He said "a quarter of the temperature" not "a quarter of the thermal energy." Either would be irrelevant to this discussion, but since he said "temperature" and not "energy" it's fair to use any common scale.
You do get that the whole "four times" or "divided by four" means nothing and shouldn't have even entered this discussion, right?
There's no positive liquid coffee temperature reading (which C, F, and K use, but feel free to invent your own) which when divided by any positive integer (e.g. 4) yields a negative number.
Secondly for the person who came up with -170 degrees after dividing by four, time to go back to the 4th grade. That IS where you didn't learn division, right? No positive number divided by four gives you any negative number. Since using the little calculator icon seems difficult this morning for you allow me to help out. 180F/4=45F. Note that there's no reference in the article to a quarter the temp... it's just inane bickering amongst commentators on this thread.
Finally one commentator said this lawsuit was probably in retaliation for the deputy still being under investigation. Perhaps someone could point out where in the article it says that the 8 month investigation is as a RESULT OF or CAUSED BY or its length is LONGER DUE TO any such effort on the part of the family. (Of course if it were so that would make the deputy's position EVEN weaker.)
Sure, if you're defining "Criminals" as individuals convicted of a criminal violation. Otherwise, however, this is a sample of convenience, and its conclusion lacks sufficient evidence.
Specifically, taking as a class not only the convicted but "anyone who commits an act violating criminal law" then there is no way to know if even a majority are stupid. That's quantitative analysis of numbers of crime-doers.
If you take the sheer size of various large heists and qualitatively up those numbers to dollar figures, the criminals who get caught (three strikes you bum, you shouldn't have stolen $2 from the church kitty!) are far far less significant than the jewel heists and art thieves and members of congress.
Just to keep it techdirtian:
We'll never know for sure until we have Total Information Awareness™.
...and once again, people are lining up to give up their rights, explaining (as if they know anything) that the police MUST know something, otherwise why would they disable cellular communication AND begging the question and IMPLICITLY giving police that authority.
Boston PD does not have the authority to shut down cell towers. All they can do is "ask" the carriers to do so. All you who are sheepling in support of this are giving the police these draconian powers THEY DON'T RIGHTLY HAVE.
Let's just add this: "But think of the children!" "If this only saves one life... it's worth it." It doesn't, it won't, and it isn't.
The reason to give up your rights isn't "because security" nor "because police" nor "because terrorism." And for those who say "Too soon... let's let them take away our rights in the name of security and we'll review later..." there is no later. When you open Pandora's box of giving LEP powers they don't otherwise have, they _never_ give them back.
NO there is NO software out there to brick your phone if they try to break in.
Police State powers should not extend beyond a cursory inspection of the person's possessions. That means "item - one cellphone" and put it back down, not attempt to get data from it.
As for the question "why the XXXX does a phone need to retain..." it's really begging too many questions. The fact is that in retaining WiFi associations and cell-tower locations a phone is able to connect quicker. As for the 659 geolocation points, some of those were likely in the EXIF data on the stored pictures.
"This is a problem in the software developing side." No, this is not a problem at all, and tangential to the topic.
Seems to me if you "don't really care" about the topic, don't understand the technology, and just want to whine about "the software developing side[sic]" you should go back to what you were doing before your rant.
A hilarious descripton of how a multiple-personality syndrome schizophrenic feels during his daily therapy session. Please repost on twitter as appropriate. This is merely a snippet from a book, which I'm using to demonstrate schizophrenia. (fair use.)
Your means "owned by you."
You're means "you are".
Sentences need verbs to not be fragments>
Now here we go:
> I'm glad your happy Steve
There's that your/you're thing I was mentioning.
> By the way you pretending the material is covered by copyright does raise some questions.
There's that lacking a verb thing I was mentioning.
Kindly take your multi-personality-disorder self and go all the way back to the third grade. That way you can learn that words that sound the same (your, you're, it's, its, there, their, they're) don't mean the same thing. You'll also learn sentence diagramming, which will help your illiteracy as you'll see verbs really ARE required in a sentence.
Need more meds. The Shaun multi-personality-beast appears stupid and illiterate. This will not sell more bs books of hokey poems.
If only our tongues were made from glass would ass-kissers cause bleeding rectums?
I bought a copy on AMZ. I wrote a review. Here is the response:
Feb 14, 2013 6:50:07 PM PST
Micheal Bradshaw says:
This guy has never read Shane's book notice he doesn't have the certified Purchase from Amazon underneath his review. He just saw some immature idiots on the internet making a fuss about some other idiot who when he was told to credit Shane's work decided to throw a infantile temper tantrum. this guy just an idiot. Who writes a review about a book he hasn't read. Someone is emotionally disturbed like this guy
Services providers such as Google and Facebook use a network of geodiverse servers throughout the world. Regularly, data that are given to one server are synchronized to another server in another datacenter, another city, and even another country.
If a putative plaintiff is not shown harm by his data shared between his posting in Skokie with it showing up on a server in Beijing, plaintiff would have a hard time showing that the same data, on the same server, being accessed by the same defendant (e.g google) is violating the wiretap laws by doing so from a different "service." If they refile this one these lawyers are the only ones making bank.