You've got some derp on your chin. Don't forget to wipe next time. Get back in the pile.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
F still equals m * a at the scale it was originally claimed to have been tested. Sure, for dealing with sub-atomic crap we needed somebody to come along and figure out that E equals mc^2. True enough. But F=ma is only "wrong" when used outside the original context. For human-scale objects, F=MA is still correct, and a more useful equation than E=mc^2.
Things don't become wrong later. When you think that happens, it means you misunderstood the claims. Not that there were problems in the claims.
News flash, sharks are vertebrates. They have softer/different bones than humans, true. But they do still have bones. Lots of them.
This appears to be more of a bringing "internet way" closer to how things are done in real life.
As in if someone anonymously puts up a poster on private land that defames you, you actually get to challenge it in court and if it's found to be libel it's taken down.
This is censorship in the same way as "not allowing libel" is censorship.
No, if a poster is found to be libel in Japan, it is not taken down elsewhere.
In this case, it is protected speech in the US because it is opinions that the reviewers believe to be true. If it is still not allowed under Japanese law, that is fine; I've never heard them accused of supporting Free Speech. But the idea that it would be taken down in the US is, well, "insane."
Yeah, they should just say "no," and make it clear to Japan, if they think the ruling applies outside of Japan, it doesn't. If they want it to apply in the US, they need to come here and get a court here to say that Japanese legal rulings apply here.
It is actually hilarious that they would think that, given the history of the past 70 years.
Actually, I think the US State Department should be getting involved at an early stage here. They shouldn't even be putting out preliminary rulings of this nature. Surely it violates our peace treaty for them to make orders about what happens in the US.
If the purpose of the app is not to manage network connections, then that is useless information. It is just supposing that you should check first, without any reason.
A key thing to understand is that checking if the OS says a connection is up doesn't mean your connection will succeed or that there is really a real connection. The networking technology is already designed to deal with that. You have to have error handling already. Checking the network connection first is silly, it adds extra code to bug out, and redundantly covers the same condition that the regular networking code handles. You may not be able to connect to the server. The way to find out if you can connect is by connecting. That is the same as on a desktop computer. I've never once encountered a desktop or server app that wants permission to fiddle or list my network connections before trying to use a network resource. You open your port and do your thing, if the connection isn't up, you handle the error.
You're supposing you'd have an extra helper app to do the thing instead, but actually you just rip that crap code out, and use the error checking you already have in place right after it.
In the case of a mail app, maybe a user wants it to be aware right when the connection is available. And maybe they're happy with it trying again after a minute. That is not a problem. That is a reasonable use case for the feature.
However, almost every app that uses the network wants to read the connections. The vast majority of those do not need the permission. I personally would let an email app do that. But lots of other apps I choose not to install because they asked for ACCESS_NETWORK_STATE and that isn't a feature they should be using.
They've actually only required the Government to respond to the case. They haven't, and won't, require them to "justify their conclusion." They will only have to verify that they are claiming a national security reason, and state the category of their objection. They already sided with the Government. This is an application for re-hearing, and all they said was that the Government has to respond to that request.
Click the link, read the pdf. It is one page.
Yep. We can have plans, and when the police are abusive, that too can be handled in the Courts.
And, how could a lack of planning somehow restrain police abuse? In your example, the abusive police would not have even been privy to any national security planning involving when to invoke the legal mechanisms to cut off phone service. That is all based on national emergency.
Just because you're scared of Obama doesn't mean that emergency planning, or war planning, is somehow dangerous.
If you're paranoid about dystopian futures, why would a lack of legal planning prevent them? In your fantasy where evildoers take over the Government and ignore the law... guess what, they didn't need to have legal emergency planning. Your fantasy's very premise is that they had illegal planning that went beyond what any law allows for. See also: Treason.
The whole concept of reasonableness of searches requires the Court to balance the conflicting needs of the individual and the State. Generally the individual is protected, because it is a big invasion of the individuals privacy, balanced only against the mere convenience of the State in desiring not to get a warrant.
If National Security is invoked, the Court isn't going to muck around worrying if National Security is more important than individual privacy. That's a slam dunk for the Executive. They're also not going to attempt to second-guess the actual decision about National Security interests. All they are going to do is general analysis; did the correct person in the Executive Branch determine the national security concern; and is the claimed concern within the Government's right to manage. So if the claimed concern is something military, or involving espionage, or international terrorism, then it is pretty much guaranteed that the word of the executive weighs more heavily than the privacy of an individual or neighborhood.
You don't have to like the Constitution of the United States of America to learn how these things work. Hand-waving and libertarian propaganda won't change the fact that the role of the Court in balancing these various rights and responsibilities is also outlined in the Constitution. Don't hate or ignore what it says, while pretending to worship it and consider it absolute. If it is absolute, then bow before the role of the Court here.
Because in Android development you're required to use a different paradigm that assumes the app the user is interacting with will be killed at any moment. So there is no important work being done in that process. The important work is being done in a background process that is lightweight and doesn't need to get killed when the app interface is killed.
If the phone status changing causes the app you were using to be killed (the most recent app used will actually not be killed then, but the penultimate app is likely to be) then that user interface just gets whacked. But the background process of the app won't get killed then; that only happens if the OS is truly out of resources and apps are crashing from lack of RAM. And even then, it triggers a callback and you have a few milliseconds to save your stuff in the background app.
So there is no connection between the phone status and saving stuff; and when there IS a need to save stuff, you get a callback activated. You would never be able to monitor the phone app from the front end process that gets killed, because the status would change first; the phone rings, the dialer app preempts your user interface, and you interface is already gone (if you're out of RAM) or switched to the background if not. And the backend already can get a callback to tell it that the front end went away; there is no utility in trying to figure out "why" because the whole programming paradigm requires assuming the front end interfaces will be killed frequently, and without notice. This is why there is a lot of emphasis on XML layouts. Traditional GUI apps it doesn't matter, you can generate widgets programmatically at application start. But with Android those would be regenerated constantly because the GUI part of the app is killed and restarted frequently.
Sounds backwards to me. The plans that are secret are NOT used for training unless the situation becomes likely to really happen. The plans that are secret are there to give guidance to the Generals when "something happens" and they have to give orders to start actual specific training for the soldiers.
A hint: the movement of troops, tanks, ships, planes, supply lines, that is what is *in* the secret plans.
Training is exactly what you don't do with a secret.
If your planning can only find one category, I'll be voting for somebody else to be in charge of planning.
No, it means he's a furriner.
In these scenarios, a compatriot on a hilltop is not a concern. They warn each other, no big deal, they didn't warn their nation's Navy.
Wifi, presumably the internet is also cut at that time. Analog phones, probably just cutting international service would be effective. VHF/UHF will out his exact position, and the other side if he is trying to confirm receipt. Also, that can be jammed easily by standard military equipment. Sat phone is easy to jam, too.
None of that refutes the wisdom of planning, those are just additional details that would be in the plan. Even if the plan isn't expected to be 100% successful, it can still be a plan. It doesn't have to be Plan A, or Plan B, or L or M. If Plan M sucks, that is not going to be a surprise.
Or, if you want to save some money, just wrap the room in chicken wire and aluminum foil.
Works for hats, too. And you can keep your phablet under the hat when not in use.