HP outsourced their printer manufacturing from San Diego to overseas somewhat over a decade ago. $0.02
Well right, but the decision to make ink expensive was made in Palo Alto. It doesn't matter where they are made, the point is to give them back the crap they are sending into landfills with their policy decisions. -Taylor
Ship it back to the manufacturer if you want to make a statement. Corporate HQ is probably the best since they don't have the on site means/processes for disposal.
Actually, I live in Silicon Valley, so i could probably just bring it to HP and leave it with them, haha. It would probably get me in trouble but it would be hilarious.
Someone should collect a bunch of waste printers with expensive ink and drop them on HP's lawn with some kind of note. That would be great. -Taylor
I'm not trying to twist your words, just trying to make the point that not everyone feels the same way. To you, it doesn't seem reasonable to suffer the "huge inconvenience" over what you seem to regard as a more minor matter of principle. To some others, it's apparently a much larger matter of principle, and/or a much smaller inconvenience.
Well, if you were just trying to make a point that some people feel differently, it wasn't necessary to imply that I'm not okay with "any" inconvenience when I tried to make it clear that wasn't the case. My viewpoint is unrelated to the concept that others might think differently, it just seemed like you were trying to exaggerate my viewpoint to make your differing viewpoint look better.
And I know other people feel differently, but if they feel so different that they think they should get rid of their phone because they think the government is going to track them, i'd call them silly, because that just doesn't make any sense to me. I think hippies who don't use deodorant because they think it causes cancer are just as silly. Its not like I don't understand why a person might feel that way, I just disagree that it's really worth it. -Taylor
I agree that Sprints ability to track phones is bad, unconstitutional, dangerous, and should be fought with legislation, buyer's dollars, shareholder input, and every way possible, but I *DON'T* think it makes sense for any individual to actually go so far as to get rid of their phone *JUST* because of this.
Do I understand correctly, then, that you feel someone ought to do something about it, as long as it's not done at any loss of personal convenience? It's a concept I'm not unfamiliar with, I just don't agree with it.
No, you're not understanding me correctly actually, and it kinda seems like you're twisting my words, intentional or not. I didn't say that it shouldn't be done if there is "any" loss of personal convenience, as you said. Losing some small convenience by disabling GPS or moving to a different carrier are all totally reasonable actions. But at some point the inconvenience becomes too large for what I consider a small gain in protection. I think that getting rid of your phone is too big a loss compared to the gain of some small semblance of independence. I emphasized that they shouldn't completely get rid of their phone "just" because of this, because if they have no other reason to get rid of their phone, i think its a little nuts to go that far. I like cell phones, because i don't have this supposed issue of too many people needing to contact me and being disrespectful of my own personal space, so i think that not being able to contact people when you're out and about is a *huge* inconvenience, not a small one. -Taylor
GSM phones can be turned on remotely by a probe from the network by a qualified entity[1]. Your phone isn't communicating to the cell towers when it's off, this is very much true. However, it just takes someone in the government high enough up the food chain and a judge's okay to boot up your phone.
I really wouldn't worry about it unless you're a mobster, an agent for a foreign government, or a terrorist, but they definitely have the capability to be rather scary, which is precisely why those latter entities have moved on to "burn phones" and older, more reliable methods of message passing.
Ah. But I didn't actually see a part in the article that says they can turn the phone on when it is powered off - it says they do an over-the-air firmware update that includes an ability for to remotely initiate a call on the phone without indicating that to the user.
Though they do mention that the only way to be sure is to remove the battery, so maybe the modified firmware also changes the power-off behavior to prevent the radio from fully shutting off.
... At that point the old "Well, if you've done nothing wrong then you shouldn't care about the search" argument starts getting pretty hollow.
Well right, but that's not the argument I'm making. I know that is a hollow argument and i argue against people that think it is a good one. I agree that Sprints ability to track phones is bad, unconstitutional, dangerous, and should be fought with legislation, buyer's dollars, shareholder input, and every way possible, but I *DON'T* think it makes sense for any individual to actually go so far as to get rid of their phone *JUST* because of this. Its just not that big of a risk for normal people and i just think its silly for any individual to actually think they are gaining any useful security for what I consider a large tradeoff of personal mobility. I only mentioned doing illegal things because then it *would* make sense to not have a phone, since there is a higher chance of someone actually wanting to follow you, and you lose the protection of being in a large crowd.
So basically, i think its silly to actually get rid of your phone just because sprint can do this, but that doesn't mean that I think its okay. Small distinction I know. -Taylor
Perhaps he just doesn't see the need for the police to know where he is at all times, even if he ISN'T doing something illegal. This argument is not difficult to make. Would you knowingly allow the police to monitor your every move, even if you believe yourself to be a law abiding citizen? How about opening your mail? Listening in on your phone calls? Monitoring all of your web surfing?
You have to draw the line somewhere. I have nothing illegal in my car, not even anything remotely embarrassing. There are no drugs or evidence of crimes in my home. All the same, if a police officer asks to search my home or vehicle, I'll refuse. If he feels strongly enough about it, he can try to get a search warrant.
Well right, i wouldn't knowingly allow someone to monitor me at all times either, but that's not the same as dealing with the fact that someone might be able to monitor where I am if they decide to care enough to look. If I'm lost in the crowd of the millions of other users who have identical data "avaliable", I'm fairly certain I *won't* end up being monitored. And sure, I don't *want* to be monitored, and think it is against the constitution for them to do that if they don't have a warrant, and think that is wrong, etc, but I just don't think its worth it to give up a cell phone because someone *might* be watching me drive around. I know that it just wouldn't make any sense for them to do that so I'm not worried enough to choose no cell phone over that. I still think the policy should stop, but I just can't see why a person would seriously see that as a real personal threat that they should avoid, rather than just a stupid overreaching policy that should end but doesn't so much affect them as it is just not good to do. -Taylor
I don't know if this is specific to Google maps on Android, but when I have the GPS turned off the wireless triangulation is off by at least a half of a mile every time. Makes me wonder if I get in a car wreck in a ditch if they'd really be able to find me.
Yeah, I'm not sure. It seemed to be better on my windows mobile phone back in the day when i first got it, but that is probably just my perception and not reality. For people seriously trying to avoid being found though, half a mile is still something to worry about though. If the FBI was after someone, that would probably be enough.
And yeah, i just verified on google maps on android that i get a location accurate to 800 meters, which is pretty much exactly half a mile. It may seem more accurate because when you're looking for businesses nearby, they are usually going to be far enough apart that 800 meter accuracy is still sufficient for finding the closest one, so it always seemed pretty good. -Taylor
I really don't understand that. I mean, are you a criminal doing serious stuff where tracking would matter? Not that this sprint stuff is okay, but i mean, I just don't get people without cell phones. And i've had the why or why not discussion on slashdot enough I don't want to have it again, but still, i just don't get it. I mean, you don't not have it just to avoid tracking, do you? -Taylor
I am now really glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone. In fact, I am glad I almost never even have my cellphone with me anymore...
They can still find you to within a couple hundred meters. They use cell triangulation for 911 calls and smartphones with google maps use it with surprising accuracy for a rough fix when GPS is off or out of signal. -Taylor
... Your cell phone can be listened to and tracked anywhere within coverage area as long as your cellphone has its battery inserted.
Uh, really? Even when the phone is powered off? My phone doesn't seem to communicate with the cell towers when its powered off, or else the battery would still die. Are you citing some verifiable resource, or just conspiracy theory? I'm not trying to flame, it just sounds unlikely to me that a powered off cell phone would still be trackable. Of course, if you really don't wanna be tracked, removing the battery is safer, because crazier things have happened, but still, are you sure you're correct? -Taylor
Yeah but triangulation is difficult and time-consuming, plus far from exact. It also requires knowing where somebody is at, else you'll be triangulating Baltimore when the suspect is over in Philly. In contrast GPS is like a big sign that says, "Here he is" as it moves across the cop's map. It's precise, instant, and easy
Well, to be clear, triangulation is easy if you are the cell company or software running on the device. Google maps has (and still does) used triangulation to get pretty accurate location for years - before GPS was as common or when GPS signals are unavaliable. That still requires hacking either sprint's network or the device itself, but it's just good to be clear that not having GPS on a device doesn't save us much. -Taylor
OHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.
KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz Gerald, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:
+ (1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.
TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:
(2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a `relief', the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of `relief'. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay £100 for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight l00s. at most for the entire knight's `fee', and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of `fees'
(3) But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without `relief' or fine.
(4) The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same `fee', who shall be answerable to us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage, he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and prudent men of the same `fee', who shall be similarly answerable to us.
(5) For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as t
...a poor family living in a hut somewhere isn't going to have the capital to go out and buy the necessary hardware. They're going to do what they always have... buy a few dozen newly-hatched chicks, a pig or two, and a cow. Less efficient, but equally less capital-intensive.
I agree, but I don't think poor people buying some livestock to feed their family are a big cause of environmental damage. It's the farms that support the meat you see at safeway or burger joints that take up the most space and resources. If we get that back - yeah, some will be turned into strip malls and mansions, but people will build those anyway. Its better to put a mall on old farmland than to deforest some new land to do it.
Its certainly better to need less farmland than not. -Taylor
...>Have you ever bought and ate a real steak. No... Not the kind you buy at Western Corral, but the NY cut or Filet mignon aged beef marinated over 24 hours cooked by a professional with the right blend of herbs spices...
Actually, a good filet mignon probably isn't marinated at all. The meat is so naturally tender that it doesn't need to be marinated - and that's why marinating any other cut of meat still just won't stand up to a good filet.
A good pan seared and oven finished filet mignon is probably the most classic kind, and at most it has some salt and pepper on it, usually with a good bernaise sauce or something else added for serving. Of course there are a million ways to cook a steak, but none of the good filets I've had at restaurants were marinated.
I've had a few of the $60-100 filet mignons at nice places and they are by far my favorite cut of meat, and agree with you that they are well worth the price if you can afford it.
But yeah, as far as preparation, check out this excellent Good Eats episode about beef tenderloin:
That is part 1 of the first of two episodes about it. Youtube should suggest the next ones as they finish.
Its really worth a watch if you want to know more about it, or if you want to make some of your own filet mignon of the *same* quality as the good ones, for much cheaper.:) -taylor
What the fuck? That doesn't even make sense. You're going to judge people based on the random thing they are doing when an emergency hits?
No, I'm just not convinced that an on screen emergency alert IN A FUCKING GAME is the right way to let people know there's an emergency happening. What I meant is that if there's an obvious state of emergency and people are still online playing a fucking game that's their problem. That should have been clear to anyone.
The tiny proportion of people playing an online game is an awful target. Loudspeakers on the street would probably be more effective even though it's not very effective at all.
The difference between WOW and TV is TV is a traditional medium for delivering the news and TV reaches a much wider community than that of a single online game (or small group of them).
You might as well create a special information group that knocks on doors. At least they wouldn't fucking ask you if you were playing WOW or chess or some shit.
What? You mean even though 72% of US residents age 6-44 are gamers?
Yeah, i guess that over 40% of the US, AKA "The tiny proportion of people playing an online game..." certainly is an "awful target".
And i KNOW TV is a traditional medium, but the whole point is that the world changes and we should look at what new mediums make sense. I personally don't even HAVE cable, i watch Hulu, and i DO feel a bit cut off because of it - I wish that I had an easy way of accessing public notifications, but its not worth 50 bucks a month for me just to have cable just to get that.
And I know you meant that if there is an obvious emergency people shouldn't be playing games, but *that* is what I said doesn't make sense... because you're assuming that emergencies are only ever going to be obvious immediately, which is stupid. *as i said* some emergencies only become obvious after you've lost precious time, like when a fire finally gets close enough for you to notice. Having an extra 15 minutes to get your shit together can SAVE LIVES and that's the whole point of an early warning system. If 40% of the US isn't watching TV, they're playing games, we should notify those people too. And yes i know that doesn't mean 40% are playing them at all times, but the point is LOTS more people play games in the evening instead of TV, so it makes sense to look at how to let them know. -taylor
Uhh... really? It's an *EMERGENCY*. I think when someone tries to go attack New York again, people will be willing to miss a few headshots to get the best possible warning they can. Its not like these announcements are sent out often.
If there's an emergency and you're still at your computer playing WOW you deserve what you get. You haven't convinced me: This is still one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard of.
What the fuck? That doesn't even make sense. You're going to judge people based on the random thing they are doing when an emergency hits? How do you expect people to know these emergencies are coming? Sure, hurricanes we see coming for days and days, but what about fires or flash floods? Those can all hit people with enough speed that an immediate warning would give people time to get safer. If a fire is moving quickly, it might cut off roads before it gets close enough for you to notice. I live in California, we have fires all the time - it can be pretty bad.
Or if you have some kind of issue with that reasoning, then really you have issue with the entire idea of an early warning system, not the idea of moving it to a new medium. Those are two different arguments. People playing WOW are no different than people watching TV - they're just relaxing - so if TV has an early warning, its not entirely unreasonable to investigate getting those alerts to gamers. An honestly, if you think that is one of the stupidest ideas you've heard of... then just, wow... -Taylor
Everyone assumes that microsoft would do this the same way as the government...
Um, Microsoft isn't doing this, the (New York State) goverment is. From TFA: "Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT), Sony (NYSE: SNE), and Nintendo operate online networks that allow players to compete against each other over the Internet. Under the state's plan, authorities would tap those networks to broadcast warnings about natural or man-made disasters."
Expecting the government to do it (on gaming consoles) the same way the government does it (in every other medium government uses for emergency alerts) is different than expecting Microsoft to do it the same way as the government has.
Well they still have to work with Microsoft to do it... Xbox live is an incredibly closed platform... -Taylor
Uhh... really? It's an *EMERGENCY*. I think when someone tries to go attack New York again, people will be willing to miss a few headshots to get the best possible warning they can. Its not like these announcements are sent out often.
At least in some areas, emergency notification systems are used to, e.g., publish Amber Alerts from fairly distant locations.
Its not like these announcements are sent out often.
Back when I got TV service over something other than the internet, they actually weren't all that uncommon.
Everyone assumes that microsoft would do this the same way as the government... but the government doesn't have a marketing department and doesn't care if people complain. Microsoft would do things completely differently, as xbox live is one of the (maybe few) things they have done a *really* good job with, and they wouldn't just let it all go to shit for something like this. I really don't get why everyone thinks microsoft would just let some unnecessary service get so stupid that xbox live wouldn't be fun to use... Being fun to use is the whole *point* of xbox live, they'd never let that go away. -Taylor
Hey, we're being attacked by... mormons... try not to die
Um, I know it's all hip to hate on religion and religions here on Slashdot, but seriously, when was the last time a mob of armed Mormons attacked your city? Were they armed with green Jell-O? Did somebody tell you that the guys with the white shirts and bicycles are some kind of Mormon special forces? Did you hear somebody abbreviate "Book of Mormon" as "BoM" and think they're ordnance technicians? Apparently I didn't get the memo that we're supposed to be engaging in some kind of armed, bloody Holy War.
Actually, i wasn't hating on mormons. I was joking, yes, but it was a joke to me because of how absurd it is, because mormons are *not* likely to attack anyone. Kind of a monty python absurd kind of humor, because that's what I like. If I had said "nuns", no one would have thought i was hating on catholics.
If it was to be used only in an emergency, that would be great. But, of course, as another poster mentioned there's the the weekly tests. Then, I'm sure the Weather service and local Police Depts would want to broadcast every rain, snow, hail, and sleet storm as well as Amber alerts, too. So, yes, it would become pretty annoying. I live in Georgia, and they interrupt primetime TV at least once a week for hours at a time just to alert me that it's raining.
Right, but microsoft doesn't *have* to let anyone do this, so they'd never agree to it unless they had control of when it happened, and then they wouldn't put shit like that in there, because for all the mistakes they've made, xbox live hasn't been one of them - it's run really well and they wouldn't do stupid shit to piss off users.
You guys are all acting like this will spiral out of control, as if no one has control over xbox live... -taylor
Yeah I'm joking. But for it to be a true emergency system, it has to have regular tests. These tests will interrupt gameplay. We can't just wait for an emergency to happen and just assume it will work. Well, we can - but I doubt that's how it would happen.
Well, maybe, but since xbox live is a two way communication system on a computing platform, rather than some analog broadcast system, I can't really imagine that they'd even need to show you an alert to test it. I mean, did your last game results show up onscreen? Then we know we can show you an alert if we need to. In order to function at all, live needs to be able to send you data and have it display something onscreen, it seems like testing would be unnecessary.
Especially if they treat the warnings as a convenience, not a requirement. Since they're not the government, they have less responsibility to make sure it works, so they don't have to constantly test it. Its more of a "hopefully we can help notify you" thing, where a failure of the system isn't a big deal. -Taylor
Slashdot Mirror
HP outsourced their printer manufacturing from San Diego to overseas somewhat over a decade ago. $0.02
Well right, but the decision to make ink expensive was made in Palo Alto. It doesn't matter where they are made, the point is to give them back the crap they are sending into landfills with their policy decisions.
-Taylor
Ship it back to the manufacturer if you want to make a statement. Corporate HQ is probably the best since they don't have the on site means/processes for disposal.
Actually, I live in Silicon Valley, so i could probably just bring it to HP and leave it with them, haha. It would probably get me in trouble but it would be hilarious.
Someone should collect a bunch of waste printers with expensive ink and drop them on HP's lawn with some kind of note. That would be great.
-Taylor
I'm not trying to twist your words, just trying to make the point that not everyone feels the same way. To you, it doesn't seem reasonable to suffer the "huge inconvenience" over what you seem to regard as a more minor matter of principle. To some others, it's apparently a much larger matter of principle, and/or a much smaller inconvenience.
Well, if you were just trying to make a point that some people feel differently, it wasn't necessary to imply that I'm not okay with "any" inconvenience when I tried to make it clear that wasn't the case. My viewpoint is unrelated to the concept that others might think differently, it just seemed like you were trying to exaggerate my viewpoint to make your differing viewpoint look better.
And I know other people feel differently, but if they feel so different that they think they should get rid of their phone because they think the government is going to track them, i'd call them silly, because that just doesn't make any sense to me. I think hippies who don't use deodorant because they think it causes cancer are just as silly. Its not like I don't understand why a person might feel that way, I just disagree that it's really worth it.
-Taylor
... But let me understand this point...
Do I understand correctly, then, that you feel someone ought to do something about it, as long as it's not done at any loss of personal convenience? It's a concept I'm not unfamiliar with, I just don't agree with it.
No, you're not understanding me correctly actually, and it kinda seems like you're twisting my words, intentional or not. I didn't say that it shouldn't be done if there is "any" loss of personal convenience, as you said. Losing some small convenience by disabling GPS or moving to a different carrier are all totally reasonable actions. But at some point the inconvenience becomes too large for what I consider a small gain in protection. I think that getting rid of your phone is too big a loss compared to the gain of some small semblance of independence. I emphasized that they shouldn't completely get rid of their phone "just" because of this, because if they have no other reason to get rid of their phone, i think its a little nuts to go that far. I like cell phones, because i don't have this supposed issue of too many people needing to contact me and being disrespectful of my own personal space, so i think that not being able to contact people when you're out and about is a *huge* inconvenience, not a small one.
-Taylor
GSM phones can be turned on remotely by a probe from the network by a qualified entity[1]. Your phone isn't communicating to the cell towers when it's off, this is very much true. However, it just takes someone in the government high enough up the food chain and a judge's okay to boot up your phone.
I really wouldn't worry about it unless you're a mobster, an agent for a foreign government, or a terrorist, but they definitely have the capability to be rather scary, which is precisely why those latter entities have moved on to "burn phones" and older, more reliable methods of message passing.
Ah. But I didn't actually see a part in the article that says they can turn the phone on when it is powered off - it says they do an over-the-air firmware update that includes an ability for to remotely initiate a call on the phone without indicating that to the user.
Though they do mention that the only way to be sure is to remove the battery, so maybe the modified firmware also changes the power-off behavior to prevent the radio from fully shutting off.
Interesting though.
-Taylor
... At that point the old "Well, if you've done nothing wrong then you shouldn't care about the search" argument starts getting pretty hollow.
Well right, but that's not the argument I'm making. I know that is a hollow argument and i argue against people that think it is a good one. I agree that Sprints ability to track phones is bad, unconstitutional, dangerous, and should be fought with legislation, buyer's dollars, shareholder input, and every way possible, but I *DON'T* think it makes sense for any individual to actually go so far as to get rid of their phone *JUST* because of this. Its just not that big of a risk for normal people and i just think its silly for any individual to actually think they are gaining any useful security for what I consider a large tradeoff of personal mobility. I only mentioned doing illegal things because then it *would* make sense to not have a phone, since there is a higher chance of someone actually wanting to follow you, and you lose the protection of being in a large crowd.
So basically, i think its silly to actually get rid of your phone just because sprint can do this, but that doesn't mean that I think its okay. Small distinction I know.
-Taylor
Perhaps he just doesn't see the need for the police to know where he is at all times, even if he ISN'T doing something illegal. This argument is not difficult to make. Would you knowingly allow the police to monitor your every move, even if you believe yourself to be a law abiding citizen? How about opening your mail? Listening in on your phone calls? Monitoring all of your web surfing?
You have to draw the line somewhere. I have nothing illegal in my car, not even anything remotely embarrassing. There are no drugs or evidence of crimes in my home. All the same, if a police officer asks to search my home or vehicle, I'll refuse. If he feels strongly enough about it, he can try to get a search warrant.
Well right, i wouldn't knowingly allow someone to monitor me at all times either, but that's not the same as dealing with the fact that someone might be able to monitor where I am if they decide to care enough to look. If I'm lost in the crowd of the millions of other users who have identical data "avaliable", I'm fairly certain I *won't* end up being monitored. And sure, I don't *want* to be monitored, and think it is against the constitution for them to do that if they don't have a warrant, and think that is wrong, etc, but I just don't think its worth it to give up a cell phone because someone *might* be watching me drive around. I know that it just wouldn't make any sense for them to do that so I'm not worried enough to choose no cell phone over that. I still think the policy should stop, but I just can't see why a person would seriously see that as a real personal threat that they should avoid, rather than just a stupid overreaching policy that should end but doesn't so much affect them as it is just not good to do.
-Taylor
I don't know if this is specific to Google maps on Android, but when I have the GPS turned off the wireless triangulation is off by at least a half of a mile every time. Makes me wonder if I get in a car wreck in a ditch if they'd really be able to find me.
Yeah, I'm not sure. It seemed to be better on my windows mobile phone back in the day when i first got it, but that is probably just my perception and not reality. For people seriously trying to avoid being found though, half a mile is still something to worry about though. If the FBI was after someone, that would probably be enough.
And yeah, i just verified on google maps on android that i get a location accurate to 800 meters, which is pretty much exactly half a mile. It may seem more accurate because when you're looking for businesses nearby, they are usually going to be far enough apart that 800 meter accuracy is still sufficient for finding the closest one, so it always seemed pretty good.
-Taylor
I'm glad I don't have a cell phone.
I really don't understand that. I mean, are you a criminal doing serious stuff where tracking would matter? Not that this sprint stuff is okay, but i mean, I just don't get people without cell phones. And i've had the why or why not discussion on slashdot enough I don't want to have it again, but still, i just don't get it. I mean, you don't not have it just to avoid tracking, do you?
-Taylor
I am now really glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone. In fact, I am glad I almost never even have my cellphone with me anymore...
They can still find you to within a couple hundred meters. They use cell triangulation for 911 calls and smartphones with google maps use it with surprising accuracy for a rough fix when GPS is off or out of signal.
-Taylor
... Your cell phone can be listened to and tracked anywhere within coverage area as long as your cellphone has its battery inserted.
Uh, really? Even when the phone is powered off? My phone doesn't seem to communicate with the cell towers when its powered off, or else the battery would still die. Are you citing some verifiable resource, or just conspiracy theory? I'm not trying to flame, it just sounds unlikely to me that a powered off cell phone would still be trackable. Of course, if you really don't wanna be tracked, removing the battery is safer, because crazier things have happened, but still, are you sure you're correct?
-Taylor
Yeah but triangulation is difficult and time-consuming, plus far from exact. It also requires knowing where somebody is at, else you'll be triangulating Baltimore when the suspect is over in Philly. In contrast GPS is like a big sign that says, "Here he is" as it moves across the cop's map. It's precise, instant, and easy
Well, to be clear, triangulation is easy if you are the cell company or software running on the device. Google maps has (and still does) used triangulation to get pretty accurate location for years - before GPS was as common or when GPS signals are unavaliable. That still requires hacking either sprint's network or the device itself, but it's just good to be clear that not having GPS on a device doesn't save us much.
-Taylor
Damn you, it took me 7 minutes to log back in!
Well the trick is to use plenty of lubricant and make sure the blade is sharp.
Also, don't forget to call ahead and make sure they've got tomatoes in stock.
-Taylor
Ooops, that is supposed to start with "John". That's what I get for using copy and paste.
OHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.
KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz Gerald, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:
+ (1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.
TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:
(2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a `relief', the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of `relief'. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay £100 for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight l00s. at most for the entire knight's `fee', and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of `fees'
(3) But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without `relief' or fine.
(4) The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same `fee', who shall be answerable to us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage, he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and prudent men of the same `fee', who shall be similarly answerable to us.
(5) For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as t
...a poor family living in a hut somewhere isn't going to have the capital to go out and buy the necessary hardware. They're going to do what they always have... buy a few dozen newly-hatched chicks, a pig or two, and a cow. Less efficient, but equally less capital-intensive.
I agree, but I don't think poor people buying some livestock to feed their family are a big cause of environmental damage. It's the farms that support the meat you see at safeway or burger joints that take up the most space and resources. If we get that back - yeah, some will be turned into strip malls and mansions, but people will build those anyway. Its better to put a mall on old farmland than to deforest some new land to do it.
Its certainly better to need less farmland than not.
-Taylor
...>Have you ever bought and ate a real steak. No... Not the kind you buy at Western Corral, but the NY cut or Filet mignon aged beef marinated over 24 hours cooked by a professional with the right blend of herbs spices...
Actually, a good filet mignon probably isn't marinated at all. The meat is so naturally tender that it doesn't need to be marinated - and that's why marinating any other cut of meat still just won't stand up to a good filet.
A good pan seared and oven finished filet mignon is probably the most classic kind, and at most it has some salt and pepper on it, usually with a good bernaise sauce or something else added for serving. Of course there are a million ways to cook a steak, but none of the good filets I've had at restaurants were marinated.
I've had a few of the $60-100 filet mignons at nice places and they are by far my favorite cut of meat, and agree with you that they are well worth the price if you can afford it.
But yeah, as far as preparation, check out this excellent Good Eats episode about beef tenderloin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7-_ka3DAuY
That is part 1 of the first of two episodes about it. Youtube should suggest the next ones as they finish.
Its really worth a watch if you want to know more about it, or if you want to make some of your own filet mignon of the *same* quality as the good ones, for much cheaper. :)
-taylor
Hah, that would be hilarious.
-taylor
What the fuck? That doesn't even make sense. You're going to judge people based on the random thing they are doing when an emergency hits?
No, I'm just not convinced that an on screen emergency alert IN A FUCKING GAME is the right way to let people know there's an emergency happening. What I meant is that if there's an obvious state of emergency and people are still online playing a fucking game that's their problem. That should have been clear to anyone.
The tiny proportion of people playing an online game is an awful target. Loudspeakers on the street would probably be more effective even though it's not very effective at all.
The difference between WOW and TV is TV is a traditional medium for delivering the news and TV reaches a much wider community than that of a single online game (or small group of them).
You might as well create a special information group that knocks on doors. At least they wouldn't fucking ask you if you were playing WOW or chess or some shit.
What? You mean even though 72% of US residents age 6-44 are gamers?
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6188668.html
57% of which play online?
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6205841.html
Yeah, i guess that over 40% of the US, AKA "The tiny proportion of people playing an online game..." certainly is an "awful target".
And i KNOW TV is a traditional medium, but the whole point is that the world changes and we should look at what new mediums make sense. I personally don't even HAVE cable, i watch Hulu, and i DO feel a bit cut off because of it - I wish that I had an easy way of accessing public notifications, but its not worth 50 bucks a month for me just to have cable just to get that.
And I know you meant that if there is an obvious emergency people shouldn't be playing games, but *that* is what I said doesn't make sense... because you're assuming that emergencies are only ever going to be obvious immediately, which is stupid. *as i said* some emergencies only become obvious after you've lost precious time, like when a fire finally gets close enough for you to notice. Having an extra 15 minutes to get your shit together can SAVE LIVES and that's the whole point of an early warning system.
If 40% of the US isn't watching TV, they're playing games, we should notify those people too. And yes i know that doesn't mean 40% are playing them at all times, but the point is LOTS more people play games in the evening instead of TV, so it makes sense to look at how to let them know.
-taylor
Uhh... really? It's an *EMERGENCY*. I think when someone tries to go attack New York again, people will be willing to miss a few headshots to get the best possible warning they can. Its not like these announcements are sent out often.
If there's an emergency and you're still at your computer playing WOW you deserve what you get. You haven't convinced me: This is still one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard of.
What the fuck? That doesn't even make sense. You're going to judge people based on the random thing they are doing when an emergency hits? How do you expect people to know these emergencies are coming? Sure, hurricanes we see coming for days and days, but what about fires or flash floods? Those can all hit people with enough speed that an immediate warning would give people time to get safer. If a fire is moving quickly, it might cut off roads before it gets close enough for you to notice. I live in California, we have fires all the time - it can be pretty bad.
Or if you have some kind of issue with that reasoning, then really you have issue with the entire idea of an early warning system, not the idea of moving it to a new medium. Those are two different arguments. People playing WOW are no different than people watching TV - they're just relaxing - so if TV has an early warning, its not entirely unreasonable to investigate getting those alerts to gamers. An honestly, if you think that is one of the stupidest ideas you've heard of... then just, wow...
-Taylor
Um, Microsoft isn't doing this, the (New York State) goverment is. From TFA: "Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT), Sony (NYSE: SNE), and Nintendo operate online networks that allow players to compete against each other over the Internet. Under the state's plan, authorities would tap those networks to broadcast warnings about natural or man-made disasters."
Expecting the government to do it (on gaming consoles) the same way the government does it (in every other medium government uses for emergency alerts) is different than expecting Microsoft to do it the same way as the government has.
Well they still have to work with Microsoft to do it... Xbox live is an incredibly closed platform...
-Taylor
At least in some areas, emergency notification systems are used to, e.g., publish Amber Alerts from fairly distant locations.
Back when I got TV service over something other than the internet, they actually weren't all that uncommon.
Everyone assumes that microsoft would do this the same way as the government... but the government doesn't have a marketing department and doesn't care if people complain. Microsoft would do things completely differently, as xbox live is one of the (maybe few) things they have done a *really* good job with, and they wouldn't just let it all go to shit for something like this. I really don't get why everyone thinks microsoft would just let some unnecessary service get so stupid that xbox live wouldn't be fun to use... Being fun to use is the whole *point* of xbox live, they'd never let that go away.
-Taylor
Hey, we're being attacked by ... mormons ... try not to die
Um, I know it's all hip to hate on religion and religions here on Slashdot, but seriously, when was the last time a mob of armed Mormons attacked your city? Were they armed with green Jell-O? Did somebody tell you that the guys with the white shirts and bicycles are some kind of Mormon special forces? Did you hear somebody abbreviate "Book of Mormon" as "BoM" and think they're ordnance technicians? Apparently I didn't get the memo that we're supposed to be engaging in some kind of armed, bloody Holy War.
Actually, i wasn't hating on mormons. I was joking, yes, but it was a joke to me because of how absurd it is, because mormons are *not* likely to attack anyone. Kind of a monty python absurd kind of humor, because that's what I like. If I had said "nuns", no one would have thought i was hating on catholics.
Man, people are *touchy* today.
-Taylor
If it was to be used only in an emergency, that would be great. But, of course, as another poster mentioned there's the the weekly tests. Then, I'm sure the Weather service and local Police Depts would want to broadcast every rain, snow, hail, and sleet storm as well as Amber alerts, too. So, yes, it would become pretty annoying. I live in Georgia, and they interrupt primetime TV at least once a week for hours at a time just to alert me that it's raining.
Right, but microsoft doesn't *have* to let anyone do this, so they'd never agree to it unless they had control of when it happened, and then they wouldn't put shit like that in there, because for all the mistakes they've made, xbox live hasn't been one of them - it's run really well and they wouldn't do stupid shit to piss off users.
You guys are all acting like this will spiral out of control, as if no one has control over xbox live...
-taylor
Yeah I'm joking. But for it to be a true emergency system, it has to have regular tests. These tests will interrupt gameplay. We can't just wait for an emergency to happen and just assume it will work. Well, we can - but I doubt that's how it would happen.
Well, maybe, but since xbox live is a two way communication system on a computing platform, rather than some analog broadcast system, I can't really imagine that they'd even need to show you an alert to test it. I mean, did your last game results show up onscreen? Then we know we can show you an alert if we need to. In order to function at all, live needs to be able to send you data and have it display something onscreen, it seems like testing would be unnecessary.
Especially if they treat the warnings as a convenience, not a requirement. Since they're not the government, they have less responsibility to make sure it works, so they don't have to constantly test it. Its more of a "hopefully we can help notify you" thing, where a failure of the system isn't a big deal.
-Taylor