aes256

Guessing they were also systematically measuring the depth of the ocean around the area, as they make reference to it being "deep ocean".

In other words, they were seeking to establish that it's not an island that once existed and has been submerged due to rising sea levels, it flat-out never existed.

Not sure if it's possible (or at least, best practice) to do that from an airplane?

There have been more egregious examples of this with regards to piracy of pornography.

A few of the accused tend to stand up (grandparents who don't even own a computer, etc.) but I bet most just pay up to avoid the embarrassment of being dragged through the courts accused of pirating some smut.

Unfortunately this kind of retrospective format shifting isn't legal in a bunch of jurisdictions.

In the UK one commits two separate acts of copyright infringement by purchasing a CD, ripping it to their computer, and then copying the files to a portable music player.

Presumably the legal age of responsibility, at which point they become responsible for their own actions.

Depends on the country. In the UK I can't think of any cases of downloaders being pursued by the BPI (British equivalent of the RIAA). They have deliberately erred on the side of 'educating' consumers about legal alternatives to piracy rather than dragging them through the courts.

Heck, the authorities took down Oink's Pink Palace, arrested the owner, then ended up dropping all charges against him and not pursuing any action against the site's users.

Once investigations are complete you should have your property returned.

As absurd as it sounds, it does make sense to seize all property capable of storing data, and that includes games consoles, iPods, etc.

> If this sort of backlash becomes common, there will be a disincentive for artists to sign up with records who indulge in such nonsense.

Unfortunately this is the last thing on artists' minds when they're about to sign a deal with a record label, and that isn't going to change anytime soon.

It depends. There's working 'hard' (maximum hours, maximum effort, maximum stress, etc.) and there's working smart.

There's no point working hard if you're not working smart; if your priorities are wrong, you're trying to do too much, or ultimately, you're pouring your heart and soul into a business that just isn't viable.

OED defines activism as: "The policy of active participation or engagement in a particular sphere of activity; spec. the use of vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change."

Most contemporary terrorists (Islamic extremism being the most salient example) are not terrorizing people for the fun of it. They want to bring about political or social change. The 9/11 terrorists objected to U.S. foreign policy, specifically its support for Israel and continued presence in Saudi Arabia. Terror is just a campaigning tool.

I don't think politicians are too far off the mark when they describe certain contemporary activists as terrorists. As I say, it's a very thin line, and plenty of contemporary activists resort to terror tactics.

Population density is not a problem.

Even at a relatively low population density equivalent to that of Los Angeles, you could fit the entire population of the world 3.4 times over in the contiguous United States.

Agriculture is a potential problem, but technological advances are improving the situation. If everyone switched to vastly more efficient plant-based diets, it wouldn't be a problem at all.

I don't see what's so bad about this? Temperatures will rise, sea levels will rise, what's the big deal?

Certain parts of the world that are low-lying or subject to extremely high temperatures will become uninhabitable. Too bad for those who thought it would be a good idea to settle there, they'll have to migrate.

Once all the ice has melted, sea levels will plateau. By the 22nd Century (notwithstanding a global nuclear war between now and then) we will have mastered nuclear fusion and will no longer be dependent on fossil fuels.

So what's the big deal?

There are, actually, many similarities. Both groups of people defy social norms and seek publicity in the course of acting out grievances with the establishment.

Activism and terrorism are often one and the same. I don't think it's unfair to describe 9/11 and similar terrorist attacks as forms of activism — not that this in any way justifies the attacks — nor to apply the 'terrorism' label to many self-described activists (e.g. Anonymous with their computer hacking)

It happens all the time. There are plenty of people who just want to create a scene, cause a fuss, make life difficult for security staff, etc.

Journalists have also been known to test the limits of airport security, taking suspicious items on board planes or gaining access to restricted areas, then reporting on the associated security lapses.

> Accepting cash is free.

Accepting it might be free, but what happens when you need to transfer large amounts of cash from your premises to a bank? Cash-in-transit services aren't free.

> With cash fraud prevention is unnecessary.

Not if we include the identification and rejection of counterfeit currency.

Minor criticism, but I think the 'military-grade security' section on the homepage could be doing more harm than good.

By all means tout the security benefits of the encryption you use, but I don't think the other two points (vetted personal and different bank accounts for internal/customer use) are really necessary from a customer perspective.

I don't think I would have considered either of those as potential security risks before reading them on your homepage. Reading them plants seeds of doubt in my mind; Why do they vet personnel? Because they have access to my payment details? What if the vetting isn't good enough? Why do they point out they have separate bank accounts; are they planning on going under?

The measures that you have taken re: those two points should be taken as given for any established payments processing business.

It's not as though they are being treated as equivalent, they are just potential explanations for this kind of behavior (carrying an improvised electrical device, which would make a viable timer for an explosive device, through airport security)

First they establish if he has any malicious intent (i.e. is he a terrorist?), then they establish if he has a legitimate non-malicious reason for such odd behavior (i.e. is he an activist?)

Turns out this guy is just a little unhinged.

If you try hard enough you can be offended by anything.

Dell comedian? Comedians thrive on controversial material. Sounds to me like a tongue-in-cheek observational joke that is just as offensive to men as it is to women. "Congratulations, the IT industry is a sausage-fest, just the way you want it to be, right?"

CouchDB? Can't find a copy of the original presentation, but what's wrong with allusions to pornography? There are plenty of male porn stars, and plenty of pornography that degrades men?

Perks: Women? Again, an observation on the male dominance of the industry. Similar to the Dell comedian, this is much a joke aimed at men as it is at women; male geeks need to attend a code jam to come into contact with women, etc.

I don't disagree. Christmas occupies a peculiar place in British culture because it is part religious festival, part cultural tradition.

Rather like the monarchy, people tend to go along with it, despite the fact it's an anachronistic and unjust system, because it gives people a warm fuzzy feeling.

I think that's part of the reason so much vitriol is aimed at "politically correct" attitudes towards Christmas. It angers both religious and non-religious people because they see it, more than anything else, as an attack on a national pastime.

The question was "Are you religious?", and 65% answered negatively. You can't really frame something as fundamental as that.

I personally think the 35% figure is inflated by people who identify with Christianity but don't practice it, or people who do practice it but out of fear more than faith.

Britain is no longer a Christian country, and that's not a bad thing. Give it another two generations and Christians will be a small minority (5-10%)

> It's not discriminatory to celebrate Christmas by default if your company is in a culture that predominantly observe Christmas. It would be discriminatory to make special arrangement for time off on Christmas, but not accommodating seasonal holiday requests from Muslims on Eid and Hindus on Diwali.

You can't justify discriminatory actions by deferring to the culture in which they take place. Suppose we replace religion with race. Christmas is now a racial festival celebrating white culture. Is it appropriate to foist these celebrations on black people in the office? Of course not.

Does the fact the company operates in a predominantly white culture justify the practice? Of course not.

It'll cost you a whole lot more if BMW were to sue you for stealing their start button design for an app icon...

"Anti-discrimination" is part of political correctness.

The example you provide falls under both categories, and it falls under political correctness precisely because it would be discriminatory to celebrate one religious festival without celebrating all of them. It is not politically "correct" to partake in discrimination.

I don't know if you're from the UK, but society today is highly secular. A British Humanist Association poll last year had 65% of respondents answer the question "Are you religious?" negatively. Of those who claim to be religious, most do not attend church on a regular basis, or take part in other religious rituals. Not to mention many of them are not Christian.

I can't fathom why racial minorities would not feel welcome at such a conference. Do they think people are going to be surprised that they are in attendance, disapprove of them being there, or look down on them?

It's a programming conference, not a meeting of the KKK.

Of course, if sociologists accepted the former definition, they wouldn't have anything to talk about.

Conflating the two definitions and describing people as 'racist' for re-enforcing racial imbalances in society is disingenuous.

A lot of people oppose affirmative action (thus earning the label 'racist' according to the latter definition) not because they are prejudiced, but simply because they do not believe in the efficacy of the process.

> When I'm near those people in a public space, I always wonder if they are having some kind of mental-breakdown, or whether they are passive-aggressively trying to get people to move away from them.

Whenever I come across someone typing loudly in public, I am reminded of this scene from Up in the Air:

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ7EUCBxc9s

Regarding the flotilla debacle, Israel offered to have the ships dock at Israeli ports, inspect the cargo, and transfer any legitimate aid through the land crossings.

The flotilla organizers refused this offer. Their purpose was not to deliver humanitarian aid, but to cause a spectacle drawing attention to the security restrictions imposed on the Strip.

Once the flotilla was diverted and the contents were unloaded and placed on Israeli trucks to be transferred to the Gaza Strip, Hamas refused to accept it. This humanitarian aid was apparently so urgently needed that Hamas decided they didn't want to lose face by accepting it.

They get text messages, leaflets, recorded phone calls and 'roof knocks' warning them to stay away from the military equipment Israel are targeting.

This probably includes port scans and such as well

The article is presumably referring to a transfer rate of 2 terabits per second, not 2 terabits of data transferred over the course of 24 hours.

2Tbps for a country of 4.5m people sounds about right.

From what I hear the battery life of the Nexus 4 leaves a lot to be desired, and LTE would only make that worse

Plus, if we're being pedantic, most pirated movies shared online are re-encodes of their original source material.

Given the sheer number of variables involved in the encoding process, the odds of independent encodes being absolutely identical are extremely low.

It is trivial to determine from a screenshot whether it is taken from the source or a re-encode (i.e. whether it is from a legitimate source or not, assuming the source is the only authorized copy), and if you have a copy of the particular re-encode, to verify the exact provenance.