The Performance MX really is brilliant - works on almost any surface; wireless with good range (I use it as a remote, too); rechargable but you can continue using it while charging since it just means plugging in a usb cable - brilliant!

unless, of course, you count phones...

Oh and one minor detail: did you see the final compiled code sizes and how much smaller the optimized versions are (esp. clang!). I'm willing to bet the entire benchmark just code "optimized away" by dead code elimination; and that's an entirely unrealistic situation... Also, where's the code? Is this reproducible?

The benchmark isn't worth anything.

And you base this on what? Did the spagetti-monster tell you JSON was technically a better fit, or that XQuery doesn't work?

I think there's some merit to blaming the reporter for being negligent. But it's important to note that that does not in any way, shape or form excuse the behavior of the police in this matter.

Frankly, I think individual officers in cases like these should be held personally responsible for infractions they commit, even if they're just following orders, and even if they didn't know any better. It happens all too frequently that some anonymous police or other organization gets blamed, and the consequences to anyone personally are then irrelevant at best. Perhaps some committee harasses those involved; or the police pays some fine (but that's really the taxpayers paying it, after all) - but at the end of the day, the actual people that in all likelihood intentionally violated other's rights get away scott free.

And there's no pushback from inside the organization, because, well, nobody ever got fired for following orders when there's even a whiff of plausible deniability here. Nobody is taking responsibility for their own actions; so it shouldn't surprise anyone that the police act irresponsibly and unethically despite the fact that most people involved only ever had the best of intentions. If you want it to be normal for the officers in a raid to question the need for it, the circumstances in which it is made, the force with which it is executed, or the damage that is done to those they raid, then there's got to be an incentive for officers to push back and do what's right. Right now, we reward officers for doing what's wrong and punish them for thinking and having a conscience, and that is deeply disturbing.

Heck, I bet anybody that texts at all probably is more likely to text recklessly while driving; we should just issue them a traffic violation whenever they text to save some time and trouble.

So? even if true, that's only meaningful if less than 90% of the set of "people that drive and that text" text *while* driving. And that I seriously doubt.

In other words: the frequency of texting surely correlates with the frequency of texting while driving, but I doubt that after correcting for that texting while stopped predicts texting while driving very strongly.

Is it any less "armchair" to simply assume an article is valid without corroboration, or to assume this particular scientist is a fraud without actually checking?

Just because it's more easily said than done doesn't make it untrue - and I strongly suspect none of us particularly care about these specific results anyhow, so of course we'll just comment from afar without actually doing anything.

I mean, if this bothers you, do you have an alternative suggestion?

They just removed the UI - this doesn't affect things like Firebug, Noscript, and they *probably* didn't even remove the UI completely - if you can call about:config a UI.

That depends on what kind of slowness they mean - bandwidth, or latency? I don't think X dealt well at all with medium-to-high latencies, so that's perhaps what you're seeing.

You suggest that the 5th applies equally serious limitations to all laws, and that therefore Noryungi's argument is irrelevant since it would equally apply to a good law.

I'm not so convinced that's acutally true: The 5th applies particularly well to "crimes" that affect no others. And laws that try to control not how you treat others but how you treat yourself are perhaps intrinsically unwelcome. If you're not even free to make your own choices even when they don't harm others... well, what exactly are you free to do then? Choose a favorite color as long as it's red, white or blue?

Indirectly, the 5th encourages laws that affect how people treat each other or behave publically, and discourage laws about private, unverifiable behavior - and indeed child pornography unfortunately falls in the latter category. And perhaps that's not surprising, because the laws aren't actually targeting the appropriate crime - the "problem" (hopefully) isn't trying to impose control on people (even if you think they're guilty of thoughtcrime), the problem is that it might encourage actual abuse of children.

I think it's wise not to let an emotive but ultimately rather rare crime undermine something so fundamentally beneficial to long-term sustained freedom. The 5th isn't just a good law now, it encourages the system of laws to stay that way, and that's something that we really shouldn't take for granted.

Because the alternative is that he wouldn't speak up at all, and the harm caused by murder is greater than that by theft. In essence, this can be construed as a whistleblowing case: better to

I also don't think it's a very convincing example, but just because somebody is guilty of *some* crime doesn't necessarily mean you want to convict him. Not to mention the fact that guilty does not mean bad - there are so many crazy laws out there, I seriously doubt there are many people in the country that aren't "guilty" of something.

I don't understand how your comment got modded Insightful, but here goes...

The car analogy isn't at all appropriate. Unlike physical car locks, software kernels can are are regularly patched. The types of risk are completely different.

Perhaps responsible disclosure is a better option. But your argument does not in any way support that statement.

The username/password in question supposedly were "admin". And it sounds like it was probably overheard because the sharing was routine and the authentication a farce. So perhaps they didn't have a technical problem, but they certainly don't sound blameless.

I think these kind of issues are harmful to everyone because they encourage black-hat hacking (which is trivial), and they discourage whistleblowing. It's perhaps not honorable, but obviously many whistleblowers like the attention. But if that's the currency that needs to be payed for better security, it sounds like a pretty reasonable tradeoff. In short: typically the hackee should be fined and shamed, not the hacker, even if the hacker's a jerk. It's not about the hacker after all - he's probably not the person you've entrusted your data to - it's about the resposible party taking responsibilty.