Your desire for spiritual salvation is quite a bit low after a hot threesome.
And when was the last time that happened to you? Oh right, never.
Not only can I tell you the last time that happened (June) I can tell you the next time it will happen (Late Jan/Early Feb, got to get flights sorted).
There are studies that show that christian couples have more and better sex than non-christian couples
Lets ignore the you're proving the parents point (sex is enjoyable) I'd like to see a citation. Does this come from the same Christian Scientists who discovered the "Gay gene" (or the Gay scientist who discovered the Christian gene). Does it take into account other externalities?
Having travelled to Christian and Buddhist, I'd say the Buddhists are happier.
Religion is rightly called the "opium of the masses", everyone I've seen under it's influence has acted like they were high. The more religion you take (seriously) the more addled you become on that drug and the less sense you make. Don't get me wrong, I know drug users that I like but they aren't the ones who are robbing people to feed their smack habit, the same with religious people except you cant tell how much "opium" they've taken straight off the bat (BTW, cant stand Baptists, Anglican and Church of England folks are a hoot).
Let's see how much fun that threesome is after you get multiple diseases.
First you whine about FUD, then you spread FUD.
STI rates are phenomenally low, using contraception they get to the point where you have less then 1% chance of catching and STI. The vast majority of people will go through their entire lives not catching an STI.
I mean, We cant take the pope seriously, after all you must follow him being a Christian (If you dont like FUD, dont use it yourself) I'd recomend you avoid using low blows too, the church has dont a lot of damage below the belt in recent years.
1) The US isn't in a position to bomb anything at the moment.
2) Israel will never bomb Iran. Israel knows that Iran is not a threat and has not really fought a war of aggression and won, they know this. Defensive wars give Israel the upper hand. Unlike the US, Israeli military leaders will not follow a failed strategy just because they started it.
The strange thing about the Jewish (Israel) and Persian (Iran) people is that they get on like a house on fire. When the Islamic republic started expelling certain religious people (Zoroastrian leaders, Baha'i, Jews and so forth) most of them fled to... Israel. There are several Iranian Jews are members of the Israeli government, Moshe Katsav, 8th president of Israel was Iranian. If Israel attacks Iran this will galvanise the people under the Islamic government and Israel knows this. If Iran attacks Israel, Iran knows full when Israeli tanks, lead by Farsi speaking Persian Israeli's arrive in an Iranian ville, no one will give a shit what religion they follow because someone's uncle has come home. Persian Iranians (Read, the vast majority of Iran) dont hate Jews or Israel, the Arab government hates Israel but knows it can never attack them without losing support of the people because the animosity between Arabs and Persians is legendary.
Now the Islamic government of Iran is facing a crisis it has never head to deal with. When the Iran Iraq war of the 80's started to deplete the Iranian population the leaders issued an edict, "start making babies" and the people followed. How old are the babies born in 1984-1989 today? Now a large, young population is angry and want to express it, they've never had 20 somethings in any significant number before, they aren't old enough to remember how bad the Shah was and why the Islamic revolution was supported. All they know is that they dont like the current government.
So Iran is no threat, if anything Israel has taken to supporting the current regime in order to distance Tehran from their Israel hating allies (Hezbolla and Hamas).
Iraq's oil production capabilities are around $20B/year
Citation needed.
Is that Iraq's current production or Iraq's 1998 production because I'll clue you in sparky. Iraq has not been permitted to trade that much oil since 1992 on account of the UN embargo against them. The gulf patrols and no fly zones which the US, British and Australian navies maintain to this very day.
What are the reserves?
We're spending $300B/year on the war. There literally isn't enough oil in the ground there to pay us back for the last 7.5 years,
That's because those who envisaged this war never actually understood that maybe, the Iraqi people dont want to be liberated and will resist them or start a civil war. Bush and co never imagined the war would cost US$300B in total let alone US$300B a year for over 7 years.
The war was to gain control of Iraq's oil reserve. Don't let the fact that they failed to achieve that objective convince you otherwise.
I mean, technically it is "police work" on the same scale that FBI operations are police work and not combat operations.
Exactly, Britain didn't leave Anti-Terrorism in the hands of the Metro Police and the UK faced a lot of terrorism from the IRA over the last 60 odd years. Internal security agencies like MI5 were at the forefront as well a national police force. Anti-terror was not the job of your average bobby.
Bomb threats in NY are the job of the FBI not the NYPD in the US, surgeries and murders in NY are the job of the NYPD.
On the contrary. You announce the date and pull out sooner. When the little shits come out of hiding you nail them.
Hiding?
You do know that US forces are not in control over there. The Green Zone gets attacked on a weekly, if not daily basis.
Besides this, they are spending most of their time and forces fighting each other. When the US forces leave, only the death toll of Americans will go down. But then again, this never was about the Iraqi's
I'll punch you,
Then I'll punch you back,
Then I'll punch you back twice as hard,
Then I'll punch you back three times as hard.
Meanwhile whilst your engine in your petty dickwavi9ng contest those who were smart enough to turn the other cheek (Europe, BRIC) will reap the benefit.
In the end, all you'll do is seal your own demise.
Dropped one FAB or a MOAB - or perhaps even a nuke - on Mecca during the pilgrimage.
Because nothing says, lets put aside the differences we've fought over for hundreds of years and work together like blowing up a sacred monument and creating hundreds of thousands of martyrs.
Do you think if Al-Queda blew up the white house that Americans would realise they were beaten and just give up?
No. Thought so.
Then why the hell do you think blowing up Mecca will help?.
As a conservative I'd like to point out your argument about the Afghanistan war becoming bloodier under Obama and this surge of troops is the same argument many liberals used during the Iraq Surge. Guess what, when you send more troops in to take and hold ground and fight the enemy more troops get hurt. But that doesn't mean the strategy is a failure. It's a war, if you want to win people end up dying before that happens.
Holding ground != Defeating the enemy.
Every strategy that does not work to defeat the enemy is a failure, at best it's a waste of resources which is also failure.
In an occupation, you cannot simply just fight the enemy, they'll just send more enemies at you. Every one you kill is someone's friend or brother and they become motivated to fight. For crying out loud this lesson you should remember from Vietnam. You need to remove the enemies reason for fighting, just sending more men into the meat grinder doesn't do this. What do the Afghan's want? Well 1. They want Afghanistan. That patch of desert and rock has been fought over by many empires (Persians, Indian, Arabian, Russian, Soviet, British Mongolian, Chinese) and it's never really been colonised or suppressed. 2. They want better lives (who the fuck doesn't).
Right now the Taliban are saying that Americans are imperialists, they will not improve your lives and will take your land from you, just like they did in Iraq. Frankly, leaving Iraq might do more to help this negative propaganda then all the troop surges in the world, it's a shame the US couldn't figure this out years ago. If you want to win in Afghanistan, you need to gain the trust of the Afghan people, key to this is getting the Afghan warlords to work together and how you'll accomplish that is beyond me at the moment. The Taliban used violence and they ended up creating the Northern Alliance.
But it had to be rooted, which is 7331 slang for jailbreaking
You really are 7331. Rooting is not the same as Jailbreaking.
First, rooting is done to unlock SU, Jailbreaking is to unlock user space (non SU on most *nix systems) as well as SU.
Secondly, Android permits application installation from any source, jailbreaking is required to allow application installation from any source other then Itunes.
Thirdly, Rooting is used to gain access to the driver level when API's for that function do not exist (this is getting smaller with each Android revision, with 1.1 I needed root for a lot but with 2.1 I dont need root at all). Jailbreaking is used to gain access to applications that would work without SU and/or on existing API's but Apple will not permit them.
The use of Root and Jailbreak are completely different. Even the implementation is different and Google aren't fighting you tooth and nail with each release. Once rooted, you keep it until you install a non rooted ROM. BTW, with my first HTC Dream mod (JesusFreake 1.5.3), I didn't have root or Danger SPL. It wasn't until Cyanogen 3 I installed DangerSPL.
That's troubling on a great deal of levels. Motorola seems to be going the same way...
Motorola Droid != Android. This is the reason the OS is developed independent of the hardware.
HTC are still quite open, not sure about Samsung.
I like my Motorola Milestone, but because of Moto's locked down boot loader I'll be getting a HTC phone next. Probably the HTC Vision as it looks to have the same keyboard as the Dream.
I'm sorry, but are you trying to imply that there's a negative bias against Android and a positive bias towards the iPhone on Slashdot lately? Really? Maybe you haven't been reading the site for the past year or so but, things have changed, quite a bit...
Nope, he's quite correct, I wonder which Slashdot you've been reading. The more popular Android became over the last year the more rabid the iFanboys have become, the tide hasn't turned against them. In fact they've pulled in the ranks and are getting modded up more then ever (I guess they've given up on trying to mod down pro-android posts)
In all seriousness, this is a remote exploit (code execution) and it's being reported as a wonderful thing. If this was IE, all the rabid Linux and Apple fanboys would be attacking it left, right and centre, if it were Firefox the anit-FOSS zealots will be using to prove the inherent vulnerability of FOSS and the Firefox fans will be reassuring everyone it will be fixed in the next patch. But because this is Apple, an exploit that can execute code is considered a good thing(TM), if someone can use this for jailbreaking, cant someone else use this for malicious purposes. Pretty much if you can Jailbreak an Iphone, you can easily run a spambot or data miner on it.
In this case, shouldn't Iphone users switch to an alternate browser?
Sod loading anything, my 3G takes a noticeable period of time to react to UI inputs, screen rotations et al when it didn't under the previous OS. iOS4 sucks for the 3G, I don't know why Apple included it in the release.
Apple included it in the release because the fanboys carry on and on about how not every Android phone has 2.2 yet. Not doing so would blunt their biggest attack on Android.
Besides this, wasn't the "Snappiness"* of the UI Apples only real selling point?
* Snappiness is an unquantifiable measurement, thus useless anyway.
You're assuming that electricity consumption is a fixed. I just moved house and bought a load of electrical goods.
No I am not. I think quoting myself in this case is not too self adsorbed.
If anything this will lead to a price hike and people scale back on the amount of energy they use (reduction in energy use is not a bad thing)
What I said was, people need electricity.
And given the fact that power generation is a very expensive market to get into it can not be very competitive a "free" market scenario will lead to a few companies controlling the price for power. Remember the phrase "what the market will bear" means, to a CxO what is the maximum I can charge before it hits the bottom line and when you control 80% of a product or service that ceiling is quite high.
If electricity had been cheaper, there would have been no financial incentive to buy the more efficient ones, and so there would have been no incentive for manufacturers to increase efficiency.
Not that I disagree with your supposition, but it's a tangent that does not relate to my post. The "free" market cannot be relied upon to "fix" electricity costs (by fix I mean lower or produce them at the lowest possible price point) because free market forces does not apply to monopoly or cartel situations.
You forget that when electricity was significantly cheaper, there was demand for low TPD electronics. The ratings system first appeared on fridges and washing machines in Australia in 1993. The desire to lower operating costs has always been a significant driver, not just because of energy costs. The same with fuel efficient cars, only now the big block V8's have lost popularity, this is a cultural thing rather then an energy thing, the big block V8 crowd gets smaller each year.
Malaysia has a quite successful economy and for SE Asia, the average Malay is well off. Their economy is diversified between skilled manufacturing, mining and petroleum with some agriculture mixed in. Have a Dell Latitude or AMD proc, chances are it was assembled in Malaysia. Some of that petrol you used today, chances are Petronas drilled that out of the ground.
Indonesia has a stable economy, being mostly based around mining and agriculture means that despite this the average Indonesian is not very rich.
But then again, despite being Muslim nations Indonesia and Malaysia are democracies, albeit imperfect ones (show me a perfect one, these nations have no more corruption then the Hindu, Buddhist or Christian governments of SE Asia). The freedoms found in Malaysia are comparable to the west, girls walk around in average clothes (SE Asia in general is quite conservative, this goes for Buddhist Thailand and Christian Phillipines as well) and very rarely do you see "ninja ladies" (the only ones I've seen are in the richer areas of Kuala Lumpur).
Oppressive governments tend to destroy economic prosperity. Religion doesn't factor into it. If not for the Khmer Rouge, Cambodia (Buddhist) would be doing as well as Thailand or Vietnam. If not for the Junta in Myanmar (Buddhist), would the major export from Myanmar still be opium? What of the corrupt and oppressive regime in Columbia (Christian). The economic problems in the ME are not conducive to Islam, they are conducive to bad governments which exist in all religions.
There are some Islamic-ruled countries with wrecked economies, but some of them (such as UAE and Saudi Arabia, the ones we're talking about here) are in pretty good shape, and as long as the petroleum holds out, their economies will remain pretty damn successful.
Saudi is entirely dependent on oil. Once that is gone, the house of Saud will be overthrown by extremists, the average Saudi will be glad to see them go. Just like the average Persian was glad to see the shah go in favour of the Islamic Revolution.
UAE is already in as much trouble as the west. Their debt is greater then that of the US (in terms of debt to GDP, the US still has more in volume) and this does not look to be decreasing. As others have pointed out, showing off is the fashion in UAE, especially in the Emirate of Dubai. Take the Burj Dubai for example, it's the Emir's trying to tell the world that their dick is bigger.
Welcome to the United Federal Fascist State of America. Please enjoy your stay...
Federal is a bit redundant, all fascist nations tend to have centralised governments. I know that dictators like to have long government names though, it's almost like the length of their national name is compensating for something.
This kinda stuff is totally unacceptable. What law did he break? What was he accused of? Why was he detained? What right do they have to ask such questions? On what planet is a 3 hour detention reasonable?
The detention was not totally unreasonable. I believe US law permits up to 24 hours without a charge being laid, after that you need to be charged or released. Now the questioning was unreasonable, the questioning unveiled the motivation behind his detention and that was completely unreasonable. With the motivation being to intimidate the developer the length of detention is unimportant, two minutes is a bad as two days.
Terrorist attacks happened in Spain, March 11, 2004. That's EU. No "patriot" acts so far. Spain also has a long story of terrorist attacks in Basque province.
Terrorist attacks have been happening in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland for over 50 years (the troubles, lockerby) and there is not UK Patriot Act, well until the US showed that it could be done with little opposition so long as people were scared enough.
They can. But you don't have to answer per the following Supreme Laws: "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." ----- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ----- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Such as the right to travel freely without impediment.)
This is what I like about Australia's customs service, they have a specific list of questions they are not allowed to ask (politics, religious and personal beliefs, sexual preferences or anything sexual). Pretty much they'll keep it limited to your travel. I find they will engage a lot in small talk when undergoing a thorough inspection and this will almost entirely relate to travel ("where did you go", "did you see X whilst you were there", "what hotel did you stay in", "was it nice" and so forth). This serves two purposes, first to put the person at ease and second to see if the person will show any obvious signs of lying.
I've arrived back from such lovely places as Thailand and the Philippines as a single male traveller, I've had my bags searched, laptops and camera's weren't even looked at, Xanax, Cialis, Alaxan (prescription strength Ibuprofen and Paracetamol, not advisable to take with Alcohol) weren't even looked at. When I drew attention to the prescription only pharmaceuticals I was told "they're not illegal" and I left with them. Apparently all they were interested in was my guitar case which had what looked like hidden compartments, small containers covered the bolts to prevent them from scratching the guitar and had desiccant pouches inside which looked like drugs on the X-Ray. I've been told by USian's I've met abroad that Thailand and Philippine stamps tend to get you scrutinised very closely.
Give section S195 of the Customs act a read. What many people forget in their "love" of freedom (Read: hate of "the man") is that the law that protects us from customs also gives us some obligations to answer all legal questions... truthfully.
BTW, before anyone brings up Julian Assange. That happens all the time to people with old passports due to the relatively high fraud rate involved with old passports. Assange was not questioned, they only verified his passport.
This is known as a "market economy," and it encourages things like efficiency, and matching the supply to the demand.
It's so cute when people actually believe this.
A market will charge what it's customers will pay. When you have no competition or can collude with the limited competition you can charge what you like. High cost of entry makes it easy to prevent competitors from establishing themselves.
With energy, they pretty much have you by the short hairs, you'll pay as you need electricity. If anything this will lead to a price hike and people scale back on the amount of energy they use (reduction in energy use is not a bad thing) which will lead to another price hike to cover losses from people scaling back consumption. In Western Australia we received a 60-80% increase in electrical costs this year, experts predicted last year due to a series of incidents (an Apache LNG pipeline exploded) prices would raise by a maximum of 20%, the government took the leash of the privatised electricity company and many people's electricity bill doubled.
I agree that subsidies are not a good thing, but when a single player or a small group of players control a significant majority of the supply the free market or market economy does not exist.
Of course the same people would be arguing that oil and gas are the way to go.
They are commonly known as "oil and gas companies".
The same as Philip Morris will tell you that smoking poses no risk to your health, so light up.
BTW, Gas is not the best way to go, it's just the best way thats here. Give me Nuclear and/or Solar but it will be at least 10 years before any effort started today will be operational in any meaningful capacity.
Here is a reference point. 82% of France's electricity comes from nuclear power plants. The price of power for industrial customers is about 0.06 USD/kWh. This includes huge personnel and pension costs (powerful unions) and sloppy financial management (politically appointed execs). So it means that actual production and delivery costs are below this price point. Since EDF, the French electricity semi-public firm, is a monopoly, there is little incentive to be more cost-effective. And yet, even so, they achieve a cost of 6 cents per kWh.
I am therefore not impressed with the 0.16,USD/kWh quoted. It' s almost 3 times more expensive than what the French can get, without even trying to be cost-effective.
France's population is spread over less area then the US's, plus France's governmental incompetence is nothing compared to the overhead caused by political infighting of the US, often the $CURRENT_PARTY has to kill Project X simply because it was started by the opposing party.
I doubt you'll get the cost of electricity down below 0.11 USD/kWh, France can run the entire country on fewer plants and sell power to it's neighbours (which is no doubt subsidising the cost). Besides US isn't that bad, Australia pays about 0.19 USD/kHh, England pays about 0.17 USD/kHh (England has some nuclear power, Australia is almost all oil, gas and coal).
Slashdot Mirror
Not only can I tell you the last time that happened (June) I can tell you the next time it will happen (Late Jan/Early Feb, got to get flights sorted).
Lets ignore the you're proving the parents point (sex is enjoyable) I'd like to see a citation. Does this come from the same Christian Scientists who discovered the "Gay gene" (or the Gay scientist who discovered the Christian gene). Does it take into account other externalities?
Having travelled to Christian and Buddhist, I'd say the Buddhists are happier. Religion is rightly called the "opium of the masses", everyone I've seen under it's influence has acted like they were high. The more religion you take (seriously) the more addled you become on that drug and the less sense you make. Don't get me wrong, I know drug users that I like but they aren't the ones who are robbing people to feed their smack habit, the same with religious people except you cant tell how much "opium" they've taken straight off the bat (BTW, cant stand Baptists, Anglican and Church of England folks are a hoot).
First you whine about FUD, then you spread FUD.
STI rates are phenomenally low, using contraception they get to the point where you have less then 1% chance of catching and STI. The vast majority of people will go through their entire lives not catching an STI.
I mean, We cant take the pope seriously, after all you must follow him being a Christian (If you dont like FUD, dont use it yourself) I'd recomend you avoid using low blows too, the church has dont a lot of damage below the belt in recent years.
How little you know.
1) The US isn't in a position to bomb anything at the moment.
2) Israel will never bomb Iran. Israel knows that Iran is not a threat and has not really fought a war of aggression and won, they know this. Defensive wars give Israel the upper hand. Unlike the US, Israeli military leaders will not follow a failed strategy just because they started it.
The strange thing about the Jewish (Israel) and Persian (Iran) people is that they get on like a house on fire. When the Islamic republic started expelling certain religious people (Zoroastrian leaders, Baha'i, Jews and so forth) most of them fled to... Israel. There are several Iranian Jews are members of the Israeli government, Moshe Katsav, 8th president of Israel was Iranian. If Israel attacks Iran this will galvanise the people under the Islamic government and Israel knows this. If Iran attacks Israel, Iran knows full when Israeli tanks, lead by Farsi speaking Persian Israeli's arrive in an Iranian ville, no one will give a shit what religion they follow because someone's uncle has come home. Persian Iranians (Read, the vast majority of Iran) dont hate Jews or Israel, the Arab government hates Israel but knows it can never attack them without losing support of the people because the animosity between Arabs and Persians is legendary.
Now the Islamic government of Iran is facing a crisis it has never head to deal with. When the Iran Iraq war of the 80's started to deplete the Iranian population the leaders issued an edict, "start making babies" and the people followed. How old are the babies born in 1984-1989 today? Now a large, young population is angry and want to express it, they've never had 20 somethings in any significant number before, they aren't old enough to remember how bad the Shah was and why the Islamic revolution was supported. All they know is that they dont like the current government.
So Iran is no threat, if anything Israel has taken to supporting the current regime in order to distance Tehran from their Israel hating allies (Hezbolla and Hamas).
Citation needed.
Is that Iraq's current production or Iraq's 1998 production because I'll clue you in sparky. Iraq has not been permitted to trade that much oil since 1992 on account of the UN embargo against them. The gulf patrols and no fly zones which the US, British and Australian navies maintain to this very day.
What are the reserves?
That's because those who envisaged this war never actually understood that maybe, the Iraqi people dont want to be liberated and will resist them or start a civil war. Bush and co never imagined the war would cost US$300B in total let alone US$300B a year for over 7 years.
The war was to gain control of Iraq's oil reserve. Don't let the fact that they failed to achieve that objective convince you otherwise.
Exactly, Britain didn't leave Anti-Terrorism in the hands of the Metro Police and the UK faced a lot of terrorism from the IRA over the last 60 odd years. Internal security agencies like MI5 were at the forefront as well a national police force. Anti-terror was not the job of your average bobby.
Bomb threats in NY are the job of the FBI not the NYPD in the US, surgeries and murders in NY are the job of the NYPD.
Hiding?
You do know that US forces are not in control over there. The Green Zone gets attacked on a weekly, if not daily basis.
Besides this, they are spending most of their time and forces fighting each other. When the US forces leave, only the death toll of Americans will go down. But then again, this never was about the Iraqi's
No shit sherlock.
It will only escalate thing.
I'll punch you,
Then I'll punch you back,
Then I'll punch you back twice as hard,
Then I'll punch you back three times as hard.
Meanwhile whilst your engine in your petty dickwavi9ng contest those who were smart enough to turn the other cheek (Europe, BRIC) will reap the benefit. In the end, all you'll do is seal your own demise.
Because nothing says, lets put aside the differences we've fought over for hundreds of years and work together like blowing up a sacred monument and creating hundreds of thousands of martyrs.
Do you think if Al-Queda blew up the white house that Americans would realise they were beaten and just give up?
No. Thought so.
Then why the hell do you think blowing up Mecca will help?.
Holding ground != Defeating the enemy.
Every strategy that does not work to defeat the enemy is a failure, at best it's a waste of resources which is also failure.
In an occupation, you cannot simply just fight the enemy, they'll just send more enemies at you. Every one you kill is someone's friend or brother and they become motivated to fight. For crying out loud this lesson you should remember from Vietnam. You need to remove the enemies reason for fighting, just sending more men into the meat grinder doesn't do this. What do the Afghan's want? Well 1. They want Afghanistan. That patch of desert and rock has been fought over by many empires (Persians, Indian, Arabian, Russian, Soviet, British Mongolian, Chinese) and it's never really been colonised or suppressed. 2. They want better lives (who the fuck doesn't).
Right now the Taliban are saying that Americans are imperialists, they will not improve your lives and will take your land from you, just like they did in Iraq. Frankly, leaving Iraq might do more to help this negative propaganda then all the troop surges in the world, it's a shame the US couldn't figure this out years ago. If you want to win in Afghanistan, you need to gain the trust of the Afghan people, key to this is getting the Afghan warlords to work together and how you'll accomplish that is beyond me at the moment. The Taliban used violence and they ended up creating the Northern Alliance.
Using Occams razor and common sense. Apple doesn't put these in, they just don't test it's products properly.
Never attribute to competence that which is easily explained by stupidity.
This hole will be closed in short order. Apple cannot abide you having control over your own phone.
You really are 7331. Rooting is not the same as Jailbreaking.
First, rooting is done to unlock SU, Jailbreaking is to unlock user space (non SU on most *nix systems) as well as SU.
Secondly, Android permits application installation from any source, jailbreaking is required to allow application installation from any source other then Itunes.
Thirdly, Rooting is used to gain access to the driver level when API's for that function do not exist (this is getting smaller with each Android revision, with 1.1 I needed root for a lot but with 2.1 I dont need root at all). Jailbreaking is used to gain access to applications that would work without SU and/or on existing API's but Apple will not permit them.
The use of Root and Jailbreak are completely different. Even the implementation is different and Google aren't fighting you tooth and nail with each release. Once rooted, you keep it until you install a non rooted ROM. BTW, with my first HTC Dream mod (JesusFreake 1.5.3), I didn't have root or Danger SPL. It wasn't until Cyanogen 3 I installed DangerSPL.
Motorola Droid != Android. This is the reason the OS is developed independent of the hardware.
HTC are still quite open, not sure about Samsung.
I like my Motorola Milestone, but because of Moto's locked down boot loader I'll be getting a HTC phone next. Probably the HTC Vision as it looks to have the same keyboard as the Dream.
Nope, he's quite correct, I wonder which Slashdot you've been reading. The more popular Android became over the last year the more rabid the iFanboys have become, the tide hasn't turned against them. In fact they've pulled in the ranks and are getting modded up more then ever (I guess they've given up on trying to mod down pro-android posts)
In all seriousness, this is a remote exploit (code execution) and it's being reported as a wonderful thing. If this was IE, all the rabid Linux and Apple fanboys would be attacking it left, right and centre, if it were Firefox the anit-FOSS zealots will be using to prove the inherent vulnerability of FOSS and the Firefox fans will be reassuring everyone it will be fixed in the next patch. But because this is Apple, an exploit that can execute code is considered a good thing(TM), if someone can use this for jailbreaking, cant someone else use this for malicious purposes. Pretty much if you can Jailbreak an Iphone, you can easily run a spambot or data miner on it.
In this case, shouldn't Iphone users switch to an alternate browser?
Apple included it in the release because the fanboys carry on and on about how not every Android phone has 2.2 yet. Not doing so would blunt their biggest attack on Android. Besides this, wasn't the "Snappiness"* of the UI Apples only real selling point?
* Snappiness is an unquantifiable measurement, thus useless anyway.
No I am not. I think quoting myself in this case is not too self adsorbed.
What I said was, people need electricity. And given the fact that power generation is a very expensive market to get into it can not be very competitive a "free" market scenario will lead to a few companies controlling the price for power. Remember the phrase "what the market will bear" means, to a CxO what is the maximum I can charge before it hits the bottom line and when you control 80% of a product or service that ceiling is quite high.
Not that I disagree with your supposition, but it's a tangent that does not relate to my post. The "free" market cannot be relied upon to "fix" electricity costs (by fix I mean lower or produce them at the lowest possible price point) because free market forces does not apply to monopoly or cartel situations.
You forget that when electricity was significantly cheaper, there was demand for low TPD electronics. The ratings system first appeared on fridges and washing machines in Australia in 1993. The desire to lower operating costs has always been a significant driver, not just because of energy costs. The same with fuel efficient cars, only now the big block V8's have lost popularity, this is a cultural thing rather then an energy thing, the big block V8 crowd gets smaller each year.
Out of curiosity...
Where are your backups?
Ummm... You forgot about Malaysia and Indonesia.
Malaysia has a quite successful economy and for SE Asia, the average Malay is well off. Their economy is diversified between skilled manufacturing, mining and petroleum with some agriculture mixed in. Have a Dell Latitude or AMD proc, chances are it was assembled in Malaysia. Some of that petrol you used today, chances are Petronas drilled that out of the ground.
Indonesia has a stable economy, being mostly based around mining and agriculture means that despite this the average Indonesian is not very rich.
But then again, despite being Muslim nations Indonesia and Malaysia are democracies, albeit imperfect ones (show me a perfect one, these nations have no more corruption then the Hindu, Buddhist or Christian governments of SE Asia). The freedoms found in Malaysia are comparable to the west, girls walk around in average clothes (SE Asia in general is quite conservative, this goes for Buddhist Thailand and Christian Phillipines as well) and very rarely do you see "ninja ladies" (the only ones I've seen are in the richer areas of Kuala Lumpur).
Oppressive governments tend to destroy economic prosperity. Religion doesn't factor into it. If not for the Khmer Rouge, Cambodia (Buddhist) would be doing as well as Thailand or Vietnam. If not for the Junta in Myanmar (Buddhist), would the major export from Myanmar still be opium? What of the corrupt and oppressive regime in Columbia (Christian). The economic problems in the ME are not conducive to Islam, they are conducive to bad governments which exist in all religions.
Saudi is entirely dependent on oil. Once that is gone, the house of Saud will be overthrown by extremists, the average Saudi will be glad to see them go. Just like the average Persian was glad to see the shah go in favour of the Islamic Revolution.
UAE is already in as much trouble as the west. Their debt is greater then that of the US (in terms of debt to GDP, the US still has more in volume) and this does not look to be decreasing. As others have pointed out, showing off is the fashion in UAE, especially in the Emirate of Dubai. Take the Burj Dubai for example, it's the Emir's trying to tell the world that their dick is bigger.
Because Canadians, Cubans and Peruvians dont get the same problem.
Get over it.
There, fixed that for you.
Sigh, how can you expect others to defend rights you will not defend yourself. Not all revolutionary acts need be violent.
Federal is a bit redundant, all fascist nations tend to have centralised governments. I know that dictators like to have long government names though, it's almost like the length of their national name is compensating for something.
The detention was not totally unreasonable. I believe US law permits up to 24 hours without a charge being laid, after that you need to be charged or released. Now the questioning was unreasonable, the questioning unveiled the motivation behind his detention and that was completely unreasonable. With the motivation being to intimidate the developer the length of detention is unimportant, two minutes is a bad as two days.
Terrorist attacks have been happening in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland for over 50 years (the troubles, lockerby) and there is not UK Patriot Act, well until the US showed that it could be done with little opposition so long as people were scared enough.
This is what I like about Australia's customs service, they have a specific list of questions they are not allowed to ask (politics, religious and personal beliefs, sexual preferences or anything sexual). Pretty much they'll keep it limited to your travel. I find they will engage a lot in small talk when undergoing a thorough inspection and this will almost entirely relate to travel ("where did you go", "did you see X whilst you were there", "what hotel did you stay in", "was it nice" and so forth). This serves two purposes, first to put the person at ease and second to see if the person will show any obvious signs of lying.
I've arrived back from such lovely places as Thailand and the Philippines as a single male traveller, I've had my bags searched, laptops and camera's weren't even looked at, Xanax, Cialis, Alaxan (prescription strength Ibuprofen and Paracetamol, not advisable to take with Alcohol) weren't even looked at. When I drew attention to the prescription only pharmaceuticals I was told "they're not illegal" and I left with them. Apparently all they were interested in was my guitar case which had what looked like hidden compartments, small containers covered the bolts to prevent them from scratching the guitar and had desiccant pouches inside which looked like drugs on the X-Ray. I've been told by USian's I've met abroad that Thailand and Philippine stamps tend to get you scrutinised very closely.
Give section S195 of the Customs act a read. What many people forget in their "love" of freedom (Read: hate of "the man") is that the law that protects us from customs also gives us some obligations to answer all legal questions... truthfully.
BTW, before anyone brings up Julian Assange. That happens all the time to people with old passports due to the relatively high fraud rate involved with old passports. Assange was not questioned, they only verified his passport.
It's so cute when people actually believe this.
A market will charge what it's customers will pay. When you have no competition or can collude with the limited competition you can charge what you like. High cost of entry makes it easy to prevent competitors from establishing themselves.
With energy, they pretty much have you by the short hairs, you'll pay as you need electricity. If anything this will lead to a price hike and people scale back on the amount of energy they use (reduction in energy use is not a bad thing) which will lead to another price hike to cover losses from people scaling back consumption. In Western Australia we received a 60-80% increase in electrical costs this year, experts predicted last year due to a series of incidents (an Apache LNG pipeline exploded) prices would raise by a maximum of 20%, the government took the leash of the privatised electricity company and many people's electricity bill doubled.
I agree that subsidies are not a good thing, but when a single player or a small group of players control a significant majority of the supply the free market or market economy does not exist.
They are commonly known as "oil and gas companies".
The same as Philip Morris will tell you that smoking poses no risk to your health, so light up.
BTW, Gas is not the best way to go, it's just the best way thats here. Give me Nuclear and/or Solar but it will be at least 10 years before any effort started today will be operational in any meaningful capacity.
France's population is spread over less area then the US's, plus France's governmental incompetence is nothing compared to the overhead caused by political infighting of the US, often the $CURRENT_PARTY has to kill Project X simply because it was started by the opposing party.
I doubt you'll get the cost of electricity down below 0.11 USD/kWh, France can run the entire country on fewer plants and sell power to it's neighbours (which is no doubt subsidising the cost). Besides US isn't that bad, Australia pays about 0.19 USD/kHh, England pays about 0.17 USD/kHh (England has some nuclear power, Australia is almost all oil, gas and coal).