The USA would try to keep it secret, most of us would never know.
You must be from Roswell, circa 1947.
Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
The USA would try to keep it secret, most of us would never know.
You must be from Roswell, circa 1947.
the Justice Department, said Tuesday that the department is "very concerned" by the Google's and Apple's decision to automatically encrypt all data on Android and iOS devices.
"We understand the value of encryption and the importance of security," she said. "But we're very concerned they not lead to the creation of what I would call a 'zone of lawlessness,' where there's evidence that we could have lawful access through a court order that we're prohibited from getting because of a company's technological choices.
Perhaps if the NSA, et. al., hadn't chosen to break/skirt the law by violating everyone's privacy to begin with, these companies would not be making these decisions now.
I'm all for law enforcement having the tools to catch bad guys. But that doesn't mean we should give up the fourth amendments protection from unreasonable search and seizure. If I break the rules, I get penalized. Law enforcement has broken the rules, now they have to pay the price for their overreach.
To use a phrase spoken by the president in 2009, this looks like a "teachable moment". For both those in power and those who are being governed, in this case.
Yeah, at first the idea of Lucas's script not being used sounds great. But then you have to just remember how awful JJ's Star Trek movies were.
Meh, I'll wait to see it before I decide. The numerous complaints I saw about the new Trek movies were that they were more like Star Wars than Star Trek. So I'd think that JJ Abrams should do fine with this one. Unless he makes Star Wars more like Trek. I figure what ever he does, it will be better than Episode 1.
The original Star Wars movies get a hell of a boost from nostalgia too. When they were released, there was nothing quite like them. The special effects were amazing. But the story was really nothing original, and the acting (particularly in the first one) was passable, but not great. They were made for kids for the most part. I'm not sure why everyone seems to forget that now. Unfortunately for George Lucas, we all grew up. So making the last three episodes for the same age group pissed off a lot of the very vocal diehard Star Wars fans. My 11 year old loves the new movies much more than the original three.
I enjoyed the new Trek movies, but they were nothing like Star Trek in my mind. The comparison to Star Wars was, at least, somewhat valid. At least JJ Abrams won't print scenes with lines that were delivered as poorly as they were in Episode 1-3.
Right, because I want to be the customer who has their food spiked by someone who was high or under the influence because they thought it would be funny. Imagine them sprinkling crack or LSD on food and someone has a reaction or leaves in their car and has an accident. That's totally hilarious.
Nice straw man there.The likelihood of someone being high and having these drugs on them means they are probably using them. I seriously doubt a crackhead is going to waste crack by pulling a practical joke on someone they don't even know. I don't even know how diminished the effects of crack would be by ingesting it versus smoking it, but I'd guess it would be considerable. Do you really think such a person is going to waste something that they enjoy or are addicted to in such a way?
If you are asserting that someone would be high on another drug and acquire these first and then take them to work with the intent to do this. It's very unlikely that because a person was high that they would chose to do this. That would take planning and it's pretty unlikely that someone is going to plan all this out simply because their judgement was impaired. They would have to have some serious underlying mental issues to begin with.
There are clear lines between what is personal and what affects the job. If you take drugs it'll likely affect your work and health costs (still somewhat paid for by the company) - that means the company has a valid interest.Â
Those lines are not all that clear. What if you are overweight? That too takes a toll on one health. Can a company mandate you exercise regularly and eat only healthy foods? What about medical conditions? Do they have the right to know about a congenital heart condition? These things may be just as likely, or more so, to affect job performance and insurance costs than someone smoking a joint on the weekend.
A mutation in the DNA undoes the genetic engineering and we've got a new strain of e. coli in the wild.
No, that could never happen. Just like those Monsanto strains that can't pollinate other crops.
As Jurassic Park taught us, we're perfectly safe as long as they didn't splice in any frog DNA.
There is no way a manual transmission isn't more efficient in most cases, providing you drive them correctly.
And that is the issue. many people don't drive them for efficiency. Not that I'm saying that some don't. I know myself better. I was a gear head in my youth. When I drive a standard, I have a really bad habit of trying to keep the engine revving in it's power band at all times. Particularly if I'm in a low horsepower car. For whatever reason, I subconsciously expect anything with a standard transmission to have the 400+ horsepower V8 I was used to my cars having back then.
Manual transmissions are lighter, cheaper to build, and have lower operating losses (no torque converter and hydraulic pumps to run). Now if you drive a manual wrong and don't shift at the right times, MPG could be bad, but on the highway where shifting isn't done, you are going to literally drive away from an automatic efficiency wise..
Perhaps with older transmissions. But automatics have had lock up torque converters (commonly) for at least 20 years.If you have an automatic with one, the mileage will be virtually identical in the case you describe. The extra weight of the automatic is about the only difference.
Oh, and a manual transmission will last a LOT longer and cost you a lot less to maintain than that automatic.
I can't say what modern transmissions are like as I don't push my cars like I did when I was younger. But traditionally, automatics have been much tougher. Plus they don't have a clutch and pressure plate that need to be replaced, or a flywheel that needs to be replaced or resurfaced either. It's also fun to discover the importance of a blow proof bell housing (the hard way) in a manual. I've never had clutch fragments come flying through the floor boards and interior of a car with an automatic. I wish I could say otherwise about standard transmissions.
Standard transmissions have built in wear items. If you don't beat the piss out of your car, use a good synthetic ATF, and change it regularly, an automatic is pretty damn cheap.
I was never really into drag racing, but those guys still prefer the 2 speed automatic Powerglide transmissions. They're easy to work on, and are tough enough to make 100 to 150 runs before needing to be rebuilt. Which takes 2 to 3 hours if you know what you're doing.
Aluminum is not the greatest conductor, copper is better and then silver and gold
Actually silver and copper are better conductors than gold. But depending on the usage, gold can be a better choice because it doesn't oxidize (easily).
So if the lens is great, you don't care if you use it with an old ~1 megapixel camera with a noisy sensor that requires long exposure times in reasonable light settings? Countering the idea that megapixels don't matter isn't the same as saying they are the only thing that matters.
Exactly how many 1 megapixels cameras like you described does Canon or Nikon have in their current available DSLR model line? I think the lowest is the $400 Rebel T3 at 12 MP. Everything else is 18 or higher.
The Canon 1D was 4MP from back in 2001. The 10D was 6MP and released in 2003. While neither of those would be fantastic by today's standards, they still aren't as bad as what you described. I still shoot using a Canon 40D at 10MP fairly often. It's smaller and lighter than a full frame camera.
I just want to know how sitting on my ass all day increases my chance of being eaten by a shark by 15 to 20 percent.
You don't stand a chance against a Land Shark if you're sitting down.
Only gadget guys obsessed with numbers would buy a Samsung camera. Photographers just don't care about nm and megapixels.
What an idiot.
Really? So if the numbers look great in the die size of the sensor and the megapixels, but the lenses front focus that's OK? Or they have twice the megapixels on the sensor and the glass is soft outside of the center of the FOV? Focus speed is insanely important to sports photographers. All the megapixels in the world aren't going to change that.
Professional photographers, and most amateurs will tell you to purchase good glass. camera bodies are temporary. Canon and Nikon have the majority of the high-end market for a reason. I can purchase the Canon 24-70mmL lens for around $2K. It will fit on virtually every Canon DSLR that I'd consider using. Anything from a couple hundred dollar Rebel APS to a full frame 5D mark3 for 3 grand.
Will Samsung still be doing that in five years? I don't know. So for most serious hobbyists, to pro photographers, it's simply a big risk. After Samsung has been in the market for a few years, this may change. But not for someone who has half a dozen or more pro grade lenses. You don't toss $20K+ worth of lenses simply because some newcomer to the market puts out a new sensor.
"We cannot have companies discharging untreated waste water into our environment, contributing to illness and, worse, antibacterial resistance. We cannot accept that rivers in India show higher concentrations of active antibiotic than the blood of someone undergoing treatment."
I'm just happy that Monsanto is not one of these drug companies. They'd probably sue everyone on the planet for drinking water that may contain their product and not paying for the privilege of consuming their pollutants.
The gent who wakes up and finds himself a success hasn't been asleep.