Suffolk County Criminal Intelligence Detectives received a tip from a Bay Shore based computer company regarding suspicious computer searches conducted by a recently released employee. The former employee’s computer searches took place on this employee’s workplace computer. On that computer, the employee searched the terms “pressure cooker bombs” and “backpacks.”
I actually agree with almost everything Drew wrote with the exception of his GC statements
I'm courious. Drew said two things about GC:
He didn't say GC always introduces huge latencies, probably because given an incremental GC and enough memory it doesn't. So which of the two assertions are you disagreeing with?
Or to put is another way, going by Drew's data if EA had lots of memory for whatever they were putting in the GC heap and their primary consideration was speed, they would have been far better off using GC.
The biggest weakness in Drew's argument that GC is and will remain dominant cause is IMHO the assumption that a phone will always be memory constrained. We have 2G phones now. 4G can't be far away. You can hardly call 4G "memory constrained". If mobile slowness were just caused by GC, my guess is at 4G most apps will have far more than 5x their memory requirements, so GC should actually help. I'm also guessing mobile will remain slow. The trifecta that ensures this is:
DRM cannot be open-source, for an obvious reason: If it were, you could just comment out the 'don't copy' line and recompile.
You are suffering from a delusion - you believe DRM works. Yet we all know perfect DRM is an impossibility. If it wasn't obvious 10 years ago, surely after 10 years of watching every deployed DRM scheme being cracked it must be obvious to blind Freddie now. All those cracked DRM schemes were closed source.
Publishing the DRM scheme as open source rather than closed source will, at best, delay the crack by a year or so. And what practicle difference will that make? None. They live and survive with piracy now. Yes, you can recompile FireFox, but 99% of the world's population can't. You might say that isn't an issue - they just download a "cracked" version of firefox from someone other than Mozilla. But you know what, they can just download cracked version of IE too. But most people don't because it comes with risks - as in you will be using that same browser to do your banking. So most people stay honest.
And that's the best they can ever hope to achieve - keeping the honest people honest. We now know that's good enough - because that's all they have now with Silverlight.
I'm not sure I understand what the fuss is all about. Our nice little series of tubes is not going to be diminished if "the movie studios remove movies from the web" in any significant way
For most here the fuss isn't about what the movie studios want - everybody knows they are self interested control freaks who don't have a clue how the internet, markets or piracy work. The fuss about the W3C. They seem to have lost the plot.
The W3C's job is to standardise the web, so web content can be viewed on any platform, any OS, any device and looks much the same. So if the W3C comes up with a DRM scheme, we all expect it to run on everything. This probably means the only DRM "blessed" by the W3C would be software only, which I am sure the moguls would hate. But the W3C wasn't created to brown nose media moguls, it's an engineering organisation whose mission is to come up with standards that will work everywhere. Yet here they proposing something that won't work everywhere and is exactly what the media moguls want. WTF?
I should stop there, but I won't. The really annoying part about this wouldn't be that hard to come up DRM that is good enough, and yet still appease the arse holes. The arse holes want DRM that encrypts the complete path so it can't be cracked, and pure software DRM can always be cracked. The only minor nit with the request is it is an impossible ask. All DRM can be cracked by definition. Why they still demand the impossible after every fucking DRM scheme deployed by them in the last decade has been cracked is utterly beyond me. Watching an engineering organisation like the W3C pander to such fantasies makes me ashamed of my profession.
The W3C could come up with a single standardised software only DRM that worked on every device, and add a few knobs for the twits who insist that making it impossible for some potential customers to view their product is a good idea. Yes, that software only DRM will be cracked, just like every other DRM scheme. But we know it is good enough because that is what they have now with Flash and Silverlight. So everyone would be happy. The world can get along with modest DRM that keeps the honest people from temptation, the W3C can stick to their remit, and the twits can send themselves broke by trying to defy physics. And as you say, no one gives a shit about the twits.
All these development models are designed to deliver code to a customer. There is a beginning and an end. Waterfall, Agile, whatever - they all assume this. They just disagree about how you take the journey.
It's true there is a beginning. But for the developer there is no end. He is never thinking about the end, because the end is when the code dies. If it dies, he has failed. Thus he doesn't plan for it, instead he actively plans for avoiding it.
Software isn't a deliverable product. It doesn't wear, and if it constantly evolves it will never die. In that way it's like a living organism. Occasionally it sheds copies that are delivered to the customer, but for the developer that isn't a singularly important event. Instead the developer is constantly thinking about about where he wants to be in 10 minutes, in 10 hours, in 10 days, in 10 months and 10 years, fully aware that if he gets any of those decision badly wrong the organism in his care might go extinct.
Thus any development process, like Agile or Waterfall, that plans for a definitive end point will never be satisfying solution. They are all based on a fiction - software should be treated like a toothbrush, something you deliver to the customer and forget. In their hearts, all developers hope that isn't true, for their code anyway.
It is, yes, but with e.g. Flash or Silverlight you get a large, fat binary,
You have listed some of their disadvantages. How about listing their advantages as well:
If the W3C's proposed DRM scheme insisted that there be one standardised software only DRM implementation that existed in every browser, then I would be happy enough. In the case that W3C would be behaving like a standards body and ensuring there was a single standard that could be run by everything.
In this case they are doing the reverse. The current proposal will break the one thing that makes the web useful. It is a truly universal platform, meaning any content can be view anywhere. From that point of view it is actually worse than what we have now with proprietary plugins.
Yep, I think you have nailed it.
Technology wise, we have been at the point these the Glass haters are so concerned about for a few years now. We are recorded all the time, everywhere. Worried about being recorded when you go down the street - already happens. Worried about being recorded in a shopping mall - already happens. Worried about being record in a club - not only does that happen, where I live they also demand a photo of your ID card as well. Worried about your car's licence plate being tracked via digital number plate recognition - already happens. Worried your purchases being tracked and sold off for marketing companies - already happens. Worried about your photo being surreptitiously taken while using an ATM - already happens. Worried about a video being taken of you as you scan all the sanitary items at the self checkout - already happens. Worried about a marketing company getting hold of a copy of most of the worlds emails and mining them for personal data they can sell off - already happens.
For some reason, although there is nothing unique or special about Google Glass, the 99% of the world who apparently think today will be the same as yesterday have woken up to the fact that 2013 will be nothing like 2003. And they are focusing their rage at Google Glass.
It's all over my friends. Much privacy we used to have is history. All that remains is for you to get used to the fact. If you don't like it, well you are far too late to the party to do anything about it. It's not like haven't been told over and over again this was going to happen. Most notably when Scott McNealy said, "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.". In a classic case of shooting the messenger, McNealy was roundly criticised for that remark.
I wonder if it can cure a nasty case of "leg fell off"?
No.
But if you are under the age of 6, not wrapping a finger in a bandage means it will probably grow back. From www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/4632692 (click on Transcript):
Dany Adams: It's interesting, in humans if you were six years old and you cut the tip of your finger off it would grow back, as long as the doctors do not do the normal thing, which is to pull some skin and cover the wound to prevent infection, which is a very good thing to do, but if you don't do that and you allow it to stay open, it will in fact regenerate if you are six years old.
For those of you who don't know, asm.js is a subset of JavaScript that's meant to be easy to compile. In other words if you use asm.js the code your will work in all browsers, but should run faster in some. In that FAQ they say their compiled asm.js runs at about 1/2 the speed of C, making it roughly twice as fast as JavaScript V8.
Which is wonderful, except that JavaScirpt is a prick of a language, and so I'd imagine that asm.js is a tedious, prick of a language. But Dart compiled to asm.js - sounds like a marriage made in heaven.
Well that, and if you are measuring the health of an open source project the number of downloads is meaningless. The only thing that matters is the rate of change of the code base. LO has more developers, they are doing more work, and the gap is only growing larger.
In the end, the users will follow the developers. They don't have much choice really.
You sir, miss the point.
The point wasn't that government has no business blocking that site, or that there wasn't a good reason to do so, or that the web site didn't deserve to be blocked.
The point is that we are a democracy, so when our government censors something like this it must be done in a transparent and open way. What happened is that suddenly a IP address disappeared. When the ISP's were asked why it disappeared they said they were gagged. When the government departments were asked each only volunteered it had nothing to do with them. It is very unlikely all of them didn't know, they were just not saying. And now we know who ordered it to be blocked, we still don't know the specifics.
It's not just that it's a bad way to run a democracy. It's a bad way to run things in general. A whole pile of legit web sites were blocked. They weren't notified. When they noticed they didn't know why, and thus could not take steps to fix them problem. And once it was fixed they had no way of getting the block removed. This is just plain dumb. The person who thought it was a good way to do things needs to be dragged over the coals.
Your statement does not back what I have read here in the US,
If what you have written here bears any resemblance to what your what your friends write in the US, you are bunch of conspiracy theorists inventing rubbish and feeding off it.
However, onto your actual claims. Regarding storage - you must have an approved gun safe. Personally, I think the law is too weak. Most of out gun crime is now committed by guns stolen from domestic gun safes. A wooden cupboard with a padlock on it is nowhere near good enough. It needs to be a real safe, bolted to the floor and lined with concrete. They aren't expensive.
Regarding ammo - you go the local hardware store and buy it. About the only restriction is you need to produce you gun licence. It must be stored securely, of course.
As for storing the things safely making them useless - you must use guns differently to how we use them in Australia. Here we take them out of storage before firing them.
The most onerous part of Australia law is being registered to own a gun. It is not hard to get registered and you certainly do not need a reason - "I want to" is good enough. There is no limit to the number of guns you can own (I know people who have 30 of them), but you do have to display a minimum competence in gun handling, you do have to prove you have safe and secure storage for it, and you do have to keep your registration up to date. It's less effort than getting a car drivers licence, and far less effort then getting a ham radio licence.
But it does involve some ongoing effort. And that is the point. That is enough to stop people who have no interest in guns whatsoever from keeping one in the draw, just waiting to be misused. For people who a genuine interest in guns like yourself the law isn't a barrier to owning a whole armory, and isn't meant to be.
as soon as they lost their ability to fight (gave up the guns)
As an Australian who has played with guns recently, that's factually inaccurate. Almost all Australian adults can own a gun if they wish to. In fact many of us own entire rooms full of them. The only exceptions are the same as everywhere else - the mentally ill, felons and so on. We are perhaps a little more restricted in the types of gun we can own - you need to have a professional reason to own concealable weapons and automatics.
ASDFnz writes "It has been just over two months since the bitcoin block chain was rocked by a near disastrous fork causing the bitcoin price to crash.
..."
Right. Near fucking disastrous. You can see the effect right here, after clicking the "DRAW" button. At least, if you look very hard, and squint just right, you might just be able to pick up the crash that happened 2 months ago.
Actually, I can't see a bloody thing. ASDFnz is a liar.
Must we really publish brain farts from a fanboi on slashdot's front page? This "news item" is completely substance free. No description of technology, no links, no science, no official announcement from someone you might believe. It uses terms that don't exist - there is no 5G - or at least the mob responsible for naming GSM, 3G, 4G, LTE, LTE Advanced doesn't have one yet. And there is nothing particularly special about 1Gbps download speed. LTE Advanced already does that if is has around 67MHz of bandwidth available, and you are the only one using the cell.
So let me see, what is there that could justify its position on the front page? Oh I see now - a baseless jibe at a Apple. That's OK then.
If you analyse anything, you destroy it. -- Arthur Miller
