Datasets:

jkruk

/

tech-data

like 0

That is a belief. You cannot take into account everyone/anything that uses scientific method. You cannot take into account how one understands. Maybe it works this way for you, but you are not the standard. It's ironic, because not only have you stated a belief in an attempt to state a fact, but your belief alienates those who don't fall in place with your "belief". Just like religion. I mean, after all, you have to believe in scientific methods validness. Knowledge is defined as true justified belief. Along with the other two requirements, our only way of gaining knowledge is, you guessed it, believing. In other words, our only way of gaining understanding of fact is to believe the statements which express said fact. Facts exist in nature. We as humans are not built in a way to perceive nature "naturally", but only through the bias we call ourselves. Every single scientist, fundamentalist, and so on can only believe in statements which are BELIEVED to lay parallel to fact.

Same here. I was actually kinda disappointed, but on the other hand I should know better since I spent quite some time in journalism. A lot of people don't go past the tittle (guilty...), so you have to improvize a bit. "Group of civilians get access to old NASA satellite" tells too much and it isn't mysterious enough to read past the tittle, because you get the

What I'm talking about, I'm sure doesn't exist in the world..yet. Scenario: My computer is at my desk and the phone is kept next to it. I want to be able to use my fingers to physically pick the file up from my computer. Till I don't keep the file anywhere, it's in my hand; such that I can see an icon in my palm. What I mean by throw the file is that I want to treat the file like a physical object. When I take this file to my phone and drop my file on my phone, I want it to be there in my file manager. By dropping the file, I mean I use my fingers to actually hold the file.

Your average lower class citizen, i.e. most citizens, isn't going to be trading on the stock market. They buy lotto tickets and do slots. I do know that addiction to investments is a real thing, but it effects far, far fewer people. It might be the same ratio, but the fact is that 10s or 100s of times more people play video poker than play the stock market. And also, when gambling, the house always wins, the odds are never in your favor. For just about anyone gambling is always a bad investment, unless you are some sort of pro poker player. The stock market is not like that. It isn't 100% that you will win, but if you stay in long enough, you'll probably make money. Not true at all with gambling. edit: Also, it is people's jobs to trade stocks for clients and whatnot. It is no one's job to go play the slots.

The conspiracy section the guy was likely charged under (18 USC Chapter 63 §1349) was inserted into the US Code in 2002. The bill doing so was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 . It was passed in the Senate by a voice-vote (so no roll call was made and we can't tell who voted for or against it). Of the 90 "No" votes on the intial in the House, two were Republicans (including Ron Paul). The bill was signed by Republican President George W. Bush. The other law he's charged under (for wire fraud), 18 USC Chapter 63 §1343, was created in 1952, under 82 Public Law 555. The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Truman, a Democrat, was President at the time. So, yes, the Democrats did create a statute to prohibit "fraud by wire, radio, or television" in the 1950s. The Republicans made it illegal to conspire or attempt this type of fraud in 2002, in response to the Enron collapse. It has absolutely nothing to do with either party letting cable companies write laws prohibiting you from committing fraud against them.

IT Auditing is a security and privacy function, not a fiscal one. Err. Thats kinda both correct and incorrect. External Auditors typically only look at systems that impact financial statements as a part of the annual SoX financial statements audit. (in that sense, external audit of sox systems is a fiscal function because in order for external auditors to rely on systems that produce financial statements - the must be comfortable with security and other IT controls) This is because external auditors are primarily concerned with financial statement risk only. >The failure has been deemed serious enough that for three years in a row, finance teams have spent the last 45 days of each year testing whether financial numbers are correct. In this case, it appears that the external auditors handled the known security issues properly, by spending an extra time to perform substantive testing over the numbers where systems could not be relied upon for accuracy of their reports because of the security issues. There can be cases where management would ask external auditor for assistance with systems that pose an operational risk (ie. systems that do not impact the financials) because they may lack in house expertise. However, that work would be incremental to the financial statement audits. > I work for a very large Aussie company, who have to be SoX compliant for USA operations. We Audit all our systems, not just the financial ones. Internal IT Audit however often looks at both financially significant (in scope SoX) and non financially significant applications. That is because non financially significant applications (those that do not directly impact financials) can still cause regulatory, operational and reputation risk. I think an okay (imperfect) example, is that an external auditor would not look at all aspect of the SONY PSN Network systems (technically they would look as some PSN systems because they are financially significant, as they generate numbers that goes to the digital sales line items on the statements statements). An external auditor however, would not look at the security privileges for the developers network as it technically could not impact the accuracy of reports used to compile financial statements. None the less, an Internal IT auditor would have been wise to look at that (captain hindsight, etc) since the security flaws in non financially significant systems caused sony great damages (interrupted operations, damaged reputation, lost sales, customer dissatisfaction, exposed to lawsuits, regulatory risk). Sony's financial statement will accurately reflect these damages. Nonetheless, an effective internal audit review of the security could have theoretically prevented or minimized some of the other risks.

What ever, you are obnoxious and condescending. This ends here, enjoy the high chair. And you're angry at being told that you're horribly ignorant. Is there a substantive point in there? > Yeah just twist what i say to suit our argument that i fundamentally dont know what I'm talking about because i dont have a solution. You don't know what you're talking about because you don't know what you're talking about . That you don't have a solution is a result of this. > Mind you, you dont need to know the solution to problem to understand that another proposed solution is wrong. One can know someting is incorrect without knowing what the correct answer actually is. This is sometimes correct. Sometimes . Not universally. Now, the correct answer is for companies to be responsible and respond to security hole reports by fixing the holes immediately and thanking the people who told them. This clearly doesn't work. What you want is something that achieves the same effects as embarrassing the company into fixing their shit via an exploit without an actual exploit. There is a fundamental problem with this desire. Specifically, live exploits are only as embarrassing as they are because they affect customers. Take away the bit where people are involved, and it ceases to be embarrassing.

The main problem with CFL lightbulbs is that they contain mercury (about 5mg per bulb). What happens when these bulbs are finished with ? Landfill. It makes me weep for humanity that we could ever have let these things be sold, let alone legally forced their adoption on environmental grounds (as in the UK having banned incandescents) The other problem I have with CFL's is that for any country that experiences a cold winter (ie you need to heat your house), the heat given off by incandescent bulbs is actually contributing slightly to the heating of your house. Get a more efficient bulb and your other heating systems need to take up the slack. If you're running electric heaters in your house, you're not going to save anything by switching to highly poisonous CFL bulbs. If you're running gas heating, you're only going to save the different in cost (financial or environmental) between a thermal unit of gas and the equivalent in electricity.

All modern fluorescent lights (excluding some dirt cheap fixtures) use electronic ballasts which operate the lamps at very high frequencies. Where old fluorescent lights operated at 60 Hertz, modern ones operate at about 40,000 Hertz and thus you will never see them flicker unless something is wrong with them. This applies to CFLs as well as Linear tubes

Because this isn't an issue that Wikipedia can be neutral on, nor does it have it in its self interest to do so. SOPA would allow Wikipedia to be shutdown after one copyright complaint, and Wikipedia gets tons of copyright complaints. The point is that if SOPA passes, Wikipedia is dead, so it is better to cut off access now in the hopes of stopping it rather than just die with a whimper. Second, enough people use Wikipedia daily that doing so would cause at least some outrage. It might be better if a company like CNN did this (footage sent in from the public could easily be copyrighted and sent in falsely, at which point someone with the proper copyright claim could shut down CNN). Any Internet company which has user generated content is threatened by SOPA, once SOPA passes they are simply one complaint away from being shut down. Now I suspect the plan is to use SOPA and shutdown as blackmail to get money from other companies, but there should be massive public outrage on the internet. Hell even Reddit could be shut down if someone made a copyright claim on one of those memes that keep showing up.

As someone who worked in advertising, I can say that this line is principally used in a pitch. It isn't meant to be taken literally (thought I'm sure everyone here realizes this). The adage (get it?) we used to use was "what do we want to say, to who, and where?". The biggest issue in advertising is in all truth those who aren't experts ie anyone who doesn't work in a good agency making decisions. A piece of advice for anyone who has, or one day may have an organization looking to advertise. Don't do it yourself, get an agency. Tell them everything and tell the quick. Give them a brief of exactly what you want to happen and how much money you have. No bullshit. The biggest issue is client side execs who play games, or think you are out to gouge them so they dont tell you how much they have to spend. Trust your agency. If you have picked a good agency, let them do their job. Don't change the art, don't change the copy, don't fiddle with the spots. You actually dont know better. You may think you do, you may think you know your audience and what they want but more often than not - you are incredibly misguided.

The article you linked to plagiarized [this.]( From the original article: >Our next step is to faithfully playback the original sounds of dolphins by using the dolphin speaker. Once the dolphin speaker is completed it will enable us to playback a variety of dolphin sounds to dolphins, which will help to broaden the research of their acoustic abilities. What this means is that the breakthrough was in the creation of a speaker capable of reproducing dolphin sounds. That's it. No talk of dolphins having a language, or of scientists "talking" to dolphins. I'm not sure if you read the ExtremeTech article and linked to it without doing any fact-checking or even thinking about what you had read (seriously, the ET article was poorly-written garbage), but I would strongly urge you to discontinue using that site as a source of information, and I would urge Redditors to stop upvoting... the title is spreading false information.

This misses the point. Typical Asian manufacturer claiming a bigger = better world first. Any monitor this wide that is not curved is wasted for desktop use. Your eyes are not equidistant from all parts of the screen so text and UI elements at the edges of a very wide screen become harder to read! I find myself repositioning my chair even on a 30" 16:9 display, which is ridiculous. Now if LG made an affordable curved screen like this, now that would be something!

I've seen this argument before, as it comes up fairly often when there is talk about HBO and pirating: HBO should just give the choice to instant legal downloads. With the choice of legal downloads there would be much less incentive of subscribing to HBO, and they make a lot of money through subscriptions. You couls just pick and chose the show you want to watch, pay let's say 1 dollar per episode, this maybe paying like 10 dollar per month for your favorite TV shows, instead of the rather hefty subscription price. But maybe this could be countered with the fact that a lot more people would pay for each episode of good TV shows, instead of pirating. But the real kicker is, at least IIRC from another thread about this, is the amount of money the cable provider/networks? pay for the right to show HBO. I'm not American, so this whole business model is a bit foreign to me, and honestly I don't really know how this all works. But the main part is that HBO gets a lot of money from someone , and without the incentive to watch HBO, as you could just legally download your favorite shows right after the air date, these third parties wouldn't nearly pay that amount of money.

I suspect you'll get a lot of replies from DRM apologists as well as tin foil jokes but I'm right there with you. I make a respectable living and the cost of most media and the process of stripping DRM are trivial but I absolutely refuse to support that business model. At this point I won't even buy commercial music because even without DRM it seems to me like donating to the war chest of associations that are actively attacking the underpinnings of a free and open society. The lobbying efforts being undertaken with the profits from the entertainment we buy to "support the artists" are truly abhorrent. I can't be arsed to pirate and I restrain myself from impulse buys even when they do (rarely) make economic sense so I generally just go without. I did buy Louis' $5 stand up though, twice. I had lost my log in credentials. The only part that I really miss are ebooks. Tor is doing the right thing with DRM free books but they're a niche publisher. I've got hundreds of lbs of physical books I'll gladly repurchase as ePubs as soon as publishers stop with the bullshit.

The math just doesn't work out. $50/1000 pairs of eyeballs is generous in terms of an internet marketing campaign, but even with 10 million downloads (which is a crazy number because that easily exceeds the number of total TV viewers for most shows... i.e. walking dead has ~10mil viewers), you still only make $500k, and have to pay for content distribution network costs out of that (which are some serious $$$ to handle 10 million downloads in a short period of time) I say only because prime time ad spots generally run over over $100k during a new episode. If it's a popular series, over $300k isn't unheard of. That's for a single AD spot!!! So why would any network risk cutting into primetime ad revenue, hurt their own re-run market, and obliterate blu-ray sales for < $500k?

Also I feel the need to add this in addition to my other comment: the pill has SIDEFFECTS. Some pretty major ones at that. Common ones include mood changes and weight gain which really go together. But there are some much more major ones like on-period related bleed. That's right, you're on the pill and you can just bleed whenever now. Oh what? You have to sit in a chair for 5 minutes. Shit you're right that is so easier! Nausea, headaches, decreased libido also occur much more frequently than you would believe. Informing the uniformed. A girl I was with in high school had a real hard time going onto the pill, and her mother was forcing her to do it. It was kind of fucked up and had some serious trauma with it.

I'm glad they are doing this, but as others have mentioned yea much rapage will occur unless they implement the different "model" crap which frankly changes nothing. The only way to come out on top is to listen to the consumer and/or a change in business model. One, they NEED to train their associates, and I mean really train them on wth they are selling! If you want to beat out online competition play to your strengths and that is one on one real face time, now make that face time worth something otherwise bye best buy. Secondly for the love of god get rid of all the price gouging crap you sell there! No one wants or needs $75 HDMI cables and shit....seriously carry decent products that are a good value and provide an ok profit margin. You won't make as much on each but you will sell more of them. Also all retailers need to get with the fucking program that if I look something up on your fucking website, I want to pay that same price in store. Acting like the website might as well be a competitor is fucking retarded! You price match right, oh sorry just not yourselves! I have not bought anything from brick and mortar stores with the exception of mostly clothes and groceries for a while now because they are just stupid. I refuse to even step into Wal-mart since not only is 95% of their products crap then you have to wait in line forever because they have 20 registers, but never have more than 2 open...NEVER! Even during Christmas they might have 4 or 5 open...whats the deal with that why did you bother to even implement that many if you never plan on using them!? My local grocery store has the same amount and in a flash they will open all of them! I mean I literally stand in line and an associate will walk over and say "let me help you with that" and open a new register just so that no one has to stand in line. Otherwise they work as baggers so there is no wasted labor. Good service is what brick and mortar used to do, if they want to compete they will have to really be competitive in pricing and level of service. /rant edit: easier to read

Depends on what carrier you are on and what you want from your phone. If you are on AT&T or T-Mobile and want the true Android experience then get the Nexus 4. If you want/need a bigger screen and can utilize a pen then get the Note 2. If you want a blazingly fast phone without regard for anything else get a HTC One if on AT&T or the SGS4 with anyone else.

They needed a stronger launch. Constantly they kept trying to make the point that "gaming enthusiasts" weren't going to be left out in the cold; and that Nintendo could cater to the casual market while keeping the enthusiasts satisfied. In the end they clearly valued the casual market heavier than the "fanboys" and the enthusiasts, because in hindsight the lineup was paltry. The most "adult/mature" game they had was ZombiU; which struggled. They had a handful of "last cycle" titles, like Mass Effect 3 and Arkham Asylum; which was too few too late. They could have had Dishonored as a "recent" title for opening day if they made a nice enough deal. Far Cry 3 would have been great to keep the releases rolling into next month. Dead Space 3 on the WiiU would have been interesting, and would be even more amazing if they released the entire series as a 3 pack. These are just ideas that have come to my mind as of this writing; and I'm sure they would have been able to come up with even greater ideas. They could have had an indie market similar to XBLA, and have games like Fez, Super Hexagon and Hotline Miami on the WiiU; but they don't. Why didn't Nintendo, the company that literally MADE the home console market (not discrediting Atari, of course) not see this coming? Easy. The "casual" market is a new phenomenon, with new behaviors that have not been completely observed as they are still in the "first" generation (so to speak). Nintendo bet the majority of their chips in the casual market and placed a few in the "enthusiast" market (releasing ZombiiU and the like), and when they observed strife in the "enthusiast" market, they placed the rest of the chips into the casual market. Problem was, they misinterpreted the reason behind the "enthusiast/core"'s apathy towards the console as the relationship they would have had playing a "casual" console instead of the lack of interesting titles. This, coupled with the fact that the "casual" market behaved in a manner not yet observed before (the gimmicks actually confused them), and now you have the current situation Nintendo is in. A confused casual market who has already forgotten about them, an enthusiast market who forgot about the product even during launch, and now more or less views the WiiU as the butt of all jokes; and a handful of dedicated fanboys/girls who nostagically cling on no matter what.

They're making Wii U consoles at a loss. No way they want to do that to kill time until new consoles come out. The idea of coming out a year earlier is to entice users into purchasing the console. Purchasing a video game console is making a commitment, because you don't buy a console without buying games to keep it working. Nintendo wants to get you committed to them before Sony and Microsoft can get you.

As a guy who loves NES and SNES games (with a few greats on N64) I don't need to pay inordinate amounts of money to retread similar ground in those universes when I can very easily play the originals, which were IMO more fun than the latest incarnations of their flagship franchises. In the cases where a new entry is good, is it enough to justify adopting the platform (in a cost/benefit analysis)? For me the Wii was worth it for Mario Galaxy 1 and 2, and few other greats, but after that, it collected dust. Mario Galaxy was new and fresh. It shared some aspects with SM64 but it was really a leap forward for platformers and the series in general. Is Mario Galaxy 3 going to sell me on the Wii U? I doubt it, because Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 are so huge I can start a new game in those respective games for free instead of paying $500 on the system, game, and an accessory or two (ie. the price of adopting the new platform). So the Wii U needs another Galaxy-like "blow your doors off" game. A game that hasn't been done before and can only be found on the Wii U. They can use their existing character roster to do it if they have to, but if it's just going to be Galaxy 3, NSMB Luigi, Pikmin 3, Zelda Skyward Sword 2, then it's probably not going to be enough to justify the purchase price for me. As for 3DS, I own one and while I do like it, I find myself not finishing games as they lose my interest. I get a very strong "been there, done that" feel from everything they've put out on it so far. Lately it's been Harvest Moon: ANB. Great game, but overall I think that I prefer the pacing and simplicity of the SNES original. I put about 15+ hours into ANB and I'm just tired of the day to day mechanics of the game. The point is that since I'm kind of "meh" with the 3DS (I'm judging based on several 3DS games that I own), it doesn't give me any faith that I'll feel differently about the Wii U since it has a anorexic game library with nothing at all that interests me on the horizon.

Well, typically console companies have wanted to go with more niche processors to fit their own needs and desires for performance and certain features. The only exception before now is the original Xbox, which was made out of pretty much off-the shelf components in order to make it to market as fast as possible. Last generation Microsoft went to IBM for a custom PowerPC based CPU, which is closer to commodity hardware than most previous consoles (and Microsoft is great at making developer tools anyway), while Sony went with their own Cell CPU to leverage it's parallel processing capabilities. And to hopefully leverage their huge advantage from the PS2 generation and the difficulty of developing for Cell into a slew of PS3-only exclusives. Only they kind of shot themselves in the foot. The difficulty of programming led to a drought of good third-party titles for quite a while, and pretty much all the multi-platform games were developed first for the Xbox 360 and then ported over, leaving the Xbox 360 versions looking or performing much better. With Sony, they had to go with a more developer friendly architecture this time around. They learned their lesson. For that they could go with IBM (who co-developed Cell with Sony), or shop around to other vendors. Microsoft was in the same boat. For the performance we're talking about that means CPU vendors were IBM again (custom PowerPC-based arch), Intel, or AMD. For GPU technology you've got nVidia and AMD. Note that Intel and nVidia haven't been playing well together for a few years--that's not really what you want from such important partners, and pretty much rules out being able to do a SoC . I'm guessing it made more sense to go with a package deal from AMD for both companies.

6600 is good, but I have a feeling that the other posters claiming it is incredible have not attended grad school. A great deal of grad students in the US are on assistantship, which means they pay a reduced fee and get paid a stipend in exchange for work. The stipend is not a great salary by any stretch of the imagination but it usually at least covers the tuition fee. I am currently getting my MS in comp sci from a similar school (though not nearly as prestigious). And on top of that, a lot of employers in the US will pay for you to get a postgrad degree.

No, you're missing my point. I'm asking how you design the test in such a way that it can't be abused. I agree that voters should be informed. The trick is finding a way to test the voters that can't be rigged by one party or the other to give their party a boost. Again: Imagine I'm a hardcore supporter of one party and I'm writing the test for my area because I work in my local office. I choose to make the questions for my party things like "Where does Candidate X stand on abortion?" and the answers are "Pro-Life or Pro-Choice" Should be simple. For the other party I use the question "What is the maximum percentage Candidate Y thinks is acceptable for a city sales tax?" and the answers are 2% and 3%. Obviously we can't just let the same guy write both tests or there will be abuse. So who writes them? Who approves them? How do you determine difficulty? Remember: Each party has an incredibly strong incentive to ensure their test is easy and their opponent's is difficult.

What is a firearm? A stock? Does it also work on a paintball 'gun'? Dual purpose? The reason I ask this is one part of my family are FFL dealers, another part of my family has worked in law enforcement for 20+ years. There's the nice theories you talk about, and how this shit really works in real life. From my understanding of the law, if you have any part the 'could' be used in a gun, you have made a gun part and could be charged. What does that mean? How about a police raid where they talk your stuff for till trial. Then you get to spend thousands in lawyers bills 'proving' that no these were not gun parts. That's the way laws like this really work like.

Up until recently we only had mildly infuriating ones but now ARs and every other modern weapon under the son have been made illegal. Yet our pistol laws remain unchanged even though 90% of all firearm related violence and crimes occurs using one. Last year this could have been done but not now.

You realize pretty much 99.99999% of the population receives some sort of public benefit right? The only ones who don't are the people who go out to the middle of no where and live 100% off the grid/off the land. Do you mean direct money? How is that any different from things like special tax cuts or companies that receive bailouts or subsidies? How do you target corporations that get subsidies since they're not an individual out voting? For the 18 year olds being too young to vote, do you think they should still be eligible for the draft then? That we can draft them but they can't vote for someone who could protect them? What about those looking at prospective college and career options, and theres legislation involved that directly affects them, shouldn't they have a means to have a say? What about the senile 75+ year olds who have absolutely no idea about modern standards and foreign affairs, those still holding grudges against countries like japan and germany, or against blacks and other races?Shouldn't they be held in a similar degree as your'e holding those at age 18? What about the poor or sickly who can't afford property, but are extremely intelligent? Is it just a "tough luck, you weren't born to the right parents so you you won't be able to afford the right to vote" I agree that democracy is an inefficient system, that everyone being eligible to vote is a pretty poor system, but for one your criteria for elimination is possibly among the worst possible, it completely disregards the actual intelligence of the people and just assumes their intelligence based on certain factors, despite you specifically mentioning voters being idiots as the problem.

This is FUD. Traffic correlation on TOR is next to impossible unless very specific conditions are imposed. Tor actively randomizes and delays how packets traverse the network to counter traffic correlation. Likewise the influx of new users further increases the anonymity. This reminds me of the other two idiots that claimed they could unmask the tor network and when their paper was published, it was clear that they lacked a fundamental understanding of how the network operates.

This is due to the design of the vest. There are tradeoffs made between weight, strength, and mobility. Most vests are designed so the load of the bullet is ultimately borne by the ribs and body, with many flexible connections that serve to hold the vest in place but not to take load off the body. The vest is there to allow for a good amount of mobility and still spread out so the bullet does not do penetrating damage. However in that arrangement, the ribs bear the brunt of the load, and depending on many factors such as the vector (speed and direction) of the bullet, and the stance/positioning of the target, ribs may be broken if the target is in a less optimal position. If one could get the force on the vest somehow off the ribs and have it braced on shoulders and arm or some other part of the body or armor, then it would not hurt them basically at all. It would be akin to a strong push. This suit is talking about a more robust support system that also aids the soldier physically. Adding a support skeleton dramatically changes things and can protect the wearer much more than just a vest. Also, more padding could be added because the armor is not supposed to be compact, its goal would be to allow soldiers to venture for long periods of time and be protected from most small-medium weapons. Because the material mentioned in the article would not be solid when not impacted, the tradeoff in mobility would be minimized, and one could then implement a more robust load spreading design to integrate into a support skeleton which would protect the wearer much more. It would be complicated, but it would definitely work without breaking ribs, and with mechanically aided leg motion, one could definitely walk into a "steam of bullets".

This is incredibly stupid, short sighted, and more pork for some asshole rep's district. In real life, we are removing human operators because they're the limitation. We don't need pilots in planes because they limit what the plane can do. We're moving to drone/robotic warfare and 'robot suits' even if magically made feasible and practical would still be outperformed by an enemy that's 100% robotic. I'm so sick of our out of control defense budget. We spend 5x what China spends, and its mostly pork and shit like this. Meanwhile congress shuts down the government because there's an off chance an unemployed person might get decent health insurance. While defense spending continues unimpeded and NASA is begging for scraps.

Unless you change your bulbs seasonally, your situation is like most people's. More efficient bulbs won't provide as much heat-- but since they are functionally equivalent to the least-efficient heat source available, running your heater to make up the difference is at worst exactly the same, and could even be better if you have a heat pump. But in the summer, more efficient bulbs means less AC use.

This technically isnt extortion and IS NOT related to net neutrality. Many people seem to be confused about this, this is NOT a net neutrality issue. This is an issue of infrastructure. Verizon comcast etc do not have the infrastructure that Netflix would like to have in place. If one of those companies did it free of charge, the others would have to as well to remain competitive (theoretically). Unfortunately these companies very rarely compete directly against eachother. This presents a problem. Netflix wants to improve speeds to remain competitive with other options (DVR, maybe ondemand etc). In order to go further than they have they need new infrastructure, now. However, the carriers do not need this infrastructure. Why? Because no one else has it. Adding it provides extremly little immediate value to them but ALOT to Netflix. So if Netflix wants change now, they agree to partner with ISPs. If they help pay for the infrastructure they get an improvement on their timetable for their customers, which is what that 8$ a month is for anyways.

Well the first and most important part of this - Both ends of every connection pay for bandwidth. This ends up covering the full cost. Much in the way your cell phone costs money to you, and to the person you call, even if you already "paid someone to make the call". You both pay for access to the network . That said - consider it this way. the "internet" is just a term for the collective networks companies host across the world. The connections between these networks are called Border Gateways. A Border Gateway is like a tollbooth - it meters how many things go through it, and bills out for usage. Most people pay for bandwidth to the company that hosts their connection to a network, and then further the inter-connections of networks (inter-net). Now its always been a common practice that both ends of the connection (as our example) pay for the bandwidth -not twice, but each pays for half of the total transmission. In a situation where the source (netflix) is on one network, and the destination (you) is on another, there has to be a border gateway. Now as per our example, each end of a connection pays for 50% of the connection. this becomes a problem when one half isnt' paying. In comes Peering. Peering is when 2 ISPs need to constantly send their source customers to the other guys destination customers. Normally, two ISPs don't charge each-other for this service, as the benefit is mutual. I average 50 sources, so do you, so we don't charge. This is because billing each other for the same amount of money would get silly. its also a lot cheaper when you don't need to pay people to monitor, bill, and handle money for, that entire process. Now you enter the situation Netflix is in. In the peering arangement, the idea it that both sides send and receive the same amount. When one side needs to send a lot more then it needs to receive, Peering is designed to start funneling feels to the bigger source. This is done to cover that 50% of the bandwidth. Since the first company has no destination, they are saving the logistics and equipment time to move it around, instead just funneling it out into someone else's yard to deal with. A good example here is Solar Power and the grid. If I put solar on my roof, and Generate more power than I need, the power company pays ME for the extra power. if I use the same amount as i generate, the net use of the power lines is 0 so I pay nothing. If I use More power than I generate, and need more from the grid, I have to pay for it. Its not perfect, but its the same idea. Now you ask - but how does Netflix fit into this, they aren't an ISP? Simple - For most users, the idea of paying Peering fees makes no sense - you will never feasibly the amount of bandwidth required to run into that issue. You literally cannot purchase a plan using that much bandwidth. But - that doesn't mean you aren't paying for peering. Lets say your ISP is Comcast, and you pay them a monthly fee. Chances are, part of that montly fee is to cover the over-all peering fees Comcast may pay. If comcast is paying peering fees, who else but their customers foot the bill? Sure its not a line item (it would be less than a penny probably) but its there the same way those "free bags" at the grocery store are really just paid for in the markup on food. Netflix is involved because they use so much bandwidth that the peering costs are caused exclusively by them. Any peering fees would get past off to them from Cogent, Netflix's ISP. Now you might ask - But Netflix offered to connect directly, why would they have to pay then? Well because if Netflix connects directly to Comcast's network, they are just like you and me - a customer. Why wouldn't they pay for their internet access? That pretty much sums it up, but let me know if its not clear. i tried typing this at work while no one was looking. IT work isn't hard, but you don't get paid to look bored :D

I don't think it's just you. They also want to sell shit to developers. Plus, if you think about it, automated cars, and google glass, or other wearable internet ready devices need heavy internet access. The faster fiber spreads the faster things like chromebooks, and such can also get out there. But I'm okay with this, because eventually our schools might figure out that they can start sending a large percentage of the students through online classes, for free. And more artists, game devs, writers, film makers, etc will find out that they can just go digital with their store space. More craftsmen might start selling through etsy, or other markets. The more people making money directly the fewer people depending on corporations for their income, and that's probably healthier for our economy and the world.

Never be too assumptious, my good friend. While by many, I would be considered to be upper middle class, or at the very least "well off," being the product of a multiracial marriage, I've had a chance to view life from two distinct outlooks. And so, I shall briefly digress--yes, I've interacted with individuals within the ghetto on a regular basis, both as part of my volunteer work and my close proximity to such community. Your response engulfs a common misconception: the lack of motivation. While there may be a shortage in motivation, one must not stop so shy of uncovering the underlying cause for such. If you yourself were born into poverty, there's a chain reaction which falls upon you. Let's explore this idea a bit, shall we? Low income family will likely live in a poor, relatively downcast neighborhood. These neighborhoods are often plauged with drugs, prostitution, and many other deplorable conditions. While no longer a major common scene, there are still "slum houses" and what others refer to as "trashy trailer parks" occupied by the masses--regardless of their ethnicity. These neighborhoods have subpar schools, in part because well, who wants to live there? And of the teachers within the school district, who wants to go to work in those conditions? As a result, the best teachers end up elsewhere, why only a few of the best end up in these areas ( if at all ). In turn, the education for the next generation is subpar. Extracurricular activities, summer programs, and the like aren't readily available. You might counter by saying why don't they just get up off their butt and drive to the other side of town, but oh right! They don't have transportation. They either depend on bicycles or public transportation, neither of which are reliable. This again can be tied back into the school system, wherein a child must get up an hour earlier just to catch the bus to school, while the more afluent child can get up an hour later and have his parent drop him/her off within 10 or 15 minutes of leaving the house. Colleges look closely at the high school you graduated from, grades aside. Graduated from a bottom high school? Unless you've got something else going for you (and there are cases), you're not going to Harvard, Stanford, or Rice. Maybe a local community college, or a generalized state school, at best. If your parents grew up in the same setting, were ridden by poverty, drugs, and the like, you can't really expect much greater for their children. Even with the motivation, you have to take into consideration the foundational years when the child's motivation means relatively nothing, when overshadowed by their parent's right of choice: what they do during the summer, where they go to school, and what route they're to take towards becoming an adult. And with inadequately trained parents, well, the children aren't going to fall far from the tree. But anyways....

Obviously you have no idea of how kickstarted works, but the least you could do would be take a look at the Oculus Rift Kickstarter's page. I'm not happy with this acquisition either, but let's get it straight: They asked for funding in order to build development kits of the Rift and put them in the hands of developers and that's exactly what they did. Backers received their development kits one year ago.

Read the [original article].( >...we're going to continue operating independently , delivering what we've always wanted to deliver. This gives us a lot of resources to do what we've always wanted to do, but it doesn't change what we want to do.

By who/what, Welcome to the wide world of sociology, where we study society and what it says/influences and pushes on individuals. Did you know that Americans and Mexicans have different sociological ideas and believes? Did you know that these are not biological ingrained into the DNA of people? Congratulations, TMYK. Show me the variance in STEM candidates for males and females across differing societal norms, please. EDIT: check [this]( out.

Sounds like the justices are just going for the

There's about a dozen reasons why this article is moronic, starting with the author's insistence on taking clearly sarcastic jokes out of context and pretending they're evidence of the Court's stupidity. But to address the main thrust of the article, it's not a problem of Supreme Court technological illiteracy so much as it is a problem of legislative refusal to keep up with the times. If Congress won't tinker with the law as technology changes, the Supreme Court doesn't have much of an option other than find ways to mash new technology in to poorly-fitting laws. How else are they to do that, if not by analogy? These men and women are among the brightest America has to offer, and each one is staffed with the most promising young attorneys, helping them craft arguments and conduct research. Yet this author insists on pretending we're under the rule of nine technophobes who are simply incapable of understanding. Also, on the eBay front -- seriously, it's not like they invented the auction. They automized the bidding process and expanded the reach of potential bidders. I'm 23, and it's unclear to me how that's something that couldn't be done by any Computer Science major (or idle tinkerer).

A few helpful hints: It's called "cross posting" and is encouraged by reddiquette It IS an honest title, and is the submission's given title. Changing that can and is often seen as "editorialization" and IS frowned upon by reddiquette If you try and correct someone but are wrong and look stupid by doing so, don't be surprised when your ridiculous behavior gets you ridiculed. Before offering what you feel to be constructive criticism, make sure you're in a position to offer it. The fact that you've never, in 2 years, had an even remotely successful post, and the fact that you've in this comment offered advice to the contrary of reddiquette suggests that maybe you don't know as much about things as you like to think.

We as in you or as collective? I'm from upstate ny and I don't throw it in my drive way because it kills grass but the government is all let's make it rain deer guts on these hoes and they eat it off the sides of the road cuz all their grass is dead and shit.

Exactly, it's a mostly empty threat. If they do this then they're going to find their protectionist laws they bought going up in smoke and local ISP's and community ISP's will move in. It won't take long either. With companies like Google proving that laying fiber doesn't have to be the ordeal AT&T and their ilk claim it is, it would only take 2-5 years of real effort before at&t, comcast etc etc started to collapse under the weight of their own ... evil. I wasn't going to say evil but we've passed the point where I can think they're just stupid.

Ignore managers and business executives. They will continue to follow their incentives. If that means continuing to roll out network upgrades, that is what they will do. Remember, these people are not economists. This is essentially an AT&T executive putting their fingers in their ears and yelling "LALALA CANT HEAR YOU! IM GOONA SUICIDE IF I DONT GET MY WAY!" and with AT&T being a publically traded company I can guara-fucking-tee that not only will such idiotry be ignored and marginalized but should an executive actually try he be sued en-masse by investors until he is forced to quit and file for bankruptcy.

I won't trust you over the economists who teach economics courses; you do not convince. How about just recognizing the fundamental flaws in their reasoning? "X is a natural monopoly". That would mean that whoever arrives first with sufficient resources to do the job wins outright. That would be the definition of a natural monopoly... can be established naturally and no competing company can hope to break it. However, what actually happened is that municipalities explicitly established mandated monopolies. And why? Because of this argument... "Due to the expense of building out the infrastructure, investing companies need a monopoly going forward to guarantee (as much as possible) return on that investment. Therefor, the city will mandate the monopoly". Why would a company go through the hassle of negotiating with a city council over a guaranteed monopoly, constrained by many strings and mandates, if the market they are entering is going to give them a " natural monopoly "? That makes no sense. And the argument that such things are natural monopolies is further belied by the nature of most real-world networks. Historically, there is rarely a need or desire to roll out an all-encompassing networks in a region all at once. Networks get built out slowly over time. This leaves plenty of room for competitors to arrive in an adjacent section and do business over there and when their networks "meet", they begin directly competing. As long as the municipal easements are provided on an equal and fair basis, they simply do incremental low-cost builds into "enemy territory" and compete. Companies do this all the time in every other field; what's special about telecom networks? Only that the city councils hold the keys. Over time, the competing networks can completely duplicate one another. The assertion that two or three or five networks can't possibly make a profit in such a situation is unsupported by any evidence anywhere. A final nail in the coffin is the option for outside forces like Google that have financial clout to target specific markets and just outright invade. All you need is a warchest... and even without admittedly special cases like Google, venture capital is fully capable of funding such targeted strikes. So, this "natural monopoly" crap is both based on an illogical premise and furthermore has been proven false through real-world demonstration.

Ungrateful?! These bastards are robbing us blind, and I'm supposed to say "thank you?" I'm not even talking about super-inflated prices for so-called broadband "service" (using the term very loosely here.) In the past two decades since the mid-90s, ISPs have received hundreds of billions (that's right, with a "b") of dollars in government subsidies and tax breaks with the explicit commitment to provide fiber connections to every home, library, and school. Not the bullshit Verizon FIOS, not the crappy DSL over century-old copper, but real fiber wire ran directly to homes. They were supposed to complete this roll-out by 2006. Where is that service? Where is that money? (

Ellen Pao is suing based on her time at Kleiner Perkings. Among the claims are limited opportunities to become senior partner and smaller shares of investment profits. That is about the best

Facebook is a data-mining company which also sells advertising, that uses a social network as a way to collect all your data and activity. Facebook is a data-mining company which also sells advertising, that uses social networks, search engines, email, and the Android Os as a way to collect all your data and activity. None of their services are free , you pay to use these platforms with your data at the cost of your privacy. FTFY

So the best way I can form my argument is that I view the "Internet" as a public space like a giant park. Sure there are private areas but if someone sees you naked it's pretty much your fault. The Internet is no different to me. It's always been a public forum. At least in my mind. I have no ownership in any Internet thing. I'm paying to use someone else's stuff. Some you can trust and some you shouldn't trust. But it's still out of my control and hands and should take calculated risks when using it.

You don't want your incredibly nosy aunt to get to your pictures and show your parents and get in trouble for whatever reason. Then don't add her OR restrict her. > If you're a working adult who uses Facebook and whatsapp to communicate Sorry, you shouldn't be using Facebook/WhatsApp to communicate with clients/coworkers, that just sounds dumb. This is primarily what email is for, or an actual team communication app like Slack or HipChat. Sure, you can use WhatsApp if you want, but using Facebook for work just seems dumb and it showing a read receipt shouldn't be a reason to talk someone into leaving the site. > Or for various other daily reasons why you wouldn't want someone to be able to access your data. Like telling someone you're going to a certain place but are actually going somewhere else. Who hasn't done that lie before? Privacy settings. Or don't post where you actually are? > Or a slightly abnormal one is if you somehow have a stalker. You did nothing wrong. You don't have anything to hide. Except that stalker now knows your every move and he's waiting for you. ...privacy settings?! Is everyone leaving everything set to "public" or what?! > And again, if you're a working adult. And you're trying to get a job. I'm sounding like a broken record but PRIVACY SETTINGS . They're not going to see your private information just by googling you. As for demanding to see your Facebook, just tell them either a) you don't have one or b) piss off because that's an invasion of your privacy and they have no right to demand that and you have no interest in working with a company like that. > Or even if you go on a date. And right before you meet them, they've already Googled you and formed an opinion on who you are without even meeting you Jesus Christ, privacy settings. > And what about the targeted ads? What if you got bored one day and clicked on random shit on Amazon. And one day you had a to present something and turned on your personal laptop. You go online, and suddenly there's an ad for blow up suzy. Your whole meeting room sees it. Yeah, you can actually [opt out of targeted ads]( Who knew? And really, why would you load up your personal Facebook and/or Amazon account if you're about to use that device to give a presentation? Better yet, why would you not use a separate device OR user account on your primary device when giving presentations?

Well they do indirectly. The prevalence of nexus products has certainly increased the amount of exposure to adsense that people are subjected to. Anyways I'm not trying to debate whether Google is a tech or ad company. My argument is that it's entirely besides the point. If I refer to Google as a tech company and you refer to them as an ad company, does that complicate anything in the real world? It's entirely a [semantic argument]( and the only reason to pursue it farther is that you'd rather people use your preferred label than the one they are currently using. It doesn't change what Google does, and it doesn't change our relationship with them so I don't really see why it matters what category anyone wants to put them in. Hell if someone wants to say that Google is a design company that's fine with me as well, because again it doesn't really matter what label people want to use.

You used an email address to create the account. Anything that email is tied to elsewhere is now associated with your Facebook. Old posts from a forum you used that's associated with that email address, or a username similar to that are now connected to you. If you have a phone number associated with that account, now that's tied to it (even if you have it set to private, there are ways that it can be obtained. See any of the recent database hacks on many corporations holding credit card info etc). There are things that lots of people sign into using Facebook. These are tracked using multiple ad agencies, who, in turn, may be compromised. Now there's association of other activities not listed in Facebook itself. If you're logged into your account in one tab, and have a porn site open with an ad that's using XSS, direct association of you with what kind of porn habits you have, depending on what they're looking for. You may not have much on your Facebook, you might think some of the stuff I've briefly outlined take hard work (they don't, a lot of it can be and is automated) and you might use best practices. Not a lot of people are like that, yet are concerned only when the government is the entity doing the looking. The stuff I touched on is part of the tip of the iceberg. There are so many techniques for building profiles of people based on one minute piece of information that I would probably end up spending far too much time and effort than is worth it.

Californian here who has done a bunch of research into desert solar panels. There is a company that recently made a solar installation and they spent millions and millions of dollars to protect the desert tortoises that live in the region. They even hired someone who was an expert on tortoise conservation to live on site to help protect the tortoises. They did environmental studies to make a well informed guess as to the population density of these tortoises. Long story short, the last time I read about them they were appealing the powers at be to get an exemption because there were exponentially more issues with them than they thought. There were more tortoises, more accidents involving them which would lead to fines that were not a sustainable part of operation for the power plant.

It's not like that extra glass suddenly results in 50-60% less sunlight being reached. So don't worry too much about that. And in the future they will find out better solutions. Yes it's true, normal solar panels are way more efficient. However they are also not the answer on everything. A lot of dutch rooftops are protected monuments, there's a zero chance you can use them as a place to mount solar panels. Also a lot of roofs are not build to guarantee 100% of the possible sunlight to reach the solar panels, which will also lowers rendement. Neighbours can stop plans to place solar panels for a lot of reasons. Apartment buildings have too little space to generate as much energy as they need, same goes for factories. In the end it's a good idea to widen the possibilities to capture sunlight by solar panels. And as long the return on investment is bigger than one, it's a valid option.

Okay, so there's a reason engineers are saying it's a silly idea, and as somebody who is an electrical engineer I can tell you why. The reason this is seen as a bad idea is it is over-engineered. That simple. It could work, yes, but there's no need for it to work. Let me give you an example. The light bulb solved a solution - there was a lack of stable light sources and light bulbs provided it. AC served a purpose - it is easy to generate, easy to transmit and as time went on people realised that it could be used for far more than just "lighting a lightbulb". Now ask yourself - what does a solar roadway solve? It's not the lack of space for solar panels. There's plenty of roof space, floor space and all other spaces that are sunlit that aren't roads. It does not decrease the cost of installing solar panels - in fact this would be vastly more expensive because you'd have to dig up existing roads and replace them first. Placing the same solar panels on a roof would cost far less. It's much harder to link up and control all that solar power than you think. It's not a simple case of "just wire them all up". It doesn't decrease the maintenance cost of a solar panel farm. Any major fault in a solar panel would require the road to be closed which means it wouldn't make roads cheaper to maintain either. In fact it's not solving anything to do with roads, it's making them worse. It does not have the excellent traction ability, plastic deformation and cost-effectiveness of tarmac. Remember, a decreasing in the coefficient of friction of just 0.1 can lead to an increase in accident rates of 1000%. It's does not solve road permeability. Roads are permeable to decrease surface runoff - glass is not. It does not allow the road to be resurfaced with ease. When a whole load of engineers point out obvious flaws, it shouldn't be taken as a target to be solved. It should be taken as a warning sign that you're solving something that doesn't need to be solved and instead you're actually causing more problems than solutions.

Ok, I get the militant negativity here. This is a pretty stark reminder of the shitty solar roads kickstarter thing. And maybe this ultimately won't work, but it looks like you're just going into the situation assuming it won't and looking for any flaw you can. I don't know what your qualifications on the matter are, but that's pretty much irrelevant. Just because you have questions doesn't mean this is an 'idiotic' plan and the 'worst place to install solar'. All of your points are basically raising issues with the project, but none of them are impossible hurdles. They're all examples of why you need a team of engineers to accomplish something like this. Also, as /u/Azonata said [below]( you need to look at it from a Dutch standpoint. High density development and conservation areas leave little room for solar farms, so existing development needs to be modified to accept it. They are protected/hardened. The article states that they can handle pretty significant loads (fire trucks, buses, etc.) In the event of a chemical spill, I'd imagine it would only impact the coating they have for traction, as the next layer is glass, which is pretty resilient in the face of chemicals (which is why it's used in chem labs to contain most things). That's true, but it doesn't automatically mean they are rendered uneffective. It just means they're less effective than they would be without the protection. There are calculated risks that are totally worth it in the long run. An interesting point. Perhaps street-sweepers can be fitted with something to help with this issue? Or perhaps the coating helps with letting things be rinsed off by rain. The article doesn't really say. Yes, it is glass, with a special coating to give adequate traction to vehicles. In the first test a small section of the coating shrank and came off due to temperature fluctuations, so a better coating is in development right now. It still let enough light through to generate 70Kwhr/m^2 /year. That's not exceptional in any way, but it's something. true.

There are enough arguments in the "Solar Freaking Roadways" controversy that clearly explain why this is not feasible in any kind of scale that would earn you back the investment. Therefore IN THEORY this is a fun and great concept but as soon as you apply reality to it, it falls apart. The technology that you speak of MADE SENSE when it was invented and was impractical for reasons that you could see would be solvable (and were, thus ... technology). Let's take flight, aerodynamics are still the same. You just had to come up with a way to stay in the air to achieve flight. And they did. Now the solar roads proposal is like trying to solve flight by inventing a way to make the ground softer so you wouldn't hurt yourself when you jumped off a cliff. Solar roads have problems that would require almost everything to change ranging from the way cars drive, the way roads are worn down by traffic, what glass can resist, how much energy you can draw from the sun, how to store energy, how to transport that energy, how to produce the materials needed for the construction etc. etc. the list is near endless of how reality would have to adapt to make this concept possible. And it's simply not worth it no matter how romanticised the idea is by people.

As an individual who suffers from sleep apnea, I'd have to say I have encountered many sleep apnea related businesses that operate with very poor ethics. When I was first diagnosed, I had to have three separate sleep studies. Later I found that all of these studies could have been completed on one night. But the biggest scam of all was the durable medical supply company. They ripped so much money out of my pocket, and when my insurance changed (ran out), my lease clock started over. I wanted to buy my machine out right and they wouldn't let me. I had to do an expensive lease to own plan. I ended up returning their machine and buying one on craigslist. Sad that there are such unethical practices used for something that had literally changed my life for the better.

The argument concerning the Instagram photos in this case is that since he framed the pictures with slightly-modified comments taken from Instagram, the juxtaposition of the photo with the modified comment creates a modified context and therefore this representation is a transformative use of the photo.

You are forgetting about (or don't consider) local networks and their local domains. Best practice for local domains is now to use the publicly accessible TLD (eg. .com) rather than .local or similar. This is fine if you want to host your own publicly accessible DNS server but that is in practice (unless you are an ISP or other infrastructure level provider) a really bad idea likely to result in [DOS]( The workaround is to use an unused sub-domain such as dc.mycompany.com as your forest (ie. local domain) so you don't step on the global root domain. Being that this is a transitional period, these workaround aren't always so obvious. Using the root domain (ie. mycompany.com) for web sites is wrong (www actually exists for a reason) but it is also very common. Usually people re-directed to www.mycompany.com but as people become complacent they come to make the assumption that this error (with workaround) is actually correct. I suspect you fall into this category.

Sure, when they were the underdog. Sadly, while we're sympathetic to underdogs, they often have a bad habit of - just as soon as they stop being underdogs - becoming over dogs, and acting exactly as badly as the people we used to defend them against. Look at Apple. Look at Israel. Look at the phenomenon of the "cycle of abuse" where abused kids often grow up to become abusers themselves. Apple were no different to most underdogs; it's easy to point fingers and take the moral high-ground when you have no power - the real test of character comes when you gain power, and have to decide what to do with it. Apple have failed this test miserably (though the signs were always there, if you knew what to look for). Google (for the most part) are doing passably. Mozilla actually seems to be doing quite well (although as they haven't positively buried IE, they're more like "equal competitor" than "overdog").

Here is the Wikipedia article on the cone cell vision. In there you will see a graph of the responsivity of the human eye by wavelength. The human eye can see red out to about 700 nm at best. Certain people can see out to 750 nm (at best) if the power of the 750 nm light reaching the eye is excessively bright and all other light is blocked. Where exactly you define IR to start is not a hard rule because it is generally considered to be "wherever visible light ends" out to about 300 micrometers (300,000 nm). Even if we consider IR to start at 700 it would only be under very certain controlled circumstances where you would even be able to show that you can see into the IR, and the amount into the IR you can see is meaningless because 750 nm light is emitted in basically the same circumstances as 400-700 nm light, making it (for all intents and purposes) visible light. When most people think of IR viewing, they think of thermal imaging (i.e. being able to see people or other "hot" things glow because of the IR radiation they give off). The range for this is 900 -14,000 nm, meaning that the absolute lowest range of useful light for this spectrum is still well outside the responsivity of the human eye. Even if your eye were responsive in this range, your cornea and lens actually absorb these wavelengths of light. This is an attempt to protect the delicate retina from high energies that could cause damage. Saying the human eye can see into the IR is meaningless and for all practical purposes incorrect by definition. The only reason that "visible" wasn't specified out to the absolute edge of human vision was because when the hard definitions were set we weren't able to accurately measure with that fine detail and didn't have the ability to correctly create the unreasonably complex set of circumstances required to realize you can see a little into that range. To the human eye even if you managed to get 100% illumination into this range it would just look like a dim red to your eye, nothing more. There would be nothing special about it when compared to normal vision.

My take on it is that there really isn't enough information about the technology for me to have much useful input on it other than the article was probably written by someone who only has a very basic understanding of the topic. From what it describes there is effectively a film detector that detects light, then a simple low voltage electrical system to convert it into a visible display system. It talks about integrating this into a very lightweight eyeglass system, but it doesn't actually specify many important aspects that would be necessary. If we assume for a minute that they have found a way to form an image on the film detector (microlens structures or some other such writeoff that doesn't actually offer a full explanation) in order to display it to the user they would need to use some pretty specialized optics in order to structure the waveform off the display into something the eye could see. For example, if you were to put your eye less than an inch away from your monitor you would probably not be able to focus on it (unless you are pretty near-sighted). This is because our eyes are designed to see things that are farther away. Light reflected off far away objects have wavefronts that are planar (have a flat shape) by the time they reach our eye. The closer the object is the less flat it will be; the wavefront will be curved. (The waveform is more or less always spherical in shape, but the farther the object is the more flat it seems over the area that our eye can see). If they have a traditional display system (like an LCD monitor) and just drop it in front of your eye, you won't be able to see it. They would need to use lenses or other optics in order to bend the light and make it seem like it is farther away, allowing you to focus on it. All this has nothing to do with the detection system itself, only the display system. The impression they were trying to give is you just put on a pair of glasses like you would with sunglasses and you can suddenly have nightvision, but this is most likely not how it would work. Unfortunately the article doesn't actually describe how it actually works, just an idealized view of the end product.

1) Success usually entails simply the accomplishment of a goal. 2) You stated: "I remember a time when cracking your gadgets was difficult. Yes you followed instructions from the internet, but there was always a chance it would work and you would break your system. This kept a lot of people from doing it." -- I believe your rant, or your spontaneous opinion, seems meaningless with this statement as you refer to a time where a "pirate" would read instructions of an internet website that someone else wrote and try to follow a step by step procedure rather than attempt to learn and understand why these steps must be performed. You freely use the term 'pirate' when the term you should be using is 'script-kiddie'. 3) I believe software developers are fully aware of their products being stolen and tend to view this in a both negative and positive light. People who can't afford, or have the will to buy, a $60 video game have the opportunity to download the title and still experience the creative art and game mechanics the company spent years on. Thus, the gaming companies are pushing for cheaper titles with purchasable DLC, or downloadable content. The people have spoken and the companies have listened. People want to spend less initially to taste the game. Once they've fallen in love with the title, they'll be willing to spend quite a bit of money on DLC. I.e., Castle Crashers hit one million players in 10 months at $15. With DLC, their profits only increase. Why develop a $60 game every year in which players backlash at your creation, EA Sports and Activision, when you can make a simple game for $15 and flood them with DLC?

This is awesome. Not that I've used it and found it intuitive or anything, but the idea is awesome. The shift to glass touch-surfaces brings the inevitable question: isn't inputting text worse than using a keyboard? From using iphones/ipads, my answer is 'yes, hell yes.' If we want a new paradigm of human computer interaction, then we need a new paradigm for input. If swype takes off in a big way, the next generation of tech users will think of word-swipes the way people who write in pictographic languages think of characters. And like modern pictographic languages, these swipes will contain recognizable phonetic components.

Whoa Whoa Whoa! If you're right then that means ARIN has the incorrect information on their page for requesting IP addresses! "STEP 7: FEES & REGISTRATION SERVICES AGREEMENT ARIN charges a one-time registration fee for each resource assignment, based on the size of the assignment"

A ton of Y2K bugs existed, and there would have been a massive headache at the very least. Fortunately people did their jobs and shelled out to get programmers to convert to 4 digit years. You don't hear of the crisis averted because this was a long period of time, a lot of people involved, and a lot of small changes. It's not news when nothing happens, and there wasn't really a followup to investigate which critical systems would have failed and in what way.

Okay, I see where you're coming from now. Although, I still don't think the what-if game is a problem. No threat is so unlikely that there is no reason to try to prevent it; it's simply a matter of whether the impacts of the prevention outweigh those of the harm. For example, if there is a one-in-a-million chance that you will lose your entire life's savings, then it would be reasonable to pay one cent to prevent that. It wouldn't, however, be reasonable to pay thousands of dollars. Back to the issue of net neutrality, I think the what if game is perfectly reasonable. Although they are diminishing, there are still many areas where, for whatever reason, there isn't a competitive market. Because of this (and other reasons), I believe that it's reasonable to pass regulations on net neutrality. The likelihood of the problem and the low risk of the solution mean that regulation is a valid option. Thus in this case, I think the what-if game is okay.

You should be looking for a new name, not a new logo. All of logo options are attractive, but unless you want people to call you "tp", which already has other associations in English, or mispronounce "Tahrir" all the time, you've got a problem. Plus, "The Tahrir Project" is a mouthful, and goes against the idea of twitter and other microblogging sites: brevity, with high content-to-message-size ratio.

The Tahrir Project" is just the full name (to distinguish it from the many other uses of the word "tahrir"), I expect people will abbreviate it to Tahrir. Pronunciation isn't terribly important for software apps, since most people are likely to communicate about it in written form. I mean think about it, many if not most people still don't pronounce "Linux" correctly (many say "lie nucks", whereas the correct pronunciation has the first syllable rhyming with "tin"). That hasn't hurt Linux's adoption that I can see. Moreover, its hard to believe anyone can't pronounce "tahrir" after how much its been in the news in recent months, at least among people likely to be interested in this project.

The thing that a lot of people looking at this aren't going to realize is HOW Cisco grows. Cisco grows in both size and depth mostly by acquiring new business. For example, Cisco recently bought Iron Port, most commonly known for their Proxy technology. They've bought companies like Linksys, Crescendo (Catalyst / Catos), and so many more; don't believe me, [check for yourself]( Cisco very rarely comes out with an amazing new technology that was developed in-house, they often look at what technologies are on the market, decide on what they believe will be profitable in the future, buy it, bring it in-house, and inject it with cash to aid in it's development. They've been doing it since they were founded. Being that Cisco grows by acquisition, they've become extremely good at buying and integrating companies into their core services. Again, take Iron Port for example, they acquired them in 2007 and it took almost no turn-around to fully incorporate them into the Cisco Business model. Why does that impact Layoffs within Cisco? Because when you acquire and integrate, you often have duplicity created. Where a company like Ironport had a support center, you've already integrated their product into your home-grown support center, so you no longer need theirs. Sometimes that duplicity goes right away, sometimes a company needs to do a full evaluation, take stock of the company, to be able to clean house and get rid of what can unfortunately be called, "dead weight". It's the nature of business, especially in the technology sector.

Being the skeptical type I wanted to test this. I selected freeware I already use and trust FreeCommander 2009.02b plan was to download from a trusted site (snapfiles.com) and compare with a download from download.com but damn - has download.com ever changed... I had to allow scripts I didn't trust and turn off my firewall and I still couldn't a complete download from download.com - and that was as far as I was willing to go

I read the entire thing, and went "What a fucking dumbass!!"... came back here, read your comment, checked again..

My other response was a bit dismissive and after re-reading your post I wanted to take a minute to jump back onto my "Education YES" train. I used to think like you. I really did. In some ways I still do but I also started to see it for what it really is. I don't want to be long winded on this but I think I can cover everything you addressed by approaching this from a completely different angle. So this is going to be massive. But first...You have to be able to differentiate between a diploma mill and a college. This distinction is extremely easy to make. Most colleges are NOT diploma mills. It doesn't take a whole ton of research to find schools that are worth attending. Go to a university. You don't have to go to an amazing one. Go to one that offers a program you would be interested in. Sit in on some classes. Are you busy? You can cheap it out, and do a 2+2 community college to Uni transfer if you live in a large metro area. I don't know of a major city in the states that doesn't have something like this. College isn't particularly meant to "set you up for the real world." It's a resource for you to use to set yourself up for the real world. If you're in college - you are considered an adult and it is entirely incumbent upon you to set goals and achieve them. To create a plan and stick to it, or alter it as necessary when things change (which they do). It's not a hand holding process. The training wheels are off. It's up to you to decide your major, and it's up to you to plan your future. There are resources to aid you in this mighty endeavor, but ultimately the weight is on your shoulders. You should feel pressure in college, not boredom. If you're bored in college you're doing college wrong. Ultimately it comes down to what you want to do. College is demanding like that. It's hard to be in college and not know what you want to do. It might not be what you end up doing, but you can't really roll around college without having some idea of where you want to be when you walk out the door. If you do, you have far lower odds of success. Not to say success doesn't come to people who just float around through college, luck hits everyone...it's a numbers game in that regard, but your odds are far superior if you have a plan and are actively pursuing it. Because if you know what you want - i.e. I would like to be a Research Coordinator at Tonopah Test Range (I"m just making shit up atm), then you should know what it takes to get there. And pursuing the educational requirements for that goal is only ONE PART of what you need to be doing. You have to get out there and make an ass of yourself. Take charge and get the answers you need for the questions you have. Cold call people that do the job you want to do. Talk to professors about linear/related fields and see if you can network yourself into a meet and greet with someone. Professors are huge resources. Start meeting people that are in the field you want to be and then drill them with questions. Because you know what? Those people will take a double lunch from work if you want to buy them a coffee and listen to them talk about themselves and their jobs. It's incredible. People fucking love to talk about themselves. So take advantage of that. This is also a numbers game. Not everyone is willing to do that and everyone has their quirks. You will find two people that do the same job for two different companies and their take on the position and their duties are completely different. The best part is how their paths to that position are different as well. But you'll see similarities, and when you've done this enough...you'll start to see what I started to see. Want to know something hilariously stupid that I did? I thought about psychology for a while. One of the many things I did to feel this out was go see a therapist (a good one, Yale undergrad, PhD from Duke). I paid him not for therapy, but for a conversation where he answered my questions about the field, his background, his college experience, his personal views on college, his personal views on the field, how his day normally goes (generally, nothing specific that violated any form of confidentiality). He loved it, I loved it, win/win. Later on down the road? Psychology minor. Good minor to have if you pair it with almost anything honestly. To round this section out - College isn't really there to just get a degree and as I progress here I hope you start to see why that's true. Certain skills are required of you in the world. Skills that, in college, will need to be developed. If you're in a class in college and a group project comes along, which is what senior year is all about and EVERY year for engineering degrees is all about - you have to be outgoing. "YOU - you're on my team, get over here." Take charge. It's your shit. You're in college, the teacher isn't going to hold your hand. You need to start developing the skills you need for when you walk out that door. You need to be able to walk into a company and take charge of your job. Take responsibility not only for your role but your integration into the team you are on. Do you want a job where someone just tells you what to do every day and you do it? Because those jobs are bullshit, boring, and they pay nothing. You want to know why some of your friends are not using their degrees? Because they went to school for a degree. You want to know why employers require degrees for jobs that don't actually need a degree? Because thousands of unemployed college graduates all went to school for degrees and didn't actually apply themselves and take advantage of college in the way I am talking about. So they are being passed over for REAL jobs. If you were the CTO/CIO of a company and you knew that there were thousands of AS/BS limpers (limped through college for the degree, no certifications, no individual side projects, nothing of value), why would you hire high school dropouts? And by the way, do you know who that Entry Level IT kids boss/boss' boss is? The guy that networked his way through college, excelled academically and plotted a path to a better job out of the gate by maximizing his resources. There are two groups of college graduates. Those that went for a degree because "that's what you do," and those that went for a career because the degree is only a part of the whole. Guess which group gets the job they want... Longest post ever. Sleep deprivation is a wonderful thing.

Consider it this way: you're taking it directly from a primary data source. Rather than collecting the data from news articles, journal articles, books, etc., you can point directly to a Reddit post and say "yeah, it's there." It's the same general concept as citing Wikipedia. Don't refrain from citing Wikipedia because it's unreliable - it's actually rather reliable and a good jumping off point for a lot of research - but because the authors are anonymous and unaccountable. The same principle applies to Reddit. I'm saying I'm a TA, and Procris is saying he/she is a college instructor, but on what grounds do you believe us? In fact, people conducting content analysis are studying hundreds of articles or hundreds of TV shows and produce data on them without citing a single one. Why? Because you're the primary source. You can show how you got the data, but citing something like Reddit is unnecessary and intimates only surface-level research/understanding on a given topic.

Hmmmm, I think disciplinary conventions might be influencing how we talk about how Reddit might fit into academia. As a textual scholar, Wikipedia would be unacceptable because it's attempting to be a secondary source without the credentials, exactly as you say. It's summarizing "accepted" views on a given topic (often not the most recent research), and rates things by easily accessible published citations. I would not accept any citation of Wikipedia in a paper and would, indeed, deduct points for it. The issue at hand is whether a citation of Reddit would be useful or helpful in a paper on social networking. It's probably possible to datamine Reddit for content-analysis studies you're talking about, in which case the dataset would have to be defined in the study (thus, in a way, citing it so that others could find it), but that's not what I think the poster meant when he said "you just gave me an A". For broad range content analysis of Reddit in general, treating reddit as a database, you may be the primary source; for specific textual analysis -- in this case the idea of a "duress password" within the context of a Reddit stream -- the post itself would be considered the primary source in my field. The poster claimed they were going to use an idea from a previous post (idea: a theoretical "duress password" function for FB). If they wanted to write up the spread of that idea or the bigger idea of the discussion of social networks on other social networks using it as an anecdote, a citation would be absolutely necessary. If they don't cite Reddit, but still use the idea, it's plagiarism and could be picked up by some of the plagiarism software that checks phrases against sweeps of the internet, since Reddit is indexed by Google. As anecdotal evidence -- which, when discussing media, is still a primary source, albeit a weak one -- it would have to be cited. Any student who quoted a 15th century pamphlet in a paper without citation would have points deducted in my course.

I would absolutely not take a job that required me to surrender my Facebook login information. I work in social games development and I was very careful to define with my employers that my personal FB account was not going to be used in any way, shape or form for work purposes - I had an alt account specifically for work that contained only work-related stuff (which is a violation of FB platform policy, btw, but virtually everyone in the industry does it). To those of you missing the point of the post - this tells you what you should explain to potential employers who ask for that information. "You may find out things which will then put you at risk of being sued for violating anti-discrimination laws." These laws, by the way, not only relate to things like race, sex and sexual orientation, but also your age, non-work related disabilities, marital status and some health concerns. Any potential employer is actually putting themselves at risk by exposing themselves to this information about you. If you look at [this page]( of the EEOC website, you will see that there is a section on Pre-Employment practices which outlines pretty clearly what should not be asked and what risk there is in determining that information before hiring someone. Relevant quote: >Employers are explicitly prohibited from making pre-employment inquiries about disability. >Although state and federal equal opportunity laws do not clearly forbid employers from making pre-employment inquiries that relate to, or disproportionately screen out members based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, or age, such inquiries may be used as evidence of an employer's intent to discriminate unless the questions asked can be justified by some business purpose. >Therefore, inquiries about organizations, clubs, societies, and lodges of which an applicant may be a member or any other questions, which may indicate the applicant's race, sex, national origin, disability status, age, religion, color or ancestry if answered, should generally be avoided.

This statement alone paints you to be the very 'type' of American that draws so much ire from people on the outside looking in. But the rest of your words typify an attitude that angers so many in the greater world. Your whole statement is infused with bravado and that most American of responses: 'Fuck you' (isn't that your whole healthcare policy in a nutshell?). Your whole rant reeks of a them and us attitude, with unqualified notions of what being a REAL AMERICAN entails intertwined with fairytale notions of the past. It's all just another romanticised idea of nationhood topped off with a feelgood, patriotic fantasy of a history that never truly happened. Really? This is the epitome of the reddit "I'm better than any American" circlejerk. Congratulations, you've filled as much, if not more, of a stereotype as you tried to point out. Specifically, you're trying to intermingle American policy (Healthcare? which is being reformed as we speak? Really?) with something about American attitude (a tremendous generalization). His rant isn't an us and them attitude, it's a commentary on the "I hate America" attitude prevalent among this community, and those like it (Young, European or similar, have never been to the US and have very little knowledge of it other than what they read on the internet and see on TV). It's saying that if you want a perfect nation, you have to goddamn work for it, and the US has a wonderful framework for that. Better than most others, actually. You try to sound intelligent by making obscure references, excessive punctuation, and not really saying anything but sounding indignant- guess what, we can too. >Your country was founded by rich, white, slave-owners who didn't give a shit about freedom for anybody but other rich, white slave-owners and were lucky in that they had rich, white slave-owning allies in the French who helped fund their rich, whtie, slave-owning 'revolution'. Since 1776 your country has displayed the utmost contempt for those bastions of freedom that you are so fond of: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (unless you happen to be a white and rich of course). The constitution, that Turin shroud of the American Republic, has never been upheld in any significant way since the ink dried on the paper. Everything you mention as laudible is little more than a dream within a dream, nightmares with a coat of Hollywood vaseline applied so you can ignorantly make statements about others who wish to leave or see the problems that are inherent within the system. Again, let me do this simply and call bullshit. Were our founding fathers particularly concerned with wealthy, white protestants (I'm going to ignore the slave-owners quip you threw in just for fun repeatedly because it's utterly and totally irrelevant- more unconnected rhetoric you're trying to throw in to fill your ideological point)? Yes. So was every other government in the world at the time. What, I ask, do you base your allegations that we have never followed our constitution on? You've said we have shown contempt for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but you lack any backing. Was this a nation, for a long time, where slaves were held- where perhaps those born into less fortunate circumstances are gasp less fortunate? Yes. Things aren't perfect here by any measure, but to say that American democracy is "little more than a dream within a dream" you're being ridiculous. To say that the constitution has never been upheld is equally so. What the poster was saying was that while this country isn't perfect, we're damn well trying and leaving you can thumb your nose at the rest of us is far from the solution. Look at SOPA, and ACTA- yes, they were suggested, brought to the floor- but they were also stopped. How? Democracy at work. Do corporations control too much of our law? Probably, but we're working on it- congress is working to fix that, and if we, rather than being apathetic, rather than acting pompous and above it, actually do something... well, they'll work a hell of a lot harder at it. This nation has problems, yes- not thanks in large part to malice or evil on the part of most Americans, but apathy: and that's the real problem.

Ok so I'd just like to say that while you are correct in a number of areas here (mainly the "Americans are people too" argument) and I do agree with you on a number of things you stated, I'd like to just ask your opinion on how the SOPA and PIPA bills were stopped. It would appear that you have suggested that it was America, and her people that stopped these bills; by themselves, with no help from any other country. I'd just like to inform you that we down here in Australia also did our part, signing petitions and other things that we could do, even with the oceans separating us. The arrogance you show in stating that America is the richest and most powerful nation is also something I would like to talk about, as, according to currency exchange in Australia; American dollars are almost identical (1AUD-1.04US last I checked), suggesting that American finances are falling on hard times (or Australian finances are on the up). Also, militarily, America may have the most EXTENSIVE military, with the number of soldiers, that the average American soldier is not trained as skilfully as quite a large number of other nations (When comparing the battles in the Vietnam War, 2,709,918 Americans served in uniform in Vietnam. 58,148 were killed in Vietnam. 75,000 were severely disabled. Overall, this equals 4.9% of Americans who served being severly hurt or dying due to the war [ 60 000 Australians served in uniform in Vietnam 478 were killed 2362 were wounded/injured/ill Overall, this equals 4.7% of Australians who served being sent home for injuries or illnesses such as malaria or dying due to the war [ I'm afraid that I could not find any information on current American soldiers training times, other than a TOTALLY TRUSTWORTHY Yahoo answer stating that American Basic Army Training takes 9 weeks, after which point they decide on their specialisation and then do that course for a similar amount of time. Australian military must apply for their chosen field (airforce, navy, army) and their choice/s for specialisation before they enlist. This application will be assessed, and if the person is deemed to have enough training (cadets, air cadets, etc.), then they may be trained in advanced military practices and their specialisation for 9 months before being allowed to serve overseas. If one becomes a part of the Reserve army and wishes to serve overseas, they have to complete the Australian Basic RESERVE ARMY training, which goes for 12 weeks, and covers the basics of firearm use, army rigour, and mixed martial arts for close combat self-defence. Once this process is done an Australian soldier who wishes to go into overseas military must also complete another course covering 9 months or more is undergone, but covers more advanced practices, as well as specialisation in their chosen field (if they are deemed to be appropriate for this speciality. For an officer, however, the times for Australian military compared to American military are, I'd Assume, very similar (one year onto their training over what they've already done)[ From the information I could glean from an hour of gathering information for this rebuttal, the Australian military is much more highly trained than the American military, but the magnitude of the American military would overrule the obvious skill difference. I cannot comment on the American government, quite frankly because I don't care about the shit one congressmen threw at the other in the last PR talk, but I know for certain that neither party in the popular contest for Australian government is suitable so I don't think it makes that much of a difference. All in all I think that it isn't about slagging off other peoples countries, just show pride in your own; WITHOUT SCREAMING DOWN THE OTHER PERSONS THROAT. I think that we should think calmly about these things, and speak not as a person from Australia and America, but as two people from the INTERNET that can talk about both countries with relatively unbiased opinions about one another as people. I would like to say that I do respect your pride in your country, but I feel that you took your pride a little too far and implied that American's are justifiably better than other races, and I would like to inform you that I respect your opinion, but would like to have a reasonable conversation with you rather than a heated arguement over which country is better than which and why. .

Sadly, we don't even need real names anymore. Even your own profile is open, as a quick google-search for 'zdiggler' is unique enough to pull your profiles at Adobe, Twitter, etc. If I had the inclination, I could find out who you are. The internet is pervasive. We exist in multiple places and leave trails. Unless we actively work to erase or muddle them, we can be found. We're all guilty as is made obvious time and again through reddit's personal information policy's.

Once DDoS are considered legal, I cringe to think of the botnets companies would create to thwart their rivals. Facebook: Hey a new social network has opened that doesn't sell its entire user database out. Lets just shut that down for a few days at a time until everyone gives up on it.

This seems like a bad idea. Assuming they aren't going to try and stop Anon from using it they -might- be ok, but also they might just get their website hacked and hacked and hacked by people that routinely take down and take apart much better and better protected databases. Also it could be a trap. What better way to lure members of Anon into the "open" where they might not be as careful. I mean, if such an organization really existed.

Anyone smart enough to do any real damage in the name of anon will be smart enough not to buy into that sort of thing. The Bad thing about anon is anyone and everyone can call themselves anon and are indistinguishable from the real hacker types. The Great thing about anon is the real hacker types are indistinguishable from anyone and everyone calling themselves anon. That is why the Guy Fawks V mask is so fitting. When they all come together you can't tell which one is the crazy motherfucker with a coat full of knifes and which is a child playing dress up. The cops and the feds are being trolled. Call your hack Anon and now they have to spend resources tracking down every moronic 16 year old talking shit on facebook and flooding with "LOIC" because... maybe they are the same anon...probably not... but MAYBE...

The guy running this business has multiple products with Disney characters and iphones on them. [iphone]( Disney 1 I get the feeling he doesn't have permission from either Disney or Apple to use their IP considering how protective they both are of their trademarks.

You can't shut down anonymous. You can't trap them either. There is no leader to dissolve the group, and their is no order of it. Yes, if this man has a website it is going to shit the second he opens it. There are too many anons to actually get rid of them.

I know that, but who's to say that the reality is what's stated in that article? For all you know, a governmental organization might be using a fabricated identity and business and putting on a veil of apparent stupidity to provoke hackers from anonymous. No individual is stupid enough to do this; Not knowing about anonymous is no excuse because he clearly knows about them, judging from the fact that he tried to patent their slogan.

Oh yeah, If he wants to eliminate a few hackers, sure. But keep in mind these few hackers mean nothing to anonymous, that was my point. My point was basically, if you take down these guys that get drawn in, they can be easily replaced by better ones. They were stupid enough to fall into the trap anyway.

they could use a uav for: scanning highways for speeders scan roadways for suspected dui's scan highways for dangerous debris in the road. (mattresses and surfboards find their way on our highways a lot) locate traffic accidents scan area's for missing persons when amber alerts are broadcast, uav's can scan roads quickly looking for vehicles matching description of suspect. assist ground units when serving warrants, if individuals flee the scene, the uav can easily follow them helping to keep ground units out of harms way scan areas of natural disasters for survivors... locate wild fires use the uav to watch suspects pattern life patterns. what time do they leave their house, where do they go, when do they come home. who else interacts with the house.. will children be present during a swat raid? with hall these shootings lately, help ground units build a picture where civilians and suspects are located. during a police chase, patrol cars can back off allowing the suspect driver to drive less recklessly putting everyone at risk. that's just off the top of my head. they can and do all this now with helicopters and airplanes. uav's typically have a longer flight time so having air support is more available than with manned aircraft.

There are a bajillion reasons, here are a few off the top of my head: They are classless shitheads, for example one of their "journalists" (I apologize to any real journalist for using that term) faked having cancer on reddit for giggles. They dox reddit users (track down users in real life) for comments they make on reddit and proceed to blackmail and harass them in the name of "journalism" (yet again, sorry to real journalists). They spam (submit their own articles) gizmodo links as well as all their other affiliated sites. On average their writers seem about as mature as a 13 year old. They have done stupid shit like walking around with a universal remote turning off every TV at CES (including those that were in the middle of being used for a presentation). This is why they are banned from a number of events, including Apples convention and CES.

One doesn't measure the quality of an OS by how many companies are backing it. No, but you can correlate the rate at which it improves with it. >WP8 has everything going for it, except that it is lacking in 3rd party developers. Android is an inferior OS, but it has the (big) advantage of being popular. [See above](

Someone hacked my paypal account and over the course of a couple weeks sold $10k worth of "stuff" and never shipped any of it. He got the money in paypal, xfered it to another account and proceeded to withdraw the money to a bank and erase his tracks. 6 months later I get a call from paypal asking how I plan to pay back the $10k I owe since paypal refunded all the money to the buyers. I worked with them (pain in the ass) and did a ton of work on my own, including filing a police report and starting an identity fraud case. It took about a month but I got it all cleaned up.

Engineer here, some of these specs are marketing bullshit. GDDR5 is just DDR3 with a wider data bus, apart from that, they're nearly IDENTICAL. Here's the funny thing, both the PS4 and XBOX One have the same system memory width that, weirdly, is the same width as the GDDR5 spec. Also, the PS4 is inflating their numbers. The quoted 5000Mhz speed is the effective speed, not the speed the memory actually runs. We can infer that they will be running dual channel on the PS4 and clocking their memory slightly faster, at 2500Mhz. Further, Jaguar doesn't support hUMA, AMD's unified memory architecture so there will be seperate system and video address space (read: performance prohibitive). Am I excited for these consoles? Not one bit, Sony and Microsoft are failing to innovate better than I can do in an afternoon with off the shelf parts.

GDDR5 is just DDR3 with a wider data bus, apart from that, they're nearly IDENTICAL. no. NO. NO I dont know what kind of engineer you are, but you are cerainly not a semi engineer. Basicly, GDDR5 is based on DDR3 but clockes higher. >Also, the PS4 is inflating their numbers. The quoted 5000Mhz speed is the effective speed, not the speed the memory actually runs. People always report the effective speed on DDR RAM, thats a standard. > We can infer that they will be running dual channel on the PS4 You have no idea what dual channel means. Dual channel is about the size of the interface, i.e. two 64 bit interfaces. This is only used for normal system memory because GDDR5 has 32 bit channels. >Further, Jaguar doesn't support hUMA, AMD's unified memory architecture so there will be seperate system and video address space (read: performance prohibitive). Both PS4 and XBox One will use unified memory.

Microsoft makes the ‘leading’ development tools, not just in terms of ease of development, but in compiler performance and GPU performance Debatable, some of their tools are good but it would be silly to paint them as the best > Xbox One is a unified architecture; however, you seem to think this means something that is not relevant Buzzwords really, doesn't the PS4 use the same unified CPU and GPU setup. As for the rest of the stuff about frameworks etc seems to have been mentioned to sound impressive. These frameworks may only be an advantage for porting games to Windows PCs. It's also not true that MS technologies are the fastest. > For a real world example, Windows 7/8 can juggle multiple games and background GPGPU operations without dropping FPS or inducing UI latency as the OS manages the GPU threading priorities and uses idle fractions of a second to squeeze more processing instead of depending on the game to keep the GPU fully utilized Most modern operating systems will be switching threads/processes constantly every second based on their scheduling algorithms anyway > WP8 where the UI is always using the GPU, effectively making the phone faster with a dual core CPU than even an 8 core S4 Not really relevant to graphical fidelity of games as they will access the hardware at a lower level. > On Paper the PS3 should have crushed the Xbox 360, in reality, the PS3 plays catch up This round is different as the architectures are pretty much identical except for the memory subsystem. PS4 has the obvious advantage here if specs are true. No amount of software voodoo could close the gap here > Can anyone here elaborate on some of this ?

This is fucking retarded. You have always been subject to wire taps with a warent. Except under Bush when you were subject to wire taps without a warent.

All this Obama hate is getting fucking ridiculous. Jesus christ people, has no one heard of the fucking Patriot Act? It's been around for almost 12 fucking years! It was passed into FEDERAL LAW. Does no one understand how the process of passing something into law works, and the clout it then holds? It's not like everything was hunky-dory before Obama took office, and now, BAM, we're wiretapping every little old lady selling apples on the side of the road. This is really pissing me off already. Could Obama have done more to prevent PRISM, FISA and the NSA's abuse? Probably, yes. Am I happy about how things have been conducted? Am I happy that Obama extended various portions of the Patriot Act numerous fucking times over the last several years, mainly in 2010 and early 2011? Fuck no. Was Edward Snowden heroic in what he did, blowing the whistle on this stuff? Absolutely, I think. Is ANY of this shit surprising? NO! It's been on the fucking books for YEARS, passed by the Bush administration, in plain fucking English, and then extended by Obama at various times dating way back to his early days in office, yet no one said a peep about anything. Not to mention, the Patriot Act is only the most recent iteration of legislation passed, or secretive operations where spying and wiretapping have been conducted. Is everyone living under a huge fucking boulder? Title II sections that were to originally expire on December 31, 2005 Section Section title 201 Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism 202 Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses 203(b) Authority to share electronic, wire and oral interception information 204 Clarification of intelligence exceptions from limitations on interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic communications 206 Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. 207 Duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power 209 Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants 212 Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb 214 Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA 215 Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. 217 Interception of computer trespasser communications 218 Foreign intelligence information 220 Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence 223 Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures 225 Immunity for compliance with FISA wiretap That stuff has been on the books, and essentially extended with differing language since September 11th. Barak Obama, for as pissed as I am about his extension of already existing procedure, DID NOT WRITE THE MOTHER FUCKING PATRIOT ACT, and I seriously don't get why everyone is so shocked now. The Patriot Act's provisions and ridiculous suspensions of privacy are not a secret. For as much as I appreciate and commend Snowden, this stuff was all passed by the House numerous times, but for some reason, now that Snowden decided to leak this information, everyone is in an uproar. The feds can read out emails if they want? They can wiretap indiscriminately? Warrants are basically toilet paper now? Oh, no fucking shit?! Furthermore, just to play Devil's Advocate a little bit here, what would happen if Obama did happen to put an end to the Patriot Act, restricting the essential blank check that the CIA, NSA etc has, and then we did get attacked like September 11th all over again? There would be a knee-jerk reaction even worse than the initial knee-jerk reaction that set this whole clusterfuck into motion. I'm sorry, but anyone who is acting surprised by this "leak" which basically has been on the books in plain English for years, had anyone felt like actually looking it up, is fucking naive and has their heads up their asses. The only way that Obama can begin to make this right is if he uses this uproar, which given the way the American psyche seems to work, will probably be forgotten about before the next season of the X Factor, listens to how pissed people are at this moment and begins a campaign to repeal the unbelievably subversive and unjust Patriot Act. If you're pissed, write to your congressmen, because that is where this gets signed into law. Force the issue, and redirect your anger towards the House where a vote can be brought to repeal this Orwellian, blank check of an act. And while you're at it, tell them to vote in favor of campaign finance reform, because until that is dealt with, none of this garbage has a snowball's chance in hell at being rectified.

Part of the issue is that even listening to answers directly from Snowden it's really unclear what the hell is actually happening. We know for example that cell phone companies record all sorts of metadata about your calls and that case law allows the government to access this data without a warrant. This is not new though one might argue that the amount of metadata we currently have might change the result of that ruling if someone were to challenge it. We also know that email as it stands has virtually no legal protection. Again this I'd wrong, but items it's current law and predates bush. We also know that with a warrant phone calls can be recorded and that this includes people who talk to that person even if they are not under investigation themselves. Aside from that we know that the NSA is able to intercept data and that control is done through policy and not technology. Again, while we'd all like a can't rather than a won't, anyone who has tried to implement system controls knows that in most cases won't with decent auditing is actually a lot safer since can't tend to be either way too open or way too restricted. What isn't clear is whether data is being recorded. Snowden refers to your data being recorded if someone you talked to is targeted, but that seems to imply that someone needs to be actively recording not that they record by default. We also don't know how long it's being held for, only that snowden believes it to be for too long. Again without knowing what is recorded and how that is open for debate. If you are a suspected terrorist's pizza delivery boy the call ordering a pizza might be innocuous, but holding it for a year isn't necessarily bad if the original warrant is good. In essence what the NSA is doing could be perfectly legal or 1984 and we can't tell. I have an objection to the secrecy regardless, but the anti government loonies have all come out of the woodwork and made everything a huge mess. We need details, we need proof and we need rational discussion, so far we have none of that. I'm concerned, but I don't yet believe that every conversation between every person on earth is being recorded by the NSA for later listening. Snowden hasn't even said that as far as I can see. Snowden claims only five percent of accesses are audited, that seems about right to me so long as it's reasonably random.

The way the government provides 4th amendment protection is by widening the definition from just official Citizens to those allowed in the country, etc. US allies aren't just in NATO. Auzzies and Kiwis are protected too. Edit: I missed your enemy adjacent part. Currently the US doesn't really have enemies. Yes there are ideals that are dangerous like terrorism and supporting terrorism, but that becomes complicated. There is no regular standing army or navy for terrorists. Their nature is to blow up a crowded mall or school and can do it anywhere around the world. The ideals that I would call US's enemy are Without borders, sneaky, and is used to harm the civilian populace.

If you are not a U.S. citizen, and you use any form of digitial or electronic communication, you can reasonably assume that at least SOME of that information is being captured. HOWEVER, what people do not know...and what is driving me bat-shit crazy on reddit the past couple weeks is that no one (because of confidentiality) is saying with provent fact, what is being captured. It is my assumption based on my own sources, that the information being captured is metadata consisting of numbers, times, durations, and very general locations. This information is probably never used. The only time it would ever even be looked at is when an investigation is going on and a trend is identified with a certain phone number perhaps. THEN, they will apply for a certain type of warrant, and investigate all the different communications that number has had. If a trend is identified, another agency needs to apply for another type of warrant and more detailed information starts being collected. Basically, if you have any understanding of the technology behind communication architectures...you would know this is all pretty easy to do. Perhaps the reason people are getting their panties in a bunch is because it is now able to be done on such a wide scale? If you are a U.S. citizen, you should be expecting other countries foreign intelligence services to be doing the exact same thing. I'm waiting for the day to occur where people wake up and smell the coffee: You are not anonymous in this crazy world-cloud communication architecture.