I totally agree that those people should only be free to say the kinds of things we believe. I can't imagine the anarchy of allowing everyone the freedom to speak their opinion, however repugnant.

Here is your answer, the A20 is freakishly slow compared to anything Intel would put their name on.

Granted, you can build a tablet to do specific tasks (like decoding video codecs) around a really slow processor and some special-purpose DSPs. But perhaps the companies in that business aren't making enough profit to interest Intel.

If there is research to do regarding what service to choose, how does comcast have a monopoly?

Well... Comcast could be the only wired internet service provider in an area, BUT they might only offer service that is so expensive and slow, that someone has to choose between Comcast, cellular, and satellite.

If your mother just wants to check her e-mail and download a few pictures every once in a while, then the ever-increasing speed of Comcast's cheapest tier is wasted, and saving a few dollars by going with something like T-Mobile's $30/month 5GB cellular plan might be cheaper and just as good.

But you didn't respond to my suggestion that the video be retrievable only by court order. Don't you think that would mitigate a lot of the issues you mentioned?

the Federal government's control reaches into the crooks and nannies it was never supposed to reach

"Supposed" by whom? Some long-dead people?

I do think there is some misalignment between laws as written vs. current practice. But you should realize that bringing them together would most certainly result in more changes to the law, than to how they are practiced. For example, Social Security may or may not be particularly Constitutional, but it will get written into the Constitution long before it will be repealed. Most people want it.

I would say, no thanks. And that employees in the performance of their duty are in a different situation than ordinary people going about their private business (even if in a public space). I can't think of any good reason not to make this distinction.

That said I also think that access to "Cop-Cams" should be by court-order only. I don't think the police should be able to selectively choose whatever video supports their case, nor feel that they are being needless monitored constantly.

No, including "you are only a uniformed officer while the feed is live. If it stops, you are a regular private citizen until it's restarted".

Then it's not police brutality. It's armed citizen brutality, without all the protections of the badge.

On a theoretical level, you're correct. On a personal level, the nose thing is pretty convincing. Give it a go, you'll see what I mean.

At some instant you are reeling from a punch to the face, and you have an awareness (a memory) of having asked for it 5 seconds previously in a heated philosophical argument. The problem is you have no way of directly experiencing those previous events from 5 seconds ago. It could be that the universe is just a snapshot of this precise moment, which includes sensations of memory, the appearance of slashdot, and the fear of being punched in the face.

There is no disproving this. But it also doesn't matter, since if nothing else the present does contain the perception of continuity, which is all that drives our choices even if continuity does exist. If we somehow discovered that we're just a dream or computer simulation, what does that actually change? What previous theory of existence does it displace?

"The focus should always be on how to think rather than a list of facts." That has been the conventional wisdom for a few decades now, but a big problem is that you can't measure things like "critical thinking" in the abstract. Thus the movement towards standardized testing. Nobody says to himself, "we should study lists of facts instead of how to think!" but they do see other nations pulling ahead of the US in standardized tests, and panic. Next thing you know, music and PE classes disappear, end education tends to become rather narrow. And of course, dropping standards does not really transform the *average* classroom into a scene from Dead Poets Society with people standing on the desks and being inspired.

My first computer with a hard drive was an Amiga 2000 that came with a 120MB Maxtor. I was gleeful at its blinding speed and unfathomable capacity compared to my older floppy-based system. So much so, in fact, that I spent quite a few hours brilliantly doing the AmigaDOS equivalent of cp -R /media/floppy / so that I'd never have to bother with those slow things again.

That was perhaps my first introduction to the importance of namespaces, a lesson which I carry with me unto this day.

And then LBA came along in 1996 and completely mooted the strategy.

Why would they have lower seek times? It seems like lateral, track-to-track movement would be at the same speed regardless of position. And since rotational velocity is constant, the average time for a sector in the current track to come around should be identical. What's missing from that line of thinking?

Another day, another overblown headline. Quoting from the article, the questionable phrase is: "; focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes; "

This is wide open to interpretation. Obviously it would be insane not to teach the scientific process. I think there are some who feel education has strayed too far from mastering basic facts into abstraction, such as "new math" instead of mastering times tables.

Anyway this is just one guy's brain fart and not a law. I am kind of curious what he meant by it though.

But he was right of course. There is no way to prove ground truth, such as the continuity of existence - it's just assumptions. Some people never grasp that, most others tire of thinking about it and move on. But not because they solved or proved anything.

Butting into somebody else's conversation just to blurt out that you don't understand it is silly.

Ha ha, you have a 16-drive array in your RV? Just when I thought people on slashdot weren't cool any more.