Oh wait, I could force the landscape orientation in the messaging app by modifying the manifest.

Looks like the "default" setting does not point to what I had in mind.

Meh, the default behavior after flashing the OS is still broken, my point stands.

Wake me up when they finally implement Landscape Keyboard mode outside their mobile Firefox browser.

I mean come on, from 1.0 to 1.3 (and still in 1.4 and 1.5 alphas as we speak) you still need to type EVERYTHING on a tiny portrait keyboard. That means calendar, emails, text mesaging, instant mesaging... everything but what you do on the web browser.

I can't even begin to describe how frustating it is to have the capability of rotating the keyboard in the web brower but not on the rest of the system.
This make absolutely no sense when you think their target market is lower-end phones with "reasonable" screen sizes. Meaning you abso-fucking-lutely need to use everything you can get when you want to type something without making 3 typos a word.

Having that said, I still believe firmly in this project, and in the need of a less-bloated-smartphone-OS than Android, not developped by a company with a history of privacy violations (While still tied to the advertising world, I don't recall Mozilla being anywhere on the PRISM slides), and built on open standards.

My main concerns, however, remain:
- Reaching critical mass
- Getting a decent crypto API (full disk encryption etc.)
- GETTING THEIR KEYBOARD TO ROTATE


Wait and see.

Julian Assange has not been charged of anything by any authority of any kind. He is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual misconduct Source

Before leaving the country he consulted with the judge, who decided there was nothing holding him there and he could leave Swedish soil.

Not caught, he turned himself to the police after it became clear that the illegal (or at least illegitimate) Interpol red notice was not going away. This, in the hope of resolving the matter.

He did not disappear, he sought asylum. That's quite a difference.

Because it was the only choice he had left to avoid being ultimately handed over to a country where he would be tortured or executed, thus breaching the Geneva Conventions

He has not been charged nor convicted of any crime by any government yet, not Sweden, not the USA, not even the UK as far as I can tell. (prove me otherwise)

On the other hand, Augusto Pinochet, charged by Spain for the killing of 3000 Chilean people, and torturing 30 000 more, including the raping of political prisoners with trained dogs, was not only not extradited by the UK but often drank tea with Margaret Tacher


This just goes to show you how much lies we are being fed by governments and medias alike. It's fairly easy to hear officials make the same mistakes as you did.
Not because they are ignorant. Then know very well the details of this case. They're not stupid. They just choose to deliberately lie.

You can agree or disagree with the importance of what Wikileaks does, and the importance of what Assange and Manning do for our society, but that doesn't make your claims any less WRONG

dude, this is gross.
I hope you clean your cache once a day at least, man.

This is like, basic hygiene.

This may very well be the worst analogy I have read in a long, long time.

It's perfect.
Perfectly broken.
In every way possible.

How sad is it that Evolution's theory for softwares is so broken that we resort to say things like :

Seriously, survival of the fittest, it works. Bring it back.
I don't care about monopolies, just use what you like and let those things that improve nothing for anybody die already.

It's not that hard.
Posted from Sabayon Linux with i3, windows manager's master race.

Of course they did.... two weeks after downing PSN claiming it was for maintenance.

They HAD to do so eventually, but the point is they went into denial mode for weeks before admitting the fuckup.

Then how do they manage the credit card numbers ?
They cannot simply hash them, they need access to the actual cleartext data at some point.

My bet is on one or several servers containing one or several decryption keys.

So the question remains. Why not encrypt EVERYTHING ?

...and yet not a single one to the website where this story comes from in the first place :

[french] http://nurpa.be/actualites/2011/10/BAF-belgacom-telenet-blocage-dns
and the google translation to english

You'd think that what the local organization [defending Net Neutrality and file sharing and fighting cencorship and local MAFIAAs] has to say might interest people.

TL;DR : The Belgian Antipiracy Foundation wanted the two main ISPs to block TPB, but were not respecting the proportionality principle, using a legal procedure reserved to urgent matters, when TPB has been running for 8years.
Of course they were told to GTFO, but in appeal they won and those two ISPs now have to block 11 TPB domain names, half of them are not even running nor leading to The Pirate Bay in any way.

NURPA (Net Users' Rights Protection Association, active in Belgium and Europe to fight against ACTA for example) says it's stupid, useless, and in conflict with the European Court of Justice's decision about what, when and how filtering may be legitimate. (answer : never when it is about Intellectual Property)

And there is a link to how to set up alternatives DNS servers on windows and ubuntu in their article, long before "TPB and telecomix came and saved us with the solution to circumvent the filtering".

So yeah, The Pirate Bay rocks, Telecomix does too, but this time the credit has to go to the local net activists association who got it right in the first place.

Ok so here I read a lot of stuff about the fact that he was a US citizen. The thing is, I don't think that's what's relevant here.

The question is, how, when and if any state can execute someone (in it's soil, an ally's soil, or even enemy soil, as long as they're not in a current war, and even then...), without producing any proof, having any contradictory legal procedure, or having to justify anything to anyone other than "We're the FUSA (fucking united states of America), we decided to pown him, you better not interfere."

You see, it's not a matter of constitution, it's a matter of human rights.


So he was suspected of terrorism. It all comes down to this : he was an enemy of the interests of the FUSA, so this justifies anything, right ?
Once we cross the "fucking with my conutry !" line, most of you will not look for proof, justification, context, or due process anymore.

So, one must not cross that line, to have any rights, in practice. Am I wrong ? Sure it's not legal, but that's how it is. Let's pretend it's even remotely "civilized".

Who crosses this line, and why ? Who decides who's an enemy of FUSA's interests ?
Probably Al-Quaeda is, after all they kill innocent civilians, so anyone suspected to help them loses his right to live and defend himself in a court of law.

Of course Wikileaks is, after all it's a terrorist organization who puts our FUSA in danger by releaving war crimes, and systematic Nazi methods. So anyone related to them should die too, like FUSA's philosophical leaders like Bill O'Reilly suggested : just kill Assange illegally, after all, we can afford it.
White house said they were terrorists, so they must be.

A few years back, by having the sole political opinion that comunism was a better alternative to capitalism, you were considered an enemy of FUSA's interests.

How long until my post, criticizing FUSA's methods and violations of human rights around the world, is considered as proof that I'm nothing more than a head in a crosshair anymore, and fuck my rights ?

I say, when will we see wall street targeted by drones, senate, or even the white house ? When will we realize that they're enemies of FUSA's interests too, and are effectively destroying this country, killing innocent Americans in war and removing our freedoms more efficiently that any terrorist organization in the world ?Oh wait, right, THEY get to decide who's a bad guy. How handy.

My point is that the debate here is wheter a person who is seen as enough of a bad guy in the media, and his public reputation, deserves to die. Has rights.
The question is wheter it's OK to execute an innocent (until proven, PROVEN, not said or suspected otherwise) as long as enough people don't care because of his reputation.

If your answer is yes, congratulations, you have successfully become a terrorist by the rest of the world's standards.

TL;DR : get someone's reputation dirty enough so nobody will care about his rights anymore and you'll be free to do whatever pleases you with him. Just hope that you'll never be targeted by the medias yourself, as it's pretty much a sentence of death these days. You better be nice with Murdoch.

and what about apple ?

At least give out the name and if it'll have a mac/linux version OOTB.(if it's a game)

See you when it's done, hopefully.
Good Luck :)

It's meant to be pronounced with lots of dental tools inside your mouth.

Oh yeah, sorry, my bad. I guess it just staled for a while :x