Well, then pretty soon those people so lacking in self control will do all their acting behind bars.

Neville Chamberlain was in a tough position as the United Kingdom had pretty much disposed of their military in the aftermath of World War I. Their navy was certainly world-class, but the army and anything which could be used to stop Germany was basically non-existent. Ditto for the U.S. Army (which even had serious legislation going before Congress to completely disband the U.S. Army altogether and rely strictly on the state militias for national defense). The rest of the world was disarming at the time Germany was moving into the Rhineland and elsewhere.

Military intelligence was also miserable at the time, where Germany purposely inflated the numbers of their soldiers by marching the same units across prominent bridges (easily seen by observers)... only to ship them by train back to Germany to have them march again over the same bridge several times. Basically the UK & France thought Germany had many more soldiers involved in those early occupations than really was the case and something that might have been stopped simply by calling Germany's bluff.

I don't know if it is too late to do that with Putin's Russia or not... which I suppose is the question some are asking right now.

FTFY.

True, but still an utter red herring.

I'd put this slightly differently -- the same situations where you wouldn't want Google Glass are the ones where you probably wouldn't want a police officer looking around. However, I don't see the bodycam as violating any more rights than the officer already does -- we just give the officer an exemption in exchange for safety/security -- NOT in exchange for privacy; that's the realm of security guards.

So yeah; if a police officer is somewhere/doing something they don't have a reason to do, I want the bodycam. If they've got nothing to hide, the bodycam's not going to add much more to the equation.

I think what the question really shows is that Canadians have a much stronger grasp of the English language, and don't see a few buzzwords and ignore the context. It's one thing to "walk by faith and not by sight" but quite another to think that we depend too much on knowledge (science = knowledge... scientific method or scientists are different kettles of poutine).

Afghanistan might as well be called the place where empires die. The last military force to successfully occupy and control Afghanistan was Mongolia under Gengis Kahn (and even that can be debated). That the USSR failed in nearly the same places where the British Empire failed earlier, and before them Alexander of Macedonia (aka "the Great"). Rome never even bothered to try (although they certainly knew about the place). The jury is still out on America, but it doesn't look pretty.

It's possible to be a lucrative demographic without having PR money. Case in point: Alcoholics.

Which part of India are you in? My info is all second/third hand, but I'm not talking about the cities or surrounding areas -- that's why I made the comment about the Nokia phones for those areas.

Any way you look at it, Nokia rules the airwaves, and smartphones will still be for the richer, unless the prices continue to come down. But some people I've talked to have indeed switched from TV to smartphone, and that's in the city outskirts. If they want to see a sporting event, etc. they go to a friend's place.

I think the wholesale failure of web 2.0 sites to facilitate any discussion of these issues over the last few weeks proves just how shallow their promise of a brave new web is. The scope and scale of the censorship seen around this issue is to my knowledge unprecedented.

Slashdot had the right ethics and mores all along, Anonymous Cowards and all. The community can mod them down, but even they should be free to speak.

I think a poster on the escapist forums but it most succinctly: "The gaming community is being bullied for profit".

The gaming community is being singled out for being misogynist, over the film/tv industry, over the music business, over religious groups, because they are a relatively easy target who won't put up as much of a fight. While it's almost certain that Sarkeesian has received threats, let's be honest, they do not carry anywhere near the same weight as those which would come from, say, a religious group who was called out for being conservative. Gamers also lack the PR money to respond, which would be readily available to entertainment companies. Overall, it's a fairly safe group to criticize.

I'm sure that misogyny exists in video games, but no more (and I would argue to a lesser extent) than that seen in general society and other forms of entertainment. Yet Sarkeesian and her backers have launched what amounts to an internet crusade against the most counter-cultural -- and I would argue visibly progressive -- media industries.

Her videos present selectively chosen examples from several video games, purporting to show that games are actually hateful towards women. Many of us have played several of these titles, and can judge how exaggerated such claims are. Indeed, using Sarkeesian's techniques, it would be perfectly possible to go through these games and more, and selectively picks clips and examples "proving" that games and the gaming industry promote animal cruelty.

Yet no-one makes the animal cruelty argument about video games. And the reason is I think obvious -- The misogynist argument makes more money. Sarkeesian has been backed to the tune of $150,000 to makes these videos. Sites like Kotaku generate huge ad-revenue from the inevitable click-bait headlines which follow from these exaggerated claims. The more games who take the bait, who defend their hobby from these accusations, the more revenue goes to the people making and promoting them.

This does not represent a genuine feminist movement. This represents a business model. Gamers are being singled out and bullied -- over religious conservatives, over music video directors, over corporate policies towards women -- because gamers are an easier and more lucrative target. Gamers are "hate-baited" with very, very ugly accusations painting them as haters of women, so that their predictable responses can be farmed out to ad-servers and marketing firms. Bullied; for profit.

I've played video games since 1990; I do not hate women; My hobby does not hate women; The vast majority of people who play video games do not hate women. Please, Sarkeesian's of the world, turn your attentions to the people who do.

This study looks seriously flawed. They just throw up their hands at doing a direct comparison of architectures when they try to use extremely complicated systems and sort of do their best to beat down and control all the factors that introduces. One of the basic principles of a scientific study is that independent variables are controlled. It's very hard to say how much the instruction set architecture matters when you can't tell what pipelining, out of order execution, branch prediction, speculative execution, caching, shadowing (of registers), and so on are doing to speed things up. An external factor that could influence the outcome is temperature. Maybe one computer was in a hotter corner of the test lab than the other, and had to spend extra power just overcoming the higher resistance that higher temperatures cause.

It might have been better to approach this from an angle of simulation. Simulate a more idealized computer system, one without so many factors to control.

Those things are what taught me to buy drives in pairs.

A lightning strike taught me not to have both drives connected at the same time :)

Crashplan and friends are God's gift to the lazy backup plan.