Many "feature phones" come with Opera Mini bundled, especially in networks with crappy GPRS/EDGE service. It lightens the load a lot and creates a better impression.
OTOH, I'd be truly puzzled if there weren't enough Opera Mini users among the technically savvy people (I've been using it for the last 6.5 years) to make a fuss, and it's well known how vocal we can be;)
And of course, "X has its advantages and downside", which regarding obscurity are a) that dedicated attackers will know less about your weaknesses, and b) that you lack the potential "many eyeballs" that _could_ help you if they know what to look for.
Big projects like Linux and Firefox attract said eyeballs, but smaller open-source projects may attract the eyeballs intent on harming you, while not being popular enough to attract helpful scrutiny.
It's not exactly "X good" then "X bad". More like "X may help" and "it's bad to rely solely on X", which can be said about a LOT of things (vitamins come to mind).
Before I get accused panicking, let me emphasize that I am fully aware that Silk will let you opt out of this feature, and use the browser without EC2 participation.
Did you really expect the service to be 100% free, nothing in it for them ? More like tit-for-tat. That said, I still don't know how Opera benefits with their very similar service (good will and publicity?).
Before I get accused panicking, let me emphasize that I am fully aware that Silk will let you opt out of this feature, and use the browser without EC2 participation.
Before I get accused panicking, let me emphasize that I am fully aware that Silk will let you opt out of this feature, and use the browser without EC2 participation.
By the end of TFA, The Fine Author forgot it:
Rather than try to contain the Internet, SaaS providers are trying to get between us and the Internet. And they're doing it with slick and catchy ways that slowly ensnare us before we even know what's going on.
Privacy, security, and unlimited access to data are all at risk here. This is why efforts the Open Knowledge Foundation and Open Cloud Initiative are so important. These and other similar organizations represent different ways to keep access to our data limited to just who we want to have it, and no one else.
It comes down to this: will these SaaS vendors be our partners in using the Internet, or our captors?
Oddly, there wasn't so much fuss over Opera's compression service, which is opt-in for Opera Mobile and always on for Opera Mini.
The URL that you are attempting to access is a potential security risk. Trend Micro OfficeScan has blocked this URL in keeping with network security policy.
URL: http://occupywallst.org/
Risk Level: Dangerous
Details: Verified fraud page or threat source
WTF? This make sabsolutely no sense. Bugs cannot be manufactured into existing software, they are created by the vendor not by the vulnerability finder. The analogy to rat frming is completely bogus
The original cost estimate was $5.1 billion, and included the first five elements only. The 2013 launch date was never settled upon, and the optimistic estimate associated with the $5.1 billion figure was 2014. When the cost went up to $6.5 billion and the launch date got pushed to 2015, that was really NASA's fault. I don't want you to come away with the impression that NASA is blameless in this; there really was budget mismanagement. This happened last year.
How did it happen? As my source tells it,
During 2010 the project held its next major review: the Critical Design Review. By this time the 2014 launch date had started to appear not credible. Therefore, Senator B. Mikulski, chair of the appropriation subcommittee responsible for NASA, called for an independent review of the project in the Summer 2010. The Independent Comprehensive Review Panel found that the project had not been properly managed, primarily due to the lack of near term reserves which for a project of this complexity are needed to make sure that things stay on track when issues are discovered.
In other words, the mismanagement was primarily not keeping enough cash-on-hand to deal with unexpected issues when they came up. This resulted in a new figure of $6.5 billion and a new launch date of 2015.
BUT!
This is important. The Independent Comprehensive Review Panel, when it came up with the $6.5 billion / 2015 figure, said that it was contingent. Upon what?
The ICRP conclusion was that the earliest JWST could be launched was late 2015 for a total cost of $6.5B of which $250M extra had to be provided in each of 2011 and 2012. They stated clearly that this was the earliest and cheapest way to launch JWST and any delay would result in a more expensive mission.
The 1B figure seems to be a gross underbid, according to other sources which
Really? I was somewhat allergic to chocolate (I'd get urticaria all over) and tomatoes, and they desensitized me with weekly shots. Still, thanks for confirming^Wreinforcing my suspicion that it could be done with gradual exposure to the allergen.
While the most obvious and dangerous route for an allergic individual is unintentional ingestion, some reactions are possible through external exposure. However some of these are controversial, exaggerated, or have been discredited through empirical testing. Common beliefs are that anaphylaxis can be triggered by touching peanuts or products, smelling the odor of peanuts, and simple proximity to peanut products. Many of these beliefs have resulted in controversial bans on all peanut products from entire facilities such as schools and medical facilities.
Wait, there's more:
Some reactions have been noted to be psychogenic in nature, the result of conditioning and belief rather than a true chemical reaction. Blinded, placebo-controlled studies by Sicherer et al. were unable to produce any reactions using the odor of peanut butter or its mere proximity. That said, some activities such as cooking or large-scale shelling or crushing of peanuts (such as in a farming or factory production environment) can cause particles to become airborne, and can have respiratory effects to allergic individuals who are nearby. Similarly, residue on surfaces has been known to cause minor skin rashes, though not anaphylaxis.
So yes, his claim of death on sight/touch of a peanut may have been exaggerated, but it's quite likely that he couldn't eat one without choking.
Correct. The sad thing is that a lot "debate and questioning" is based on opinions. Few would claim to be able to judge the plausibility of a star having a core of super-dense crystallized carbon, but when a scientific claim calls for action everyone's an expert, especially about the "conspiracy" among those supporting the opposite hypothesis. Which is why your initial post is rated 50% Insightful, 30% Troll, 20% Overrated.
Exactly, if you take into account that inaction is a decision too, with possible negative consequences (reduced sustainability of life on Earth).
In this case, you need a narrow confidence interval to support the choice that could possibly do the most harm ("this could go wrong - are we damn sure that it's necessary?"). If I'm not mistaken, that's what the precautionary principle is about.
Continue with as many layers of the hierarchy as needed, and you should get the final results overnight, and there is no part of this process which couldn't be watched over by anyone who wants.
Every "piece of paper" from the ballots up would be exposed to everyone who cares to check. Thanks.
However with paper based voting you need more people to take part in the conspiracy.
Not if the "conspiracy" is done at the totalling rooms. Be aware that there's a level where data is consolidated but the public doesn't get to see it done. Check ultranova's comment below for an alternative - it's interesting.
These online voting systems however can be useful to ask citizens' opinion between the normal elections.
As long as the outcome is not binding, and then again there's the risk of feeding false data to policy makers (and back to the public opinion).
_You_ can't, just as you can't be 100% sure that the electoral commitee/agency isn't counting paper ballots with rigged software or downright lying. You have to trust _someone_ ultimately or you wouldn't vote at all.
Slashdot Mirror
That's nothing! It'd run its 320 mile range in sqrt(320 miles * 2 / (19.6 ft/s^2)) = 6m 55s.
Too bad the braking will be a bit complicated at 6.92 minutes * 19.6 ft/s^2 = 5,548 mph.
Many "feature phones" come with Opera Mini bundled, especially in networks with crappy GPRS/EDGE service. It lightens the load a lot and creates a better impression.
OTOH, I'd be truly puzzled if there weren't enough Opera Mini users among the technically savvy people (I've been using it for the last 6.5 years) to make a fuss, and it's well known how vocal we can be ;)
And of course, "X has its advantages and downside", which regarding obscurity are a) that dedicated attackers will know less about your weaknesses, and b) that you lack the potential "many eyeballs" that _could_ help you if they know what to look for.
Big projects like Linux and Firefox attract said eyeballs, but smaller open-source projects may attract the eyeballs intent on harming you, while not being popular enough to attract helpful scrutiny.
It's not exactly "X good" then "X bad". More like "X may help" and "it's bad to rely solely on X", which can be said about a LOT of things (vitamins come to mind).
Before I get accused panicking, let me emphasize that I am fully aware that Silk will let you opt out of this feature, and use the browser without EC2 participation.
Did you really expect the service to be 100% free, nothing in it for them ? More like tit-for-tat. That said, I still don't know how Opera benefits with their very similar service (good will and publicity?).
Quoth TFA in its fifth sentence:
Before I get accused panicking, let me emphasize that I am fully aware that Silk will let you opt out of this feature, and use the browser without EC2 participation.
Before I get accused panicking, let me emphasize that I am fully aware that Silk will let you opt out of this feature, and use the browser without EC2 participation.
By the end of TFA, The Fine Author forgot it:
Rather than try to contain the Internet, SaaS providers are trying to get between us and the Internet. And they're doing it with slick and catchy ways that slowly ensnare us before we even know what's going on.
Privacy, security, and unlimited access to data are all at risk here. This is why efforts the Open Knowledge Foundation and Open Cloud Initiative are so important. These and other similar organizations represent different ways to keep access to our data limited to just who we want to have it, and no one else.
It comes down to this: will these SaaS vendors be our partners in using the Internet, or our captors?
Oddly, there wasn't so much fuss over Opera's compression service, which is opt-in for Opera Mobile and always on for Opera Mini.
just published a book that is critical of U.S. reconstruction projects in Iraq
a blog post discussing the hypocrisy of recent U.S. actions against Libyan leader Muammar Qadaffi
Looks more like the State Dept was looking for anything to get him for.
Yeah baby, watermarking seeds. Mmmm ...
And what's the insight offered by a random scientist on this?
"It's a really cool idea," says Kenneth Suslick, a chemist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
That's what she said :-(
Trend Micro OfficeScan Event
URL Blocked
The URL that you are attempting to access is a potential security risk. Trend Micro OfficeScan has blocked this URL in keeping with network security policy.
URL: http://occupywallst.org/
Risk Level: Dangerous
Details: Verified fraud page or threat source
Yay
WTF? This make sabsolutely no sense. Bugs cannot be manufactured into existing software, they are created by the vendor not by the vulnerability finder. The analogy to rat frming is completely bogus
Ditto
The original cost estimate was $5.1 billion, and included the first five elements only. The 2013 launch date was never settled upon, and the optimistic estimate associated with the $5.1 billion figure was 2014. When the cost went up to $6.5 billion and the launch date got pushed to 2015, that was really NASA's fault. I don't want you to come away with the impression that NASA is blameless in this; there really was budget mismanagement. This happened last year.
How did it happen? As my source tells it,
During 2010 the project held its next major review: the Critical Design Review. By this time the 2014 launch date had started to appear not credible. Therefore, Senator B. Mikulski, chair of the appropriation subcommittee responsible for NASA, called for an independent review of the project in the Summer 2010. The Independent Comprehensive Review Panel found that the project had not been properly managed, primarily due to the lack of near term reserves which for a project of this complexity are needed to make sure that things stay on track when issues are discovered.
In other words, the mismanagement was primarily not keeping enough cash-on-hand to deal with unexpected issues when they came up. This resulted in a new figure of $6.5 billion and a new launch date of 2015.
BUT!
This is important. The Independent Comprehensive Review Panel, when it came up with the $6.5 billion / 2015 figure, said that it was contingent. Upon what?
The ICRP conclusion was that the earliest JWST could be launched was late 2015 for a total cost of $6.5B of which $250M extra had to be provided in each of 2011 and 2012. They stated clearly that this was the earliest and cheapest way to launch JWST and any delay would result in a more expensive mission.
The 1B figure seems to be a gross underbid, according to other sources which
They don't do shots for food.
Really? I was somewhat allergic to chocolate (I'd get urticaria all over) and tomatoes, and they desensitized me with weekly shots. Still, thanks for confirming^Wreinforcing my suspicion that it could be done with gradual exposure to the allergen.
While the most obvious and dangerous route for an allergic individual is unintentional ingestion, some reactions are possible through external exposure. However some of these are controversial, exaggerated, or have been discredited through empirical testing. Common beliefs are that anaphylaxis can be triggered by touching peanuts or products, smelling the odor of peanuts, and simple proximity to peanut products. Many of these beliefs have resulted in controversial bans on all peanut products from entire facilities such as schools and medical facilities.
Wait, there's more:
Some reactions have been noted to be psychogenic in nature, the result of conditioning and belief rather than a true chemical reaction. Blinded, placebo-controlled studies by Sicherer et al. were unable to produce any reactions using the odor of peanut butter or its mere proximity. That said, some activities such as cooking or large-scale shelling or crushing of peanuts (such as in a farming or factory production environment) can cause particles to become airborne, and can have respiratory effects to allergic individuals who are nearby. Similarly, residue on surfaces has been known to cause minor skin rashes, though not anaphylaxis.
So yes, his claim of death on sight/touch of a peanut may have been exaggerated, but it's quite likely that he couldn't eat one without choking.
Correct. The sad thing is that a lot "debate and questioning" is based on opinions. Few would claim to be able to judge the plausibility of a star having a core of super-dense crystallized carbon, but when a scientific claim calls for action everyone's an expert, especially about the "conspiracy" among those supporting the opposite hypothesis. Which is why your initial post is rated 50% Insightful, 30% Troll, 20% Overrated .
Exactly, if you take into account that inaction is a decision too, with possible negative consequences (reduced sustainability of life on Earth).
In this case, you need a narrow confidence interval to support the choice that could possibly do the most harm ("this could go wrong - are we damn sure that it's necessary?"). If I'm not mistaken, that's what the precautionary principle is about.
Yeah, that's the gist of it, and what I'd have written if I wasn't so intent on showing the absurdity in it :)
So, the likelihood of scientific research being right or wrong depends on what actions might be taken based on it? Wow.
It's all the rage now!
That's why it's crucial to ship them all.
Bikini with solar cells
9 weirdest ways to harness solar power: features a full-body swimsuit, a bra and a skimpy dress.
Continue with as many layers of the hierarchy as needed, and you should get the final results overnight, and there is no part of this process which couldn't be watched over by anyone who wants.
Every "piece of paper" from the ballots up would be exposed to everyone who cares to check. Thanks.
However with paper based voting you need more people to take part in the conspiracy.
Not if the "conspiracy" is done at the totalling rooms. Be aware that there's a level where data is consolidated but the public doesn't get to see it done. Check ultranova's comment below for an alternative - it's interesting.
These online voting systems however can be useful to ask citizens' opinion between the normal elections.
As long as the outcome is not binding, and then again there's the risk of feeding false data to policy makers (and back to the public opinion).
_You_ can't, just as you can't be 100% sure that the electoral commitee/agency isn't counting paper ballots with rigged software or downright lying. You have to trust _someone_ ultimately or you wouldn't vote at all.