Seafile. Got it. Thank you.

By comparing them to those to the south of them?

I cannot argue with that. So, let's say, "relatively level-headed" compared to the world's most violent people with indoor plumbing.

I think this point requires further explaining.
Why exactly do I need Gbit service to bring healthcare into my home?

Huh?

DOCSIS 3.0 does not have a maximum limit on the number of channels that can be bonded.
The initial hardware would only bond up to 8 channels (~304 Mbit/s), but 16 channel (608 Mbit/s) hardware is already being rolled out by Comcast in the form of rebadged Cisco DPC3939 Gateways.

2015/2016 we might see 24 channel (912 Mbit/s) and 32 channel (1.2 Gbit/s) hardware.
2016/2017 is most likely, in the form of DOCSIS 3.1 modems, which use completely different modulation, but will have 24/32 channel DOCSIS 3.0 baked into them so that the ISPs can seamlessly upgrade from DOCSIS 3.0 to 3.1.

Cable's game plan is to use DOCSIS 3.1 to put off pulling fiber to the home, which keeps their costs low and will allow them to offer (multi)gigabit speeds using a hybrid fiber/co-ax infrastructure.

What makes you believe that?

Well, the main firearm for police is the sidearm. The weight that a suppressor adds makes the gun more difficult to handle. Granted, my only experience is with the old fashioned suppressors with the rubber grommets, but I don't think the new suppressors are that much lighter. Additional weight at the muzzle of a handgun may not matter in target shooting (my forte) but it really matters in tactical situations.

When you hear the evidence that suppressors make a weapon more accurate, it's always in reference to a stationary firing position.

Also, the new types of suppressors are much less effective in quieting a weapon. Even the volume of a suppressed weapon is enough to cause hearing damage (it's the attack portion of the envelope that causes the damage as much as it is the volume).

Of course, this is not viable so long as silencers remain regulated and taxed as heavily as they currently are in US (much more so than guns themselves).

I'm pretty sure the suppressor regulations are local, not national, by the way.

If anything, local police are too eager to go to their weapon to solve a problem as it is. I'm not sure you want to encourage more of it by making gunfire quieter.

Something like that:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/c...

Just FYI, even a single round fired causes permanent hearing damage, which is why wearing hearing protection is required on pretty much any firing range regardless of how many people are there.

They're using silencers on the firing range? What's wrong with regular ear protectors?

It would certainly be a very good thing for police to have and use silencers consistently, in light of the fact that they do occasionally use their firearms in public, and this negatively affects the health of every single person on the scene.

Yes, we have plenty of evidence that police using firearms in public negatively affects the health of people at the scene.

Especially if you happen to be of a certain shade.

But still, both of the main types of suppressors negatively affect both control of the firearm and impact on the target, and some accuracy. Why would you want police to have less control of their firearm, less stopping power, and less accuracy?

Let's not pretend that the DoD equipment being shipped to local police forces has anything to do with improving policing or protecting people's safety.

If you have evidence of their intent then it would be interesting to see that. Maybe they've only implemented a bug fix where their drivers are finding a piece of hardware which is claiming that it is something that it is not, which must be a bug, so they're fixing the bug. Now it doesn't identify as a piece of hardware that it clearly is not. Et voila, problem solved. It's not their responsibility to change the piece of hardware to correctly identify itself, that bug is one for the manufacturer to fix. The bug that FTDI is fixing is one in which the hardware identifies itself as FTDI hardware when it is not.

I didn't suggest that what they were doing was not illegal, just that I support it. It wouldn't be the only thing considered illegal that I support.

They're good enough that their drivers are apparently able to support a wide range of hardware that they didn't build. I'd say that's doing a pretty decent job. The list of operating systems and versions that they support is pretty extensive as well. What exactly are they bad at doing? It sounds like they've been doing the same thing for the past 20+ years, and that it's been working so well that other companies want to leech off them and get support and technology from them without paying anything for it.

If you want real control, it's ownCloud or no cloud I think...

I've been meaning to ask someone about this. Is OwnCloud something that someone who's kind of a moron could set up on their own server? Asking for a friend.

Maybe not a moron, I mean, I've set up Apache and a media server, and I can read instructions when I'm sober. I just worry that I'll do something wrong and end up syncing my data with some Estonian hackers by mistake.

And who knows, I didnt care to read tfa, but they couldve developed a nice algorithm like that new hit show I cant remember the name of

Black Jesus?

Let's play a game, you name a 80s geek hero movie for every 80s action hero movie I name, ok?

Do we have to start or do you agree that I win?

Yes, there were a few "geeky" movies. But claiming that they have anything to do with women avoiding computer science is ridiculous. If anything, the 80s movies were misogynic in general. Women were stereotypically abused as either the love interest for the hero, the dumb idiot that gets the hero in trouble or needs to be rescued by him or the inefficient example of how women just can't do what the hero later has to fix.

Women in anything but romance/love stories were basically the same as geeks in 80s movies: The bumbling idiot that makes the hero look so much better.

Nobody could complain if they simply went and made their driver incompatible with the forged chips. If there is no working driver, then the customer would have to complain with the original maker of the hardware and demand a working driver. That's quite within FTDI's rights.

The point is that they attack the firmware of the device involved, which is by no accounts ok anymore. This isn't locking out a competitor, it's destruction of a competitor's hardware. Yes, that competitor didn't act correctly by trying to get a free ride. No doubt about that. By that logic, though, it's just a-ok for any printer maker to trash the printer (e.g. by hosing it with printer ink) should they detect that you use anything but their overpriced original stuff.

Bundles: stay organized automatically
It's like Folders! With keyword filtering!
But we do it automatically for you!

Highlights: the important info at a glance
They're like Subject lines! But with more information!

Calendar and Alarm integration! In your e-mail!

Because we were already reading your e-mail, we used some Google Search magic to pre-fetch information you might want. Gmailâ(TM)s still there for you, but Inbox is something new. Itâ(TM)s a better way to get back to what matters, and we canâ(TM)t wait to share it with you.

/This sounds like really cool stuff, too bad I don't have an Android phone.

And I hope FTDI wins. Eventually this should go back to whoever made the counterfeit chip. Those companies should be the ones who get called out by their customers that they supply to, they should receive the blame. If I'm using counterfeit chips in my products and an update from FTDI stops things from working, I'm not going to be pissed off at FTDI, I'm going to be pissed off at whoever sold me a chip and told me that it was an FTDI chip, and I'm going to sue them for selling me counterfeit products while claiming they were the real thing. And if the manufacturer knew they were buying counterfeit, then they're the guys who deserve to get sued.

That sounds like a bug fix. They've found a piece of hardware which is identifying itself as the incorrect piece of hardware (which they know, because they know what the correct piece of hardware with that ID is). So, they just... fix the bug.

The problem cannot be solved within the leadership of Islam, because there is no monolithic Islam.

This is the equivalent of saying that the Roman Catholic Church should involve itself in the affairs of the Southern Baptist Convention, because they're both Christian. Actually, one of them is Protestant. And not only Protestant, but a separatist group from a separatist group. That's three schisms for anyone trying to keep track.

The Islamic sects which attract/breed extremists have leadership who support extremism.

Islam suffered a defining schism shortly after the death of Mohammed.
The Sunnis supported the choosing of Mohammed's father-in-law, Abu Bakr, as the first Caliph.
The Shia believed Mohammed chose his cousin and son-in-law, Ali, as successor and have been pissed off ever since that he wasn't elected as the first Caliph.

Then these two groups spent the better part of a millennium fighting each other over who should be in charge, creating splinter factions the entire way.

There are more than a few Persian Gulf states who are widely known to tacitly or actively support the funding of extremists. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Kuwait, Iran, and Syria are the first ones that come to mind. Some of them publicly condemn terrorism, but everyone knows that they do almost nothing to stop their very rich citizens from funneling money into the hands of extremist groups.

There's much more to be said on the topic, but I'll close by pointing out that your comments belie either ignorance or a deep misunderstanding about Islam and the Middle East.