My 4G galaxy nexus gets considerably better battery life than my 2 year old 3G Galaxy S. Granted I live in an area with pretty good 4G coverage, so it doesn't constantly search for a tower.
"Then there are the lack of proper IDEs, good debuggers (Firebug pales compared to a real C++ or Java debugger), and the many other tools that a C++ or Java programmers expects to use."
This is what I don't understand about the direction of travel of web development right now. While eclipse does ok, there is not (IMHO) a single solid, good IDE for HTML, Javascript and CSS development that comes even remotely close to the ease and simplicity of just about any desktop display API I've ever seen. This includes some DOS based stuff for crying out loud. We've had this technology in one form or another for 15+ years and STILL don't have a user friendly ability to generate UIs and yet it's considered the grand future and even pushed by some in favor of native UI development on mobile. It's slow, over bloated, painful to write in, easily becomes unsafe, easily fails at run time, etc. Yet we continue to march forward because of browser lock-in and a lack of ability to actually update the system to address problems. I know it may sound fatalist, but I for one don't look forward to moving back to the stone ages of glorified terminal apps that have the additional limitation of being unable to receive a message from the main frame unless they initiate a message. The whole system seems like it is moving backwards in the name of progress.
Um, I know it is hard to RTFA, but perhaps you should RTFS.
"Anonymous hackers began attempting to extort money from the company in mid-January, and it responded by contacting law enforcement,"
In short, the hackers decided to try to extort Symantec and a police officer responded as if they were the executives. This is in no way entrapment and in no way reflects badly on the police at all. It was a perfectly reasonable attempt at tracking down the perpetrators. How successful it was or wasn't doesn't matter as a lot of law enforcement is trying different things until the criminals screw up. (And yes, the people that broke in to Symantec are criminals and don't deserve any respect or sympathy at all.)
Actually, my Windows Mobile phone was supremely open. My rooted Android comes close, but isn't quite as fully open as my Windows Mobile handhelds before it were. Apple fights tooth and nail to avoid open platforms.
Ok, I think you may be very confused as to what I was saying. First off, I was saying that it doesn't work. Second, I never said the government produces anything, they can however take out loans and give that money away to produce a short term increase in the economy. The strength of an economy is based on how much money is moving through it. The number of dollars in existence doesn't change, but if they move around a lot, more work gets done and people have more money to spend (and they spend it faster). The problem with a recession is that money stops moving so there isn't money to do things with because it is all tied up. Somebody, somewhere has to get things moving again and often the government steps in to do this by injecting finances on a loan to jump start and then (in theory) paying it back over time by taking money back out of the economy once others start moving money.
The question is where do you put the money. If you put it in the hands of the rich, who have buying power, but aren't buying because of the state of the economy, it will simply continue to do more of the same. The money sits there and nothing happens, except you get a government with more debt and an economy that isn't healthy enough to pay it back. On the other hand, if you put the money in the hands of those who wish to spend, but do not have the economic means to do so thanks to the economic situation, they will spend it and things get moving again.
Actually, as I'm thinking about it more, just about the best economic recovery plan right now might actually be massive investment in science and engineering with results being public access. This would provide a lot of middle class workers in jobs with long term economic benefits from the results of the research. It could also start a base for common funding of medical research where pharmaceutical companies would compete on quality of product instead of research (which currently renders substantial amounts of research useless). It could even be directed at things like energy, medicine and infrastructure to push our development forward and rebuild our ailing infrastructure for this century.
Trickle down economics don't work. This is well established. When money isn't moving, giving money to people who have enough to sit on already isn't going to do shit. Giving the money to people who have to spend it to get by will get things moving again because they don't have the resources to sit on it. The problem is republicans would rather say, give the money to the rich (who will continue to sit on it) while the democrats will often say to simply give it away. The much more pragmatic approach is to put the money directly in to improvement work. In this case, the money goes to help everyone. The improvements can be selected to help business create jobs in the long term while producing short term jobs to act as a jump start. The trick is to find these projects and invest in them without graft getting strapped on and starving the process.
As for your criticisms of Obama, I largely agree. Things like the approach to health care which simply throw more money to enable a broken system instead of actually fixing the underlying problems can only be disastrous. Not that universal health care is a bad goal, but simply throwing government money at it doesn't fix the cost issues. Things like waste in pharmaceutical research and overlap in expensive equipment beyond saturation in an area, as well as an overly sue happy malpractice environment leading to overly cautious diagnostics all combine to a hugely wasteful system and until that waste is cut down, universal health care will always be impossible to afford in the US. I would actually point to many of Obama's ideas as showing exactly what I'm describing. (Feed the broken system instead of fixing the system, because fixing the system makes powerful people angry.)
In the end, yes, I agree with you that both are largely about helping out those who are powerful. The difference is how they go about it, not what the actual intent is. Let's be clear, whether corrupt or pure, whether democrat or republican, the goal is to keep their job and power. The only differences are how they go about it. The pure (seemingly frustratingly rare) follow their philosophies, genuinely hoping it will lead to a better world. The corrupt follow an agenda to justify their behavior in trying to accomplish whatever their real goal is. For the republicans, they are very direct in action and try to explain it away. For the democrats, they would rather try to make it look like doing something for the everyman while feeding graft and bloat that can be siphoned off of. It's just a strategic difference for the same goal.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about all republicans or the good things that some do. I'm talking about the prevalent types of corruption. In this case, you see republicans behaving in a non-corrupt manner. My commentary only applies to prevalent corruption, not to when they are honestly making their best judgement. What you won't often see though, is a republican trying to serve a little guy focused special interest in what could be considered a corrupt manner.
It isn't that the republicans get corrupt faster so much as they wear it on their sleeves more. Republican corruption tends to be ignoring the majority to serve a very few rich. This is very easy to see and very easy to blame. The democrats on the other hand are just more subtle, but no better overall. They tend to serve special interest through either restriction of rights or providing broad funding to over-bloated graft. It doesn't become readily apparent until you look at their spending habits. Republicans don't like to tax for what has to be spent and democrats like to spend what they don't have, all to try and serve their special interests without upsetting anyone enough to raise a shit storm.
It certainly takes longer for someone who does know proper spelling and grammar, though a mistake here and there doesn't really matter as we are remarkably good at figuring things out from context. The example above with lots of errors took me much longer to read than a correctly spelled version would have. That said, seeing "should of" instead of "should have" doesn't even register as a blip of difference.
I didn't even realize that they weren't already doing this. Honestly, it seems silly to me to not have the same privacy policy across the sites they own and to share data between services. It works out better for them and better for me. As long as they aren't sharing that picture with people I haven't given the data to, I really could care less if they use the data I've given them to make services better for me and more profitable for them. (The two are, after all, generally synonymous when dealing with Google as they invest a lot in their profitable platforms.)
Except that doesn't work. The first step of any decent forensics approach would be a bit for bit mirror of the data on the drive followed by decrypting the copy. It would be readily apparent if the drive was substantially altered by the decryption and the ruse would be seen through. It would also fail to actually delete anything as the original would still be intact.
After some more checking, yes, you appear to be correct. It seems it was 720p resolution. I was running 1080p from my laptop, but it would appear the signal provided was only 720p. I just know that it was running at maximum, I'm not aware of any way that the client shows the actual detail level, just whether it is encountering issues.
The screening process is beyond full of holes. It frequently makes glaring mistakes. This is why they make a list to have go through additional screening to try and make sure that known problems don't slip through unknown in the future. As I recall, there are cases of people getting through with full blown fire arms without it setting off any bells or whistles and regular stories of people going through with substantial knives that were accidentally left in luggage.
Yes, but eye for an eye was from Abrahamic law, not morality. Christian morals are very clear that it is not on the individual to exact retribution and most people agree with this from a moral standpoint. You are confusing the average view of justice with the average view of morality. Morality is what is right and wrong, not what is just punishment. Justice is what is just punishment and most people's morality says that it is immoral to create your own justice.
No, I pay $30 a month for data, the same as my previous unlimited data plan. There was absolutely no change in my service when I upgraded. Just make sure to double check with the person in the store when you upgrade to verify they aren't changing it.
I would challenge that the majority view would be that it isn't moral to steal from Bob even if he stole from you since in general, people favor law being the resolution of such issues. Really what you are talking about there is not so much morality as people's sense of just penalty. The theft is still immoral either way, just some people might feel that stealing back would be deserved punishment. Can you think of any examples that are not what would be a punishment, but rather simply a behavior? You do bring up a good caveat though.
True, I suppose I should clarify to say what is broadly considered moral should generally be legal, at least in theory. Where as what is generally considered immoral may still be protected by law.
Slashdot Mirror
My 4G galaxy nexus gets considerably better battery life than my 2 year old 3G Galaxy S. Granted I live in an area with pretty good 4G coverage, so it doesn't constantly search for a tower.
"Then there are the lack of proper IDEs, good debuggers (Firebug pales compared to a real C++ or Java debugger), and the many other tools that a C++ or Java programmers expects to use."
This is what I don't understand about the direction of travel of web development right now. While eclipse does ok, there is not (IMHO) a single solid, good IDE for HTML, Javascript and CSS development that comes even remotely close to the ease and simplicity of just about any desktop display API I've ever seen. This includes some DOS based stuff for crying out loud. We've had this technology in one form or another for 15+ years and STILL don't have a user friendly ability to generate UIs and yet it's considered the grand future and even pushed by some in favor of native UI development on mobile. It's slow, over bloated, painful to write in, easily becomes unsafe, easily fails at run time, etc. Yet we continue to march forward because of browser lock-in and a lack of ability to actually update the system to address problems. I know it may sound fatalist, but I for one don't look forward to moving back to the stone ages of glorified terminal apps that have the additional limitation of being unable to receive a message from the main frame unless they initiate a message. The whole system seems like it is moving backwards in the name of progress.
Um, I know it is hard to RTFA, but perhaps you should RTFS.
"Anonymous hackers began attempting to extort money from the company in mid-January, and it responded by contacting law enforcement,"
In short, the hackers decided to try to extort Symantec and a police officer responded as if they were the executives. This is in no way entrapment and in no way reflects badly on the police at all. It was a perfectly reasonable attempt at tracking down the perpetrators. How successful it was or wasn't doesn't matter as a lot of law enforcement is trying different things until the criminals screw up. (And yes, the people that broke in to Symantec are criminals and don't deserve any respect or sympathy at all.)
Actually, my Windows Mobile phone was supremely open. My rooted Android comes close, but isn't quite as fully open as my Windows Mobile handhelds before it were. Apple fights tooth and nail to avoid open platforms.
Ok, I think you may be very confused as to what I was saying. First off, I was saying that it doesn't work. Second, I never said the government produces anything, they can however take out loans and give that money away to produce a short term increase in the economy. The strength of an economy is based on how much money is moving through it. The number of dollars in existence doesn't change, but if they move around a lot, more work gets done and people have more money to spend (and they spend it faster). The problem with a recession is that money stops moving so there isn't money to do things with because it is all tied up. Somebody, somewhere has to get things moving again and often the government steps in to do this by injecting finances on a loan to jump start and then (in theory) paying it back over time by taking money back out of the economy once others start moving money.
The question is where do you put the money. If you put it in the hands of the rich, who have buying power, but aren't buying because of the state of the economy, it will simply continue to do more of the same. The money sits there and nothing happens, except you get a government with more debt and an economy that isn't healthy enough to pay it back. On the other hand, if you put the money in the hands of those who wish to spend, but do not have the economic means to do so thanks to the economic situation, they will spend it and things get moving again.
Actually, as I'm thinking about it more, just about the best economic recovery plan right now might actually be massive investment in science and engineering with results being public access. This would provide a lot of middle class workers in jobs with long term economic benefits from the results of the research. It could also start a base for common funding of medical research where pharmaceutical companies would compete on quality of product instead of research (which currently renders substantial amounts of research useless). It could even be directed at things like energy, medicine and infrastructure to push our development forward and rebuild our ailing infrastructure for this century.
Trickle down economics don't work. This is well established. When money isn't moving, giving money to people who have enough to sit on already isn't going to do shit. Giving the money to people who have to spend it to get by will get things moving again because they don't have the resources to sit on it. The problem is republicans would rather say, give the money to the rich (who will continue to sit on it) while the democrats will often say to simply give it away. The much more pragmatic approach is to put the money directly in to improvement work. In this case, the money goes to help everyone. The improvements can be selected to help business create jobs in the long term while producing short term jobs to act as a jump start. The trick is to find these projects and invest in them without graft getting strapped on and starving the process.
As for your criticisms of Obama, I largely agree. Things like the approach to health care which simply throw more money to enable a broken system instead of actually fixing the underlying problems can only be disastrous. Not that universal health care is a bad goal, but simply throwing government money at it doesn't fix the cost issues. Things like waste in pharmaceutical research and overlap in expensive equipment beyond saturation in an area, as well as an overly sue happy malpractice environment leading to overly cautious diagnostics all combine to a hugely wasteful system and until that waste is cut down, universal health care will always be impossible to afford in the US. I would actually point to many of Obama's ideas as showing exactly what I'm describing. (Feed the broken system instead of fixing the system, because fixing the system makes powerful people angry.)
In the end, yes, I agree with you that both are largely about helping out those who are powerful. The difference is how they go about it, not what the actual intent is. Let's be clear, whether corrupt or pure, whether democrat or republican, the goal is to keep their job and power. The only differences are how they go about it. The pure (seemingly frustratingly rare) follow their philosophies, genuinely hoping it will lead to a better world. The corrupt follow an agenda to justify their behavior in trying to accomplish whatever their real goal is. For the republicans, they are very direct in action and try to explain it away. For the democrats, they would rather try to make it look like doing something for the everyman while feeding graft and bloat that can be siphoned off of. It's just a strategic difference for the same goal.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about all republicans or the good things that some do. I'm talking about the prevalent types of corruption. In this case, you see republicans behaving in a non-corrupt manner. My commentary only applies to prevalent corruption, not to when they are honestly making their best judgement. What you won't often see though, is a republican trying to serve a little guy focused special interest in what could be considered a corrupt manner.
It isn't that the republicans get corrupt faster so much as they wear it on their sleeves more. Republican corruption tends to be ignoring the majority to serve a very few rich. This is very easy to see and very easy to blame. The democrats on the other hand are just more subtle, but no better overall. They tend to serve special interest through either restriction of rights or providing broad funding to over-bloated graft. It doesn't become readily apparent until you look at their spending habits. Republicans don't like to tax for what has to be spent and democrats like to spend what they don't have, all to try and serve their special interests without upsetting anyone enough to raise a shit storm.
It certainly takes longer for someone who does know proper spelling and grammar, though a mistake here and there doesn't really matter as we are remarkably good at figuring things out from context. The example above with lots of errors took me much longer to read than a correctly spelled version would have. That said, seeing "should of" instead of "should have" doesn't even register as a blip of difference.
I didn't even realize that they weren't already doing this. Honestly, it seems silly to me to not have the same privacy policy across the sites they own and to share data between services. It works out better for them and better for me. As long as they aren't sharing that picture with people I haven't given the data to, I really could care less if they use the data I've given them to make services better for me and more profitable for them. (The two are, after all, generally synonymous when dealing with Google as they invest a lot in their profitable platforms.)
In this situation, we're just following Europe's lead.
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-management/2006/05/18/government-to-force-handover-of-encryption-keys-39269746/
Except that doesn't work. The first step of any decent forensics approach would be a bit for bit mirror of the data on the drive followed by decrypting the copy. It would be readily apparent if the drive was substantially altered by the decryption and the ruse would be seen through. It would also fail to actually delete anything as the original would still be intact.
Doesn't the UK already have no privacy when it comes to encryption keys?
After some more checking, yes, you appear to be correct. It seems it was 720p resolution. I was running 1080p from my laptop, but it would appear the signal provided was only 720p. I just know that it was running at maximum, I'm not aware of any way that the client shows the actual detail level, just whether it is encountering issues.
The system isn't working. That I'll agree with 110%.
The screening process is beyond full of holes. It frequently makes glaring mistakes. This is why they make a list to have go through additional screening to try and make sure that known problems don't slip through unknown in the future. As I recall, there are cases of people getting through with full blown fire arms without it setting off any bells or whistles and regular stories of people going through with substantial knives that were accidentally left in luggage.
Yeah, I believe you are correct. the parenthesis should read "something immoral being illegal". Good catch.
Yes, but eye for an eye was from Abrahamic law, not morality. Christian morals are very clear that it is not on the individual to exact retribution and most people agree with this from a moral standpoint. You are confusing the average view of justice with the average view of morality. Morality is what is right and wrong, not what is just punishment. Justice is what is just punishment and most people's morality says that it is immoral to create your own justice.
No, I pay $30 a month for data, the same as my previous unlimited data plan. There was absolutely no change in my service when I upgraded. Just make sure to double check with the person in the store when you upgrade to verify they aren't changing it.
If the primer got triggered in turbulence and it cooked off, sure there is. If not to the airplane itself, then to the people in it.
I would challenge that the majority view would be that it isn't moral to steal from Bob even if he stole from you since in general, people favor law being the resolution of such issues. Really what you are talking about there is not so much morality as people's sense of just penalty. The theft is still immoral either way, just some people might feel that stealing back would be deserved punishment. Can you think of any examples that are not what would be a punishment, but rather simply a behavior? You do bring up a good caveat though.
True, I suppose I should clarify to say what is broadly considered moral should generally be legal, at least in theory. Where as what is generally considered immoral may still be protected by law.
By that criteria, my ISP's e-mail service must be serving up kiddie porn.