9/19/2014
Yemen: Clashes Unsettle the Capital Sanaa
Fighting between Shia rebels and Sunni militias in Yemen has escalated, with clashes on the edge of the capital.
Armed rebels, known as Houthis, shelled buildings of the state TV and the main Sunni Islamist party, Islah, in Sanaa.
Hundreds of residents have fled their homes and international flights to the city have been suspended.
About 40 people have been killed since Tuesday, reports say. The rebels have staged protests for weeks, demanding political and economic reforms.
President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi has dismissed the government and promised to review a decision to cut fuel subsidies.
Over the past few weeks the rebels have occupied protest camps on the road to the airport and staged sit-ins at ministry buildings, as well as clashed with fighters loyal to Islah.
On Thursday night Houthi fighters attacked the state television headquarters in Sanaa.
"The Houthi group is continuing to shell the television building with all kinds of weapons until this moment," the channel said on Friday morning.
As fighting intensified, foreign airlines suspended flights to the Sanaa.
"Arab and foreign airlines have decided to suspend their flights to Sanaa for 24 hours because of developments in the capital," the Civil Aviation Authority said in a statement on state news agency Saba.
The measures could be extended depending on the security situation, the statement added.
More footage of fighting from today: https://t.co/CzpT1jPFzq While watching realised additional gunfire I was hearing was in realtime #Yemen
— Iona Craig أيونا (@ionacraig) September 19, 2014
Post by Abu Hudhayfah.
9/11/2014
Smartwatch Apple Launches Smartwatch, Updates IPhone6 Line
Launches Smartwatch, Updates IPhone Line
It will start with a friend. A friend who lives in San Francisco, maybe. Or who works as a venture capitalist. Or who recently had a birthday.
This friend will be wearing an Apple Watch. And at first, you'll giggle. It's a wrist computer! It looks silly, like something out of Dick Tracy. You'll say something snide, like, "Get a lot of dates with that thing?" The friend will laugh good-naturedly. He'll show you some of the things the Apple Watch can do: Twitter notifications, turn-by-turn directions, conversations
with Siri. You'll pretend to be wowed. You'll move on to other subjects.
Then, a few weeks later, you'll start seeing more of these goofy-looking watches being worn by actual humans. Your boss will get one for Father's Day. They'll raffle one off at a benefit dinner. A hot woman will be wearing one in a restaurant and, somehow, be pulling it off. People will start talking about it in your earshot. Eh, the battery life isn't great, but it saves me a lot of time when I travel. Oh yeah, I use it to pay for stuff. Did you know you can share your heartbeat with this?
Better, cooler apps will be built for these watches. Silly apps that let you take selfies and send them places. Useful apps that put vital information on your wrist when you need it. Apps for work, for commerce, for killing time on the subway platform. Then the accessories will come: rich-looking leather bands, gorgeously thin Chanel straps, carrying cases that have an extra battery tucked away inside. You'll get numb to the boxy, geeky look of the watches. Maybe one day, you'll catch yourself admiring one from afar. Is that ... an Apple Watch?
And then, sometime around June, you'll get an unexpected infusion of cash — a security deposit you forgot you'd paid, or a few hundred dollars from your tax return. And you'll find yourself on Apple.com late at night, admiring the watch, wondering if the $349 you'd spend would ever really be worth it.
What the hell, you'll say. Add to cart.
For all the hemming and hawing about the devices Apple released yesterday — the tech specs, the dimensions, the informed analysis of How It Will All Work Together — the most overlooked aspect of the entire day was that Apple gadgets have always been, and will always be, pure fetish objects. Our iPhone, iPad, and Macbook Air purchases may end up helping us be productive at work, or saving us time on the go, but our decision to buy them always starts with the same thought: This looks cool and I want one.
This instinct, and the simple, primordial envy that produces it, is what's made it possible for Apple to sell luxury devices to the masses even in a time of stagnant wages and widening inequality, inspiring millions of people to stretch their budgets in order to accommodate yet another device they can't really afford. It's what's made my first thought, after dropping a $600 piece of metal and glass in the ocean by accident last year, not "Why did I buy a $600 piece of metal and glass that isn't waterproof?" but "Where can I get another one, stat?"
A few months ago, I wrote about wearables — the unfortunately named category to which the Apple Watch now belongs. My prognosis wasn't great. I thought that "despite all the buzz surrounding wearables, it isn’t clear who’s supposed to be buying them," and wondered aloud who, exactly, would be willing to shell out hundreds of dollars for a glorified notifications screen for their wrist.
But I left myself a small opening. The smartwatch, I wrote, "could succeed as a high-end fashion accessory" if designers conspired to turn it from a geek status symbol into something truly trend-worthy.
This is, of course, exactly what Apple wants to do. By putting the Apple Watch in the hands of fashion people rather than just tech and marketing experts, by making it cost $350, by letting third-party designers accessorize the hell out of it, Tim Cook is going to try to turn the Apple Watch into something aspirational — a thing you covet not because it's got an S1 processor or a Taptic engine, but because having it on your wrist will make you feel better about yourself.
I know, a fashionable smartwatch sounds like an oxymoron. But that's the strategy here. And if it works, you'll find yourself succumbing to the pressure eventually — just like you did with the iPhone, just like you did with the iPad, just as you'll do with any number of future Cupertino-conceived gadgets.
The bottom line is that you'll never need an Apple Watch. But you may very well want one. In wristwear, as in computing, Apple's social engineering may matter more than its technical engineering.
8/31/2014
Geek Vs Geek: Is There a Case for Outlawing Toy Drones ?
In the last few years, drones have become a household word — first as robotic weapons of war in the Middle East, then for domestic surveillance and even package delivery. But Rick thinks the biggest threat comes from you and me — ordinary folks who fly drones as a hobby or a pastime. Should drones be regulated, licensed, or outright banned? Dave and Rick don’t see eye to eye on the topic.
Once a month, eHow Tech editor Dave Johnson faces off against Rick Broida, who writes about technology for CNET, PC World, and Wired. Follow along as they tackle this question from opposing corners.
Dave: I know where you’re going with this topic, so forgive me for rolling my eyes at you before you even lay out your initial argument. I have two drones right now — the Parrot AR Drone 2.0 and the DJI Phantom FC40. They are easy to fly (unlike the twitchy radio-controlled planes and helicopters I grew up on), let you be an amateur aerial filmmaker, and are reasonably affordable. They are incredibly fun. They’re a toy that both kids and adults can share. And they are science fiction come to life. What’s not to like? Oh, wait, I can see you about to find some things to grouse about.
Rick: Well, obviously. Your powers of deduction are staggering. Can you also figure out which area of the sky the sun will appear in tomorrow morning? As it happens, I own the same two drones as you, along with the comparatively tiny Hubsan X4 H107. And I agree: they’re ridiculously fun. But a couple recent experiences got me thinking about the dangers of these things, like what happens if a helicopter blade slices someone’s neck. Or an out-of-control drone falls from the sky on someone’s head. Such accidents will happen, and as more people buy these “toys,” they’ll happen more often. Not to get all Chicken Little on you, but the sky will literally be falling.
Dave: For the love of… oh, Rick. Really? Radio-controlled airplane and helicopter enthusiasts have contended with spinning blades for about 75 years now. I am unaware of any truly serious R/C injuries in all those years. Your example of a blade slicing someone’s neck: How would that happen, exactly? It seems unlikely, to say the least, and odds are good that the motors would stall before inflicting any serious damage, even if you how managed to maneuver a drone into the danger zone. And a drone falling from the sky on someone’s head — again, is this really the best you have? In addition to the almost supernaturally high odds against such an accident ever happening, these toy drones are just too light to hurt anyone. The Parrot AR Drone, for example, weighs about 400 grams. You could drop that from orbit and it wouldn’t hurt anyone, especially since these vehicles simply don’t “fall out of the sky.” Even if the battery dies in flight, the rotors power down slowly as the battery charge drops, which means the drone lands more or less safely, even if you fly it recklessly until it runs out of power. You are literally making something out of nothing.Rick: Wow, I haven’t seen that kind of tunnel vision since I drove under the Detroit River. It’s awfully convenient of you to cite the Parrot when you’re also flying the Phantom, which is made of hard plastic and weighs over 2.5 pounds. It also has four large, unprotected blades. Can you really not see the potential for disaster when one of these things is in the hands of an unskilled, inexperienced pilot? Just the other day, I saw a first-time flier lose control of one of the little Hubsans, which got lost in the sun and was eventually recovered about a block away. He was awfully lucky it didn’t hit someone on the way down. The odds may be low, but you said it yourself: These things are very affordable and very fun, so lots more people will be flying them. Thus, the odds go up. You’re not so good with math, are you?
Dave: It’s likewise awfully convenient of you to choose the Phantom, which is one of the heaviest (if not the heaviest) drones you can buy. Again, you’re focusing on an obscure edge case and trying to rob everyone of drone fun as a result, like some sort of Luddite Grinch. Sure, there are always rare exceptions. I’m sure you could even “weaponize” a toy drone by intentionally trying to fly it into someone or something at high speed. By the same token, I could throw a baseball through your front window. So what? What, exactly is your point? What do you want to do about the hidden dangers lurking in our drones?
Rick: Hang on a sec, I’m getting my point on the phone so it can speak to you directly, slowly and with small words. Drones. Are. Dangerous. People need to understand that these aren’t those little featherweight Syma RC helicopters that move about 3 mph and can’t withstand a slight breeze. These are fast-moving, high-flying projectiles, and few folks have experience controlling such devices. All I’m saying is, let’s temper our slobbering excitement (“Wheee! Flying toys!”) and consider the consequences. Remember those floating lanterns? Oooh, pretty. Until one catches fire mid-air and lands on someone’s roof. Before the government has to start banning drones because people got hurt or worse, how about some simple regulations to keep everyone safe? Would that be so terrible?
Dave: I’m not sure I’ve ever disagreed with you more about anything. And to be clear, you don’t like walnuts in brownies, so that’s a pretty high bar. To wit, is there any problem you can imagine which you think that some sort of government regulation won’t solve? You’re right: Even something as innocuous and ancient as a candle can be a danger. Is it ever-so-remotely possible that a neighbor’s floating candle lantern will burn my house down or his drone will fly through my front window? Sure. Personally, I’m willing to accept that risk and I don’t need a law protecting me from the “danger” — of candles or drones. I don’t believe that we can — or should — regulate ourselves to a 100% risk-free society. Presumably, the thought of letting people have fun without government supervision terrifies you, but if you really want to fret about something, don’t forget that many drones have cameras that can shoot stunning video. Maybe you should worry about a stranger’s drone pointing a video camera in your back window.
Rick: Don’t even get me started on that! We’ve barely said two words about the creep factor, because now Peeping Daves — sorry, Toms — can do their thing from half a mile out. And so much for a nice quiet day hiking the trails when 20 Buzz Lightdrones are zooming overhead. But I digress. In much the same way I don’t want your car plowing into mine because you think it’s unfair or annoying or whatever for the government to regulate your texting while driving, I don’t want some drunken idiot crashing his drone through my window. You need a license to drive a car and fly a plane; is it so ridiculous to suggest that for drones of a certain size or range or the like, you also need a license? The affordability, capability, and availability of these new products mandates new thinking. Bam. Put that in your drone and fly it.
Dave: Kudos! You almost make some sense. To directly address your question, no, it is not ridiculous to suggest that for drones of a certain size or range require a license, and probably even some mandatory training. The devil’s in deciding where the cutoff is. I’d be in favor of regulating commercial drones, but not a toy you might buy for your kids — or for yourself. And I don’t need a time machine to know that you and I will undoubtedly disagree on where we draw that line to begin regulating. The bottom line, Rick, is that for the most part, the drones we see in the hands of our neighbors (and ourselves) are Not Dangerous. They are not going to cause property damage or bodily injury, and to assert otherwise is to focus on the tiny percentage of edge cases that sound scary but lack any real substance. Shouldn’t you be off fretting about all the other make-believe tech scares, like Toyota’s sudden un-commanded acceleration and Tesla’s exploding batteries?Rick: Like sands through the hourglass, so is logic finally trickling into your brain. I don’t know what form regulation or licensing would take, or even if it would help. I only know that these are a new breed of toy that’s exploding in popularity, and whether you spend $35 on one or $500, you’re now in control of a fast-moving, highly maneuverable hunk of plastic that whips around at neck level just as easily as it does 300 feet. Accidents are waiting to happen, and I just hope I’m not the one who plows into a toddler or truck driver or geek blogger. Consider yourselves warned, geek bloggers!
Who won? We’d love to hear from you. Weigh in with your opinion in the comments, or tweet @davejoh.
What other tech topics would you like to see Dave and Rick discuss? Send your ideas to Dave via Twitter @davejoh. And if you follow Dave, he promises to come to your home and explain something techy to your dad.
Photo credits: DJI, Parrot, Hubsan, Demand Media
8/28/2014
7/28/2014
2014
Activists
animals
animals-Rights
BLOGGER
Crime
egypt
Egyptian X-Files
ENGLISH
Media
social_media
video
That how Egyptian (devils) kids Treatment of a lion #EGYPT
That how Egyptian kids of (devils)
Treatment of a lion !!
In fact No words can explain! What the lion and his wife did for them,nothing !
why that happiness the kids of (devils) ? WHAT WRONG FUCKEN WITH THEM ! ;(
And that fucken garden watching them! sun of pitch like nothing happened
FUCK YOU AND FUCK HOW PUT TO WORK THERE ALL OF YOU JUST FUCKEN SYS!!
الاشتراك في:
الرسائل (Atom)