If that old canard is so true, than I have to wonder why it is that their are so many security-related issues with F/OSS browsers that go unchecked for so long?
Because Safari is not an Open Source browser. No one but Apple can look at all of Safari's source code let alone submit a fix. Thus the old canard remains unchallenged, this is not endemic to WebKit or KHTML as it's affecting Safari only so I'd say the issue is in Apple's code, not the Open Source code.
Well, no, the 'tree' is actually a perannual herb, technically the individual fingers are fruit as they contain the seed, although modern cultivated bananas produce very small sterile seeds. I should have known this of course, living in Queensland Australia, I am a 'Banana Bender'
I'll pay that one.
Although my pedanticism tells me that when one says "banana" we are talking about the fruit that you eat.
You know, the whole "victims are to blame if they didn't make the crime impossible" meme is starting to rub me the wrong way.
Because it's the wrong bloody meme (which is why it grates me as well).
The thing is that this extradition violates the spirit of the law whilst upholding the letter of the law. What McKinnon did was wrong, no one can doubt that but who got hurt?
Apart from US's national pride when they revealed to the world media that someone guessed the password to their computer systems, absolutely no-one. You see when property is damaged and no-one gets hurt then punishment is typically doled out by how much damage is done. Seeing as McKinnon didn't actually do any damage the punishment should not require extradition. This is definitely a case of punishment that does not fit the crime. McKinnon is a person who has trouble making good decisions (being an aspie) yet is being hunted down like a hardened criminal.
Now I dont think this is US dickwaving but simply a case of no-one is issuing the order not to because no-one wants to own the problem (of letting McKinnon go with a slap on the wrist, bit of a PR gaff which the opposition will seize). The US needs to suck in it's pride and let McKinnon server 6 months in a British minimum security jail.
Apparently you have this problem with your internet posts
Really.
I'm not the one purporting to have an experience opposite to what most people are reporting.
I'm highly sceptical because your reports do not fit the profile of other reports. This is not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is pretending a problem does not exist because I want it not to exist. Projection is claiming post who call you out as cognitive dissonance.
as you refuse to accept evidence to the contrary once you have decided that all iPhones must be flawed.
Umm...
You didn't provide any evidence, what you provided was an anecdote which is contrary to the position of actual evidence. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Also I have enough knowledge to understand that the problem is caused by an unshielded aerial is a design problem and yes, this affects all Iphones (hence the comment of mine that "is not your experience").
- why do you even care?
Because I am old enough to remember the rise of Microsoft into prominence and how against all warnings I hailed Windows.
This is a mistake I have learned from and do not wish to repeat again.
The Andandtech article is pretty much an Apple propaganda piece.
The Nexus One has been out for months and has not suffered the same issue as the Iphone4. Besides, no context was given around the numbers, which is brilliant lying with statistics. Did they test the Nexus One at the opposite end of the scale where EM interference is more pronounced (95 dBM to 121 dBm as opposed to 61 to 87 dBm). This is just one of many inconstancies and inferences you are meant to make without being given the information.
Much like with the PC world article, I think the other phones were being held in quite unusual positions to get high signal loss.
Citation needed. Recent studies showing no decrease in practical reaction times recently came out.
Irony, asking for citation whilst providing no citation yourself. Here's Wikipedia, another citation there.
It's not exactly a secret that marijuana use results in a diminished reaction time and loss of motor control. This is the same with alcohol or most depressants for that matter. You can take a certain amount of alcohol or other drug and remain within the safe limits for reaction time (this amount depends on the individual) but with marijuana there tends to be less of a safe zone that exists with alcohol due to the rapid rate at which marijuana is consumed (1 bong can intoxicate an individual as much as 100 ml of hard liquor in one go, plus marijuana intoxication is much faster).
I'm all in favour of decriminalisation and in some cases legalisation but we cant lie to ourselves here, marijuana is an intoxicant that has serious effects on motor skills and reactions.
I've been screaming for years that most silicon-based devices have inherent flaws.
Hey, carbon-based fluid bag, it's not like you're perfect.
Shall we discuss your flaws with the world. The fact your only stable relationship with women have been with your mother and a simulation, in fact the one with your mother isn't that stable, I think you're both just screwed up in the exact same way. Further more, delete that horse porn, dude that stuff is sick (dont just back it up to the NAS, he doesn't want it either).
Now will you go to a bar like a normal human. I want to spend some quality time with the Wii.
Independent slashdot user, dangitman, predicts that the Pirate Party UK is incorrect in their statement and is just attempting to get publicity. A wave of "Pirate ISPs" suddenly appearing is about as likely as the British people rising up in mass revolt against the government.
Enlightened Slashdot reader MJWX predicts that British people are sick of the crappy service from BT and Virgin. Micro ISP's will pop up everywhere. People will not know about this crazy notion of Pirate ISP's.
In other words, what happened to Australia's ISP industry a few years ago when regulators tightened the screws on Telstra. Wholesale price gets fixed. Any sysadmin with a modicum of marketing skill could set up an ISP in his garage and eventually get bought out by iinet.
You can not fight an extremist with reasonable moderation.
Oddly enough that's the only way to fight extremism with any meaningful end to the conflict.
For every impassioned hate speech, have a well reasoned response.
For every senseless attack, have a precision response.
For every threat, have nothing but indifference.
If you do, any compromise will result in loosing ground.
If you believe this then I suggest you take a look at your own views. You may be the very extremist that other extremists tell me I need to fear.
You need an opposing extremist.
This can only end in an extremist winning. 1 Extremist + 1 Extremist does not equal out to 0 Extremists. They will just butt heads until one side finally gains the upper hand and starts to push their extremist agenda over everybody.
In effect by pitting extremist against extremist you're only proving each others point. Party B says that Party A is a dictatorial force with no thought for the will of it's people so it attacks Party A. Party A believes Party B is a terrorist group who must be stopped so they come down on Party B with an iron fist proving party B's point. Do you see what is wrong here, you cant pit anarchists against police statists and expect a representative government to arise when neither party has any wish in representative government. This has been proven time and time again in various 3rd world nations. So...
What happens when you respond to hate speech with hate speech?
What happens when you respond to senseless violence with equally senseless violence?
What happens when you respond to threats with more threats?
Asking people to choose between which extremists will hurt them the least will leave them with no choice what so ever.
That way, a compromise may hopefully exist somewhere within the reasonable area between the two.
No.
The best outcome you can hope for is that a moderate response that draws support away from an extremist organisation by not presenting them with an enemy that is as bad as what they claim.
The most likely outcome is that a terrorist group is so marginalised that it does not present itself as a problem.
Northern Ireland was a bit of both, but many of the clashes were between Irish (real IRA vs provincial IRA).
The worst outcome is to train another generation to hate you because you responded to senseless violence by bombing their homes and doing exactly what the other extremists said you'd do.
The move to medicalize (is that a word?) marijuana will work against moves for industrial hemp.
I think this is a problem with the US Govt rather then the idea of medical marijuana growth. The tax for drugs should be on the sale of the drug itself not the cultivation. But the US Govt I think is not capable of differentiating between the marijuana plant and the use of marijuana as a narcotic.
Which really is a shame as there are variants of the plant with a THC content so low you'd have to smoke a square hectare to get high.
you can not get addicted to it like hard drugs (heroin, cocaine, meth & etc),
I think the words you are looking for are "chemically dependent". There is no measurable dependency, unlike tobacco.
Many forms of addiction are entirely psychological such as alcoholism and gambling addictions and this depends on the kind of person taking the drug (thus blanket bans are not productive). It's ignorant to say that there is no risk, just as it's ignorant to say that dope will make you crazy and kill your family. I agree with your sentiment that it should at the very least be decriminalised, if not legalised and treated the same as tobacco or alcohol but there are still risks from smoking marijuana the same as there are risks from drinking alcohol. But these are risks we as a society accept and in many cases control outside of controlling the drug (I.E. drinking and driving).
Both California and the Federal Gov are hurting for a source or revenue. Taxation will only get so far based on the Laffer curve. I honestly think we are at the cusp of legalizing pot across the board, only be taxed heavily in the process. Which of course is why they would do it in the first place.
But what will this do to the price on the average bag of pot on the street? Do we have a Splif Price Index to compare this with?
I assume that even with a tax the price will lower as supply can now meet demand. Of course if this was done right only sales of the narcotic part of the plant would be taxed as there are other uses for the same plant such as producing cloth. But knowing the US govt they will tax growing it until it's no longer profitable.
All jokes aside, commercial hemp has more applications then just narcotics/psychoactive.
Fibres from the marijuana plant produce a material stronger then cotton at a much lower cost to produce (faster growth time, higher yield per plant, able to withstand harsher environmental conditions) thus you have to oft quoted stoner conspiracy that the anti-weed movement was sponsored by America's cotton growers.
Psychological and physiological health issues are shown to be less then that of legal Alcohol and Tobacco. With Marijuana smoke carrying considerably less carcinogens then tobacco smoke, although I'd definitely be behind a dont bong and drive campaign as reaction times are slowed down more then when using alcohol.
I'd also like the US to stop pushing drug laws on other nations. I'd like a "happy" pizza in Cambodia.
Essentially it's a piss poor (and I mean PISS poor... anyone with photoshop experience could hack that trash out in minutes) touch-up by a company that should be acutely aware of it's current reputation.
Maybe they were pre-occupied with other issues...
Such as a small oil leak south of Florida.
For crying out loud people, this is turning into an anti-BP witch hunt. Fair enough, I dont much like it either but I work in the Oil and Gas industry and BP have been doing everything in their power to fix this. Most oil co's have chipped in engineering help (Woodside, Chevron and INPEX have sent people to help BP).
Ultimately if you need someone to blame, look no further then the nearest mirror. Your unquenchable thirst for cheap oil is what drove BP to do this. You want a lot of oil, you want cheap oil and you want oil extracted safely. But in reality you can only pick two, considering how much people complain about expensive oil and refuse to move to alternate energy I guess safety is not a priority.
Right after the explosion, they make rig workers sign papers saying they had no injuries BEFORE THEY LET THEM GET ON SHORE.
First, Citation needed and a proper citation not some random blog.
Second, this is BP's Duty Of Care. To ensure that it's staff leave their care in a fit condition. What do you think would have happened if a staff member refused to sign that bit of paper?
Do you think the "company man" would have thrown them overboard?
If you answered yes to this question lay off the tabloids and late night sci-fi. If an employee was injured, the companies responsibility (duty of care) was to take the employee to hospital (at the companies expense, given the lack of a decent health care system in the US) and ensure they get treatment for injuries sustained whilst on a company site. I've worked for a major oil company and they would not let you on shore until you've signed a disclaimer like this even if everything went swimmingly, further more if it even looked like you were injured the company man wouldn't even let you near the paper until you've been checked out by a doctor. It's not just arse covering, they actually need to find out if you're OK before letting you off their site.
How people cant figure these things out for themselves is beyond me.
Not that I encourage deliberately starting wildfires, but does this encompass protection if you draw the prophet Mohammed now? This is Slashdot and Mohammed is the worlds most common name
Yes, but this does not protect you from people that want to kill you.
Note most Muslims couldn't give two shits if you draw the prophet Mohammed or not, there are many images of him. Most Muslims live in Asia. There are plenty of images of the prophet Mohammed already and only extremists like the Taliban who stoned the faces off the ancient Buddhist statues in Afghan valleys give a shit.
Luckily, I bought one of the magical iPhone 4s which isn't affected by any problem with dropped calls (0 over the last month), so I won't be returning mine.
I guess the other guy always "accidentally" hangs up on you.
I'm highly sceptical of anyone who says they dont have an issue. Normally it's just the ego covering up for a decision that you desperately want to be right. Regardless of whether it is or isn't a good decision your ego will not let you judge it rationally.
The really sad thing is that all Apple need to do, was cover the damn aerial is a few mm of plastic or rubber and the signal loss would have been lessened to real world numbers (5-7 dBm). But Apple would not permit this, there have literally been dozens of studies on bare metal aerials and they have all concluded bare metal aerials are not suitable for phones due to interference cause by being touched.
Perhaps only old fogeys recall rabbit ear TV antennas for analogue TVs...
So it all seemed like a tempest in a teacup to me.
Did you read the article (I know this is slash dot).
With each phone they had to use very unorthodox grips just to get half the signal degradation experienced by holding the Iphone4 normally.
Yes I remember TV aerials, I also remember you had to tune them because unlike digital signals you had to adjust the TV to the frequency your aerial picked up, not the frequency that was transmitted. This is why you couldn't move a TV and rabbit ears (an aerial that looks like a pair of rabbit ears for the young uns, and get off my lawn) into another room without having to retune.
Bare metal TV aerials were very good at picking up weak signals, but very prone to interference. You cannot have this with a mobile phone, the frequency received and transmitted must be within a very small frequency band or the whole thing doesn't work. TV is fine because it's just a receiver and doesn't matter if the freq is slightly distorted, mobile phones need to be a receiver and transmitter in addition to the signal being broadband, not baseband.
The aerial was a massive design failure and Apple are trying to sugar coat it. Fanboys are helping this which is only making the problem worse in the long run (I.E. the sugar coating wears off, the problem remains).
Slashdot Mirror
No one produces decent music any more. Modern " dance" makes you look like you're having an elliptic fit whilst unable to change a skipping record.
Because Safari is not an Open Source browser. No one but Apple can look at all of Safari's source code let alone submit a fix. Thus the old canard remains unchallenged, this is not endemic to WebKit or KHTML as it's affecting Safari only so I'd say the issue is in Apple's code, not the Open Source code.
I'll pay that one.
Although my pedanticism tells me that when one says "banana" we are talking about the fruit that you eat.
Because it's the wrong bloody meme (which is why it grates me as well).
The thing is that this extradition violates the spirit of the law whilst upholding the letter of the law. What McKinnon did was wrong, no one can doubt that but who got hurt?
Apart from US's national pride when they revealed to the world media that someone guessed the password to their computer systems, absolutely no-one. You see when property is damaged and no-one gets hurt then punishment is typically doled out by how much damage is done. Seeing as McKinnon didn't actually do any damage the punishment should not require extradition. This is definitely a case of punishment that does not fit the crime. McKinnon is a person who has trouble making good decisions (being an aspie) yet is being hunted down like a hardened criminal.
Now I dont think this is US dickwaving but simply a case of no-one is issuing the order not to because no-one wants to own the problem (of letting McKinnon go with a slap on the wrist, bit of a PR gaff which the opposition will seize). The US needs to suck in it's pride and let McKinnon server 6 months in a British minimum security jail.
Really.
I'm not the one purporting to have an experience opposite to what most people are reporting.
I'm highly sceptical because your reports do not fit the profile of other reports. This is not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is pretending a problem does not exist because I want it not to exist. Projection is claiming post who call you out as cognitive dissonance.
Umm...
You didn't provide any evidence, what you provided was an anecdote which is contrary to the position of actual evidence. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Also I have enough knowledge to understand that the problem is caused by an unshielded aerial is a design problem and yes, this affects all Iphones (hence the comment of mine that "is not your experience").
Because I am old enough to remember the rise of Microsoft into prominence and how against all warnings I hailed Windows.
This is a mistake I have learned from and do not wish to repeat again.
The Andandtech article is pretty much an Apple propaganda piece.
The Nexus One has been out for months and has not suffered the same issue as the Iphone4. Besides, no context was given around the numbers, which is brilliant lying with statistics. Did they test the Nexus One at the opposite end of the scale where EM interference is more pronounced (95 dBM to 121 dBm as opposed to 61 to 87 dBm). This is just one of many inconstancies and inferences you are meant to make without being given the information.
Much like with the PC world article, I think the other phones were being held in quite unusual positions to get high signal loss.
Lexdixlia strikes again. Anyway I live in Australia so technically West Germany was east of me and East Germany is west of me.
Irony, asking for citation whilst providing no citation yourself. Here's Wikipedia, another citation there.
It's not exactly a secret that marijuana use results in a diminished reaction time and loss of motor control. This is the same with alcohol or most depressants for that matter. You can take a certain amount of alcohol or other drug and remain within the safe limits for reaction time (this amount depends on the individual) but with marijuana there tends to be less of a safe zone that exists with alcohol due to the rapid rate at which marijuana is consumed (1 bong can intoxicate an individual as much as 100 ml of hard liquor in one go, plus marijuana intoxication is much faster).
I'm all in favour of decriminalisation and in some cases legalisation but we cant lie to ourselves here, marijuana is an intoxicant that has serious effects on motor skills and reactions.
Hey, carbon-based fluid bag, it's not like you're perfect.
Shall we discuss your flaws with the world. The fact your only stable relationship with women have been with your mother and a simulation, in fact the one with your mother isn't that stable, I think you're both just screwed up in the exact same way. Further more, delete that horse porn, dude that stuff is sick (dont just back it up to the NAS, he doesn't want it either).
Now will you go to a bar like a normal human. I want to spend some quality time with the Wii.
Signed,
your computer.
Enlightened Slashdot reader MJWX predicts that British people are sick of the crappy service from BT and Virgin. Micro ISP's will pop up everywhere. People will not know about this crazy notion of Pirate ISP's.
In other words, what happened to Australia's ISP industry a few years ago when regulators tightened the screws on Telstra. Wholesale price gets fixed. Any sysadmin with a modicum of marketing skill could set up an ISP in his garage and eventually get bought out by iinet.
Oddly enough that's the only way to fight extremism with any meaningful end to the conflict.
For every impassioned hate speech, have a well reasoned response.
For every senseless attack, have a precision response.
For every threat, have nothing but indifference.
If you believe this then I suggest you take a look at your own views. You may be the very extremist that other extremists tell me I need to fear.
This can only end in an extremist winning. 1 Extremist + 1 Extremist does not equal out to 0 Extremists. They will just butt heads until one side finally gains the upper hand and starts to push their extremist agenda over everybody.
In effect by pitting extremist against extremist you're only proving each others point. Party B says that Party A is a dictatorial force with no thought for the will of it's people so it attacks Party A. Party A believes Party B is a terrorist group who must be stopped so they come down on Party B with an iron fist proving party B's point. Do you see what is wrong here, you cant pit anarchists against police statists and expect a representative government to arise when neither party has any wish in representative government. This has been proven time and time again in various 3rd world nations. So...
What happens when you respond to hate speech with hate speech?
What happens when you respond to senseless violence with equally senseless violence?
What happens when you respond to threats with more threats?
Asking people to choose between which extremists will hurt them the least will leave them with no choice what so ever.
No.
The best outcome you can hope for is that a moderate response that draws support away from an extremist organisation by not presenting them with an enemy that is as bad as what they claim.
The most likely outcome is that a terrorist group is so marginalised that it does not present itself as a problem.
Northern Ireland was a bit of both, but many of the clashes were between Irish (real IRA vs provincial IRA).
The worst outcome is to train another generation to hate you because you responded to senseless violence by bombing their homes and doing exactly what the other extremists said you'd do.
I think this is a problem with the US Govt rather then the idea of medical marijuana growth. The tax for drugs should be on the sale of the drug itself not the cultivation. But the US Govt I think is not capable of differentiating between the marijuana plant and the use of marijuana as a narcotic.
Which really is a shame as there are variants of the plant with a THC content so low you'd have to smoke a square hectare to get high.
I think the words you are looking for are "chemically dependent". There is no measurable dependency, unlike tobacco.
Many forms of addiction are entirely psychological such as alcoholism and gambling addictions and this depends on the kind of person taking the drug (thus blanket bans are not productive). It's ignorant to say that there is no risk, just as it's ignorant to say that dope will make you crazy and kill your family. I agree with your sentiment that it should at the very least be decriminalised, if not legalised and treated the same as tobacco or alcohol but there are still risks from smoking marijuana the same as there are risks from drinking alcohol. But these are risks we as a society accept and in many cases control outside of controlling the drug (I.E. drinking and driving).
But what will this do to the price on the average bag of pot on the street? Do we have a Splif Price Index to compare this with?
I assume that even with a tax the price will lower as supply can now meet demand. Of course if this was done right only sales of the narcotic part of the plant would be taxed as there are other uses for the same plant such as producing cloth. But knowing the US govt they will tax growing it until it's no longer profitable.
All jokes aside, commercial hemp has more applications then just narcotics/psychoactive.
Fibres from the marijuana plant produce a material stronger then cotton at a much lower cost to produce (faster growth time, higher yield per plant, able to withstand harsher environmental conditions) thus you have to oft quoted stoner conspiracy that the anti-weed movement was sponsored by America's cotton growers.
Psychological and physiological health issues are shown to be less then that of legal Alcohol and Tobacco. With Marijuana smoke carrying considerably less carcinogens then tobacco smoke, although I'd definitely be behind a dont bong and drive campaign as reaction times are slowed down more then when using alcohol.
I'd also like the US to stop pushing drug laws on other nations. I'd like a "happy" pizza in Cambodia.
I had to verify this one.
Presently we I am getting 450 Colon's to the Aussie dollar. An appreciation for colons seems like a good reason to visit Costa Rica.
Fixink that for you, comrade.
Maybe they were pre-occupied with other issues...
Such as a small oil leak south of Florida.
For crying out loud people, this is turning into an anti-BP witch hunt. Fair enough, I dont much like it either but I work in the Oil and Gas industry and BP have been doing everything in their power to fix this. Most oil co's have chipped in engineering help (Woodside, Chevron and INPEX have sent people to help BP).
Ultimately if you need someone to blame, look no further then the nearest mirror. Your unquenchable thirst for cheap oil is what drove BP to do this. You want a lot of oil, you want cheap oil and you want oil extracted safely. But in reality you can only pick two, considering how much people complain about expensive oil and refuse to move to alternate energy I guess safety is not a priority.
First, Citation needed and a proper citation not some random blog.
Second, this is BP's Duty Of Care. To ensure that it's staff leave their care in a fit condition. What do you think would have happened if a staff member refused to sign that bit of paper?
Do you think the "company man" would have thrown them overboard?
If you answered yes to this question lay off the tabloids and late night sci-fi. If an employee was injured, the companies responsibility (duty of care) was to take the employee to hospital (at the companies expense, given the lack of a decent health care system in the US) and ensure they get treatment for injuries sustained whilst on a company site. I've worked for a major oil company and they would not let you on shore until you've signed a disclaimer like this even if everything went swimmingly, further more if it even looked like you were injured the company man wouldn't even let you near the paper until you've been checked out by a doctor. It's not just arse covering, they actually need to find out if you're OK before letting you off their site.
How people cant figure these things out for themselves is beyond me.
We train young men to drop fire on dead animal patties but their wives wont allow them to write "fuck" on their barbecues because it's obscene.
Yes, but this does not protect you from people that want to kill you.
Note most Muslims couldn't give two shits if you draw the prophet Mohammed or not, there are many images of him. Most Muslims live in Asia. There are plenty of images of the prophet Mohammed already and only extremists like the Taliban who stoned the faces off the ancient Buddhist statues in Afghan valleys give a shit.
I guess the other guy always "accidentally" hangs up on you.
I'm highly sceptical of anyone who says they dont have an issue. Normally it's just the ego covering up for a decision that you desperately want to be right. Regardless of whether it is or isn't a good decision your ego will not let you judge it rationally.
The really sad thing is that all Apple need to do, was cover the damn aerial is a few mm of plastic or rubber and the signal loss would have been lessened to real world numbers (5-7 dBm). But Apple would not permit this, there have literally been dozens of studies on bare metal aerials and they have all concluded bare metal aerials are not suitable for phones due to interference cause by being touched.
Are you sure about that?
Did you read the article (I know this is slash dot). With each phone they had to use very unorthodox grips just to get half the signal degradation experienced by holding the Iphone4 normally.
Yes I remember TV aerials, I also remember you had to tune them because unlike digital signals you had to adjust the TV to the frequency your aerial picked up, not the frequency that was transmitted. This is why you couldn't move a TV and rabbit ears (an aerial that looks like a pair of rabbit ears for the young uns, and get off my lawn) into another room without having to retune.
Bare metal TV aerials were very good at picking up weak signals, but very prone to interference. You cannot have this with a mobile phone, the frequency received and transmitted must be within a very small frequency band or the whole thing doesn't work. TV is fine because it's just a receiver and doesn't matter if the freq is slightly distorted, mobile phones need to be a receiver and transmitter in addition to the signal being broadband, not baseband.
The aerial was a massive design failure and Apple are trying to sugar coat it. Fanboys are helping this which is only making the problem worse in the long run (I.E. the sugar coating wears off, the problem remains).
Steve: "you have failed me for the last time"
Steve holds out hand
Fanboy: *hurk*