's going to improve no matter how fast the connection is. But USB 3.0 is pretty Damn fast, with a theoretical max around 5 Gbps. SATA couldn't hit that until fairly recently. Of course, neither could USB...but they're nearly on par now.
Or scopolamine, although I hear that's somewhat exaggerated...
Where the hell are you getting this information about truecrypt being closed-source? Go look at their website; the code is there.
"TrueCrypt is open-source and free software. The complete source code of TrueCrypt (written in C, C++, and assembly) is freely available for peer review..."
www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=source-code
"TrueCrypt is open-source and free software. The complete source code of TrueCrypt (written in C, C++, and assembly) is freely available for peer review..."
http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=source-code
Pretty sure it doesn't, because the second PC doesn't start downloading until the first PC has fully finished uploading. And it takes twice the time to upload as it does to download, which would only really make sense if it's going to the cloud, since my downstream bandwidth is twice my upstream.
Shit, I transfer stuff from this computer to one three feet to my right via dropbox...and I'm talking gigs at a time.
Then again, my downstream speed tests at 56mbps, upstream is around 26, so why the hell not?
I don't need gig speeds, but I certainly need N...when running speed tests I've broken 56mbps. To the open internet, on wifi. I no longer think about what I might like to download for tomorrow or two days from now; it's now only about what I want to download for ten minutes from now. And it is awesome.
Yeah, that was my thought. I was given a similar seeming product as a gift once -- it was basically a hoodie, where the pockets had holes in the sides (behind a velcro flap so crap didn't fall out, so that was at least nice) which led to a series of velcro loops up the inside of the zipper that you were supposed to route your headphone cable through. Which is the dumbest idea ever -- I don't understand why anyone would want that. It takes 10 freakin minutes to get the damn cable routed, and then if you wanna take the hoodie off but still use the headphones you've gotta sit there taking them back out.
The one other nice feature -- totally unrelated -- was that the pockets sealed closed with rare earth magnets...but those ripped right out after a couple months.
Yea, that's basically what I said...but he's still not a Republican brand product. ;)
_REPUBLICAN_ logic? This is coming from Obama. It's the logic of those in power; they call themselves by different names but they hold the same fundamental ideology.
Of course, Obama has also called himself a Republican, so perhaps you're less incorrect than it may seem...
His official policy is that anyone hit by a drone strike is officially considered to be an enemy combatant. Not that they only fire if they can prove these people are guilty, but that the fact that they fired is considered evidence of guilt. That's not taking responsibility, that a pre-emptive cover-up. And it's a complete perversion of the historical western legal principles.
If another nation did this to us we would consider it an act of war and retaliate. Yet when we do it, it's apparently not an act of war because it requires no declaration of war. If someone is in another sovereign nation, it is up to that nation to decide what that person can and cannot legally do and enforce that as needed. We don't get to be the world's police force; that's not how it works. If that nation is assisting this person in acts of war against us, then we can use existing legal frameworks to deal with that - things like sanctions and war.
Of course, maybe if we respected the sovereignty of other nations as we expect from them they'd be willing to work with us to police this sort of thing. All we're gaining by doing this is more enemies around the world.
The proper completion would be that the DA _claims_ they are part of or somehow assisting a large criminal organization without needing to offer any proof of this assertion.
That's the point. That's why everyone is so pissed about this. It's not about killing terrorists in foreign countries. It's that Obama (or one of his advisors) are judge, jury, and executioner. Actually, more than that, the same person is also the cop and detective. Even if they do nothing malicious, people make mistakes. In this case, a mistake could mean the death of American citizens. And they've made zero effort to try to prevent that. In fact, the entire point of this new policy is to actively dismantle the very systems designed to prevent that.
That should actually be a very simple determination. In most of the countries where these done strikes occur, there has been no declaration of war by congress. How can it be a wartime action when there is no war?
One problem: this isn't about wars. This is to justify strikes in places like Pakistan (currently one of the most common) and areas of Africa (upcoming) where _we are not at war_. Therefore these are "police actions" carried out unilaterally by the executive branch.
How would you feel if the Queen of England decided that she personally had the right to execute anyone in America today, without charge, without trial, without our government's consent, and without a declaration of war? Replace the Queen with Obama and America with Pakistan and that _exactly_ the situation we have here.
Ok, no. Stop it, you're wrong.
We get it; you don't like taxes. Fine. But you don't get to invent your own dictionary where you redefine words and then "correct" people who are actually using those words correctly. That is not a legitimate form of argument.
Pay is defined as "to give someone money for work done." Just because you don't agree with the money being given or how much is being given does not change the fact that the government is giving someone money in exchange for some form of work or service.
That I'm fine with. Kill social and moral regulation entirely...If I want to marry another dude or shoot up drugs that's not your concern....end our imperial wars...and restore same financial regulations and taxes. Hell if you end the wars you may not need to do much with taxes....though I'd still favor a system that promotes greater wealth equality. High rate flat tax with the first 30k or so exempt, something like that...or just a wall st. transaction tax...
That's what most socialists want....or at least where we'd like to start or actions we would strongly support.
In America it seems that most people who identify as Libertarians are anarcho-capitalists...So as an anarcho-syndicalist I agree completely on the political side of their ideology, but cannot tolerate the cultural/economic aspect.
"removing your power in the name of liberties while giving more power to the wealthy" is a problem of the Libertarian philosophy in general. They propose to abolish or equalize political power while pretending economic power is not a form of power at all...thus making the wealthy into oligarchs with absolute power over their domain.
Uh....that's exactly what we have. Your wireless provider is just an ISP that provides a connection to the phone and internet networks.
It's not just about the price of minerals increasing...the cost of retrieval is decreasing at the same time.
The ship that collects these will be unmanned and probably fairly cheap...speed isn't a major concern either...really is worth it if the value of materials returned is less than the value of the fuel to get your thing in orbit. We're probably not there yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if we could come close to breaking even if we could snag a fairly large asteroid with a good composition. But of course that still means large scale use of this is quite a ways off...nobody's going to launch a commercial venture with such a high startup cost for just the promise of breaking even....I doubt this will be commercially viable until we've got a better way of getting crap into space. Could potentially use some kind of small, high power rail launcher for this though since there's no humans that need to survive the acceleration.
Yes; it's the digital equivalent to a sit-in; the fact that it is considered to be illegal is absurd.
But even if you disagree, the entire reason a DDOS is illegal is because the intent is to shut down the site. If my site is so poorly coded that a single visitor crashes the server, you think I'd have any luck going to the FBI asking them to investigate the "criminal" responsible? Of course not. It was not a coordinated attack; it was not an intentional attempt to shut down the site; it was one guy downloading some papers that he had every right to download. If their servers can't handle the load they should add some rate limiting or something.
Swartz screwed up JSTOR access for everyone at MIT and repeatedly took down JSTOR servers, interfering with other labs and schools.
...by downloading files that he had permission to access.
They both belonged in jail. Too bad they were both too privileged, pretty white boys to serve even a day.
So the Slashdot effect is a crime now? Does that mean anyone who actually RTFAs is guilty of conspiracy?
What I want to know is: what kind of TVs is the submitter using anyway? He's apparently interested in an e-Ink screen that's 30 FEET diagonally.
I'm more interested in that 9.5 foot Kindle...
Do we stop understanding people because we focus too much on technology, or do we focus so much on technology because we don't understand people?
I'm my case, I suspect it to be the latter.