You mean you do exactly what the rest of the working world does with their laptop docking station?

I have an hp one at work, and a Lenovo one at home. Both have power and peripherals plugged in and I just drop my laptop into place for it all to spring to life.

This.

And it's not necessarily the speed (bit rate) but the inherent instability and susceptibility to interference that really makes it unstable. If my wireless connection drops momentarily whilst I'm browsing /. I'm not going to notice, if it drops whilst streaming a HD video, chances are I'll notice (even buffering the video wont help too much).

If you want to send video over a network you use wires. If you're really serious or going long distances, you go straight to fibre.

for hd video, wifi is NO SUBSTITUTE for wired enet.

try an mkv file; oftentimes it takes 2 or even 3 minutes before vlc (on win7 ultimate) begins to play, and that is with the very latest media bridge of ac to ac wireless (2 asus routers). this is as good as wireless gets for consumers and yet I have a several minute wait time.

why? I think the protocol sucks and there is a lot of seeking or indexing on some mkv's and with wifi latency, small packets take forever (when there are lots of them needed). plug into wired enet and the video plays almost instantly.

do a backup over the net? not likely! yes, I can. but its painful.

wireless also is quite insecure. a lot of people think its ok. many of us don't trust it.

so, anyone saying 'wired is dead for end stations' knows nothing about the vast number of use-cases where wifi falls flat on its arse.

(and try running nfs over wifi. good luck with that!)

> If you watch your movies via streaming, this is not an issue. 2015 people, 2015.

Yes. In 2015 there's still plenty of stuff that's not available via streaming or is only available at a price that most people aren't interested in paying.

Some us actually use this stuff and don't merely talk about it.

Glad to be of service. The more we hamper idiots trying to make self-improving intelligence without precautions the better. And yes, once neurosurgeons can use their intelligence to produce indefinite increases in intelligence in their subjects, the same danger applies to them./p>

From your own source:

Not only are you wrong, you are so wrong that the round is actually criticized for not causing enough damage.

From what I was told in the service the round was designed to wound not to kill on purpose. If you wound someone, one of their comrades has to drag them back to cover. You thereby take two enemies out of the fight. But hell, what would the armorer know.

You don't have to like or trust Google(and you shouldn't) to agree that "Hey, let's quietly change rule 41 so that all you need to 'remote search'(by means tactfully unspecified) a computer anywhere is the approval of a judge, doesn't much matter which, from one of the 94 federal districts, rather than one at least vaguely related to the matter at hand!" is...perhaps...a bad move.

You've got to admit, it is a bit sad/disappointing the number of people who are invested in Linux but actually like (and often prefer) OS X. What does that say for the rest of us who are wondering if expending the time and effort to learn Linux is worth it if many people who are influential in its development prefer OS X?

And yes I know, you didn't actually say outright that you prefer OS X, you merely said you liked it. I wonder how long it'll be before that changes though...

There is no Utopia anywhere in the world, never has been and never will be. Human nature prevents such a system. Sure, I think the majority would be up to share, but there is a minority of people that would take without contributing to society, and the other end of the spectrum would contain people that abused that system to get more than their share.

We aren't all "good at coding", or paid to work on Software Libre: that means that those people who are need to be much more responsible, and to start — finally — to listen to what people are saying.

My understanding is that the military does have a completely isolated network for critical combat communication, but like any other global-scale organization, they're still probably reliant on the now-civilian internet because of the efficient communication it provides. For instance, communication with contractors, other countries' military forces, and so on are all vital for day to day operations, and probably can't be accomplished with a military-only system because of the sheer scale and scope it would require.

I just don't think it's as simple as saying "the military should not be on the internet". They either have to try to use it safely and securely, build a completely separate and parallel internet, or go without it. Granted, there's obviously a percentage of material that should always be air-gapped for maximum security, but the bulk of bureaucratic day to day communication and coordination only needs to be reasonably secure, and can probably safely live on the standard internet given reasonable precautions.

This. One thing I have never understood this sequence:

1. Cop searches car illegal.
2. Court tosses out evidence.

So far so good. No qualms there with the court....

3. Cop is NOT charged with a crime, continues working

That never made any sense. If the search was illegal, he didn't have the authority to do it...so it was....by very definition....outside the parameters of his job. He was NOT acting as a police officer if he was conducting an illegal search.

In fact, if anything he was denying a person their civil rights under color of law....which is a felony. Why should he NOT be charged? Why should a prosecutor even be allowed to know about such an event and not bring up charges?

And no, I am in now way saying such evidence should be used.... I understand fruit of a poisined treee, I just don't understand allowing trees to be poisoned and hoping nobody notices next time.

Strangely enough, there is this concept called THE FUCKING ARTICLE which often (but not always, this is Slashdot after all) contains useful hints about WHAT THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT.

After that, it's all reading comprehension and a few minutes using your Internet-search-engine-of-choice.

as fans tried to figure out just what the %&#% was going on last night, you should probably prepare yourself

>We see in case after case how all it takes is single insider at a company—in this instance, allegedly, a receptionist in a dentists' office—to set an identity theft ring in motion, which then tries to monetize the stolen information by purchasing Apple goods for resale or personal use

Those people can do that because of the horribly insecure payment methods the banks impose on everyone. If crime requires motive and opportunity, then it's the banks who are providing the opportunity.