'If (The specific Christian) God exists, then people who believe will go to heaven when they die.'
See, it's a real theory.
Now, any volunteers to test it? You'd need some way of reporting back, but, hey, once you die, you've got access to God, surely he can figure something out.
And, no, you can't ask for unbelievers to test it with you. An experiment that could end up with someone being tortured forever is unethical, and it's unlikely that God would let them report back, as he apparently hates them.
Before anyone points out that a risk exists for the believers, scientists do, indeed, sometimes risk their life to prove they are correct. And they don't ask people who disbelieve to come along with them to certain death. ('I have a vaccine for AIDS, but no one will believe me! I will vaccinate myself, and then inject me and you with HIV. You're the control.')
This, of course, can't prove or disprove God in general. That's much too vague a concept.
After they get all this data, scientists take it, and then go, 'My theory is that carbon dioxide levels were X% 300 years ago. This makes me predict that if we measure certain things, they will fit this theory.'
And they keep measuring.
However, the GP is wrong in what he's implying, and you are correct. We pretty much have determined temperatures and CO2 levels for, I think, a few thousand years back, because various independent data all shows the same stuff. Anyone arguing we don't have 'the facts' about those things should be slotted into the same place that people who argue we don't have any evidence that the earth is really billions of years old.
What we don't know is why any of these changes happen at all, except for some very obvious exceptions like the Year Without A Summer in 1816, which we're almost certain was due to a few volcanic erruptions.
We also know that temperature changes by itself by huge amounts if you look at time on a span of hundreds of thousands of years. We don't know why that happens, and, what's more, we don't know how fast that happens.
However, what's not in question is: Ice is melting. As ice melts, the sea level must go up. If that keeps happening, we're going to be in serious trouble 'shortly'. Not just flooding, but ocean currents shifting. Ocean currents that make very inhabited places inhabitable. Randomly changing weather patterns on the earth is a good way to kill 10% of the population directly and starve another 30%. Good thing, too, because we'll lose like 20% of our living space to the ocean.
Whether this is our fault or not, whether we can stop it regardless if it is or isn't, whether it will change by itself, and whether shortly means 'two decades' or 'two hundred years' are all unknown.
It's entirely possible we're about to tip into some huge climate change completely independent of anything we've done. It's entirely possibly we're nearing one end of a 100-year yoyo and we'll soon turn around and head the other way.
It's also entirely possible the human-caused global warming people are correct. And even if they aren't correct in that we are the actual 'cause', they probably are correct in that we are speeding it up, and can slow it down if we choose.
Here is, incidentally, the actual quote: During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.
And you're the idiot. Eisenhower, for example, while president, took the initative in creating the interstate highway system, but he didn't invent roads. Gore, while Senator, took the initative in creating ARPAnet and expanding it from a government project to the real world.(1) Hillary, while first lady, took the initative in creating a national health care system, and she isn't a doctor and didn't invent medicine.
Creation doesn't mean invention, and what's more, 'taking the initative in creation' doesn't even mean 'creation', so you're like two steps away from truthfulness. I can take the initiative to do something by standing up and getting others to do it. Senators, obviously, cannot do everything, so they tell others what to do. That is why he said he 'took initative' instead of saying he actually did it. It was, instead, done in a lab, at his direction. (Granted, his rather indirect direction. He said 'Hey, you got a bunch of computers talking to each other? Here's some more money, keep spending it on that.'.)
No one in the universe parses 'When I was in a political office, I took the the initiative in creating X' as saying 'I invented X' unless they're delibrately trying to misparse it. Politicians take initiative by championing bills.
What's more, they use that exact terminology all the time. That is, in fact, what the damn word 'initiative' means in politics. Witness Bush's 'American Competitiveness Initiative' and 'Helping America's Youth Initiative'. How is he going to help American's youth? Why, via legislation. I quote the GOP: Hughes has served as an adviser to President Bush on many foreignpolicy fronts and took a special interest in the status of women in Afghanistan, leading the President's initiative to free Afghan women from the Taliban. Holy shit. The president is wandering around freeing women in Afghanistan?
Or is Gore 'taking' the initiative somehow different from Bush possessing the initiative? What grammar silliness are you going to try to weasel through there?
The Republicans had a theme in the 2000 election that Gore lied all the time, and this is just one of their most absurd twists of his statements. (This theme is really ironic in the face of who we got instead, Mr. let's-pretend-they-have-WMD.)
1) And, in what continues to baffle me, everyone knows he was a damn champion of this. The entire fucking first term of Clinton was filled with Hillary yammering about national health care, and Gore yammering about, wait for it, The Information Superhighway. Granted, he was talking about earlier, when he was in the Senate, but if there's any politican anyone alive during the early 90s should link to the internet, it's Gore.
2 should be a technological measure. The copyright law itself would still prohibit many behaviors, the triangle would just say 'There are no technological measures in place on this CD to inhibit these behaviors'.
Same here, text appears the same size, or posibly slightly smaller, but either the font or the spacing is really doing a number on me somehow and making it twice as hard to read. I think it's the font, but we could both be right and it could be the narrowness of the font, which of course makes the letters closer together.
They can still put the CD label on things like the Sony spyware crap, as long as MS keeps enabling them by providing the autoplay anti-functionality. This are valid CDs with a perfectly complient data track on them.
The idea of theft is, indeed, older than law, or civilization(1) The idea that your property is 'yours' even when you're not physically possessing it is probably one of the oldest abstract concepts in existence.
There is a philosophical concept of 'theft' and 'property' that might stretch back twenty thousand years. This has ended up in various religions, too. And there is the legal concept of theft that is basically exactly the same thing, except that the government says 'If we take it via various processes, it's not theft'.
And yet, you miss the entire damn point when you try to bring in copyright infringement. See, that's a BRAND NEW concept. It's only a few hundred years old, dumbass.
You might have been brainwashed into thinking that copyright somehow lines up with either the philosophical, religious, or legal concept of theft, but it obviously doesn't. So don't go yammering about how 'The concepts of theft and property are much older than law', when it's blatantly apparent that copyright isn't older than law...it's barely older than the US.
1) I think you could make the argument that the concept of theft and murder are society. If I can put my stick down to take a leak and someone tries to take it, or tries to bash my head in so they can take it, and a third party stops them because it's not allowed, that is a 'civilization' of some sort. (Note some societies only allow ownership of certain things...like you can own picked fruit, but you can't own the tree or fruit on the tree, or you can own the area round your hut, but you can't own the river.)
I didn't say anything about volume serial numbers. I said volume id.
There is no such thing. The master boot record, the boot sector, the partition area, and the NTFS and FAT32 header areas are well defined structures. They do not have random data laying around in them.
It is stored in an area called the LDM near the end of the partition.
And, of course, you can't use LDM partitions on removable media, which is what we're talking about. (Even if you could, they wouldn't work right on other computers. Moving LDM stuff is a hassle.)
No, I looked this up too. It is in the boot sector code. In between the boot code and the partition code.
First of all, the boot sector is on the first sector of a partition. If you only have one bootable partition on a drive, boot sector is indeed 'between' the partition table and the 'partition', but it's much more accurate to say it is the first sector on every partition.
And I've already linked to it, but here goes again. The bytes in a FAT32, a FAT, and an NTFS boot sector. (There are only 512 of them, it's a single sector.) Feel free to find 'drive letter' in that list.
I have two thumb drives that i set at drive T. Went walking aeounf the office plugging then into different computers and guess what, Drive T with the exception of a 2000 box. but guess what happened there? The drive was 2 letters down at R instead of the next availible drive letter.
And henceforth it was on letter R?
Or, as I suspect, do you just have drive Q on the other computers, and it started at drive Z and worked downward? (Which is actually how it maps removable media. It takes the highest letter, and adds one, or however you want to say that. It usually won't put them in gaps, although I've seen it before...it has something to do with what kind of drivers it has.)
"Fairly random order" means random to some extent. It isn't random it is predicable by a set of defined criteria or rules. There is nothign random about it.
Okay, I'm going to explain this once more. I didn't say the drive are assigned randomly, I said the enumeration order was random, as in, they apparently flipped a few coins when making the rules, instead of thinking them out.
Random rules produce, like all rules, known outcomes. If I were calling out the names of people waiting, using the sort 'length of their last name times the day of the month they were born', that would be entirely consistent, but completely useless in anyone knowing they're about to be called. That is, in essense, what MS does when ordering drives, and produces much the same result...no one knows where anything goes in advance.
Well thought-out rules result in people saying 'Okay, if I do this, then this happens'. Poorly- or not-at-all-thought out rules result in people saying 'Crap, that's not what I wanted. What if I do this...' MS's rules for partition enumeration is very poorly thought out, or, as I suspect, not thought out at all. It's just the way the code ended up, and by the time anyone at MS realized what happened if you had multiple drives with multiple partitions, they had to keep it for backwards compatibility.
Aka, it's random. It's like Memorial Day. The selection of the last weekend in May was random, and using that random rule produces consistent results.
Dear God, you're great at talking incorrect gibberish, aren't you?
The windows disk administrator/manager writes a volume id to the boot/partition section of the partition. This is on both NTFS and Fat systems. This Volume id is 4 bytes and contains coded information to suggest a drive letter if it is availible and marked to do so.
Volume serial numbers don't contain any information. They are completely random based on the time. Although, admittedly, you could be talking about something besides the volume serial number, which is actually eight bytes, when you say 'volume ID', but I don't see anything else in the partition boot area you could be talking about.
With a logical Drive, The drive letter is stored in metedata near the end of the NTFS loader code. This system suggests the drive letter asignment to the IO manage which uses the mount manager when the partition information is read. If the drive letter is availible, It is then asigned to that volume.
I don't know what you mean, 'with a logical drive'. I think You're talking about the $Mft, which does indeed have something called $Volume, but that has the partition name and version, not a drive letter. Feel free to read what Microsoft says about it, and feel free to search for 'drive letter' in that document. (It is there, but not in reference to any information in the NTFS or partition.)
And just in case you were trying to assert it was the partition table the held the drive letters instead of the file system, look here and tell me in which of the 16 bytes that this data is stored. Partition tables are very very cramped.
This volume id is also mapped to a registry area HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\MountedDevices wich coresponds to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\DISK which solidifies the drive letter asignment if availible.
Well, duh. That's how partitions get drive letters. The operating system hands them out. DOS handed them out inflexibly, NT lets you move them around. They aren't stored anywhere on the partition or the drive the partition is on, which is rather my point, and hence they can NEVER transfer between XP installs.(1)
But, duh, that's so incredibly easy to test I don't know why we're even discussing this, and I know for a fact it doesn't work how you say, because I had a jump drive that was assigned to drive O or something on my computer, and took the first available one on every other one.
Seriously, Windows has a very ordered way for naming drive letters. It only gets complicated a little by what partition formats the OS version can see as well as any preformed lettering criteria. The first drive letter gets asigned to the first primary partition unless another partition on the first drive is marked active. the rest get asigned to the rest of the primary partition in the order the drivers for the device (NT ) is loaded. Then all logical and extended partitions get lettered and then finaly everything else in order of thier bus gets a letter.
I didn't say it assigned them randomly. I said they were assigned as, and I quote, 'picking the first one as the drives are enumerated in their fairly random order'. The order you just listed? First active partitions on the drive, then inactive primary ones, and then move on to the next drive and repeat? When finished, go back and do the logical ones? Then do all non-hard drives? Yup, that appears to be a fairly random order to me.
1) I did say 'machines' there, but actually if you move a disk with an XP install on it, duh, all the drive letter mappings move with it.
This comment is completely inaccurate. Do not listen to it.
Drive letters are assigned by the OS, period. Neither NTFS or FAT has any idea what drive letters they are, or in fact any concept of drive letters.
Letters are assigned, under Windows, by simply picking the first one as the drives are enumerated in their fairly random order. However, if a device has a 'serial number', which most USB ones do, you can assign it a specific drive letter in the console, and Windows will remember it.
Sometimes you will run across weird cases, like USB drives that share serial numbers, so whatever you assign to one of them will get assigned to the other, or ones that don't have a serial number and hence won't 'remember' any assignments. (Sometimes you can name the partition and Windows will remember, sometimes not.)
I don't understand why anyone would continue with the default drive letter assignments at all. That is a damn good way to install a drive and find no applications can find your CDs anymore.
I have a computer. The hard drives partitions are C, L, M, and K. The CDs are S (real) and V (virtual).
I can access these drives over the network from any computer in the house using the same drive letter, at least the ones I have mapped.
If you start installing drives and let them go wherever you want, you will end up in bad situtations.
People get Dobson confused with many other 'religious leaders', but you're right, you've nailed the fundamental (ha) difference between him and others: The others started as peachers who got a lot of power and support, and he remains basically a very conservative psychologist who wrote a few too many books.
He's approaching the entire thing without any religous training at all. Basically, he's taken several rather controversial psychological positions, and pretended they actually are supported in the Bible.
You're right. I don't think people are grasping how Ticketmaster works.
See, they sign contracts. A lot of them. Places with Ticketmaster contracts must sell their tickets via Ticketmaster.
They also sign contracts with bands. These bands 'should' use Ticketmaster. I'm not sure if they are legally required to, but a lot of pressure is put on them to not play in places that don't use Ticketmaster. If they don't, they find themselves shut out of Ticketmaster venues.
As long as Ticketmaster has, say, 80% of the venues and bands, everyone else is screwed, period. Yes, the remaining 20% of the bands could play in the 20% of the venues, but not really.
New bands come in, find they need to play at Ticketmaster venues to get anywhere at all, so they sign up. New venues pop up, and find they can't book anyone unless they use Ticketmaster.
Like others said, Pearl Jam fought them for years, because they didn't want their fans to pay that much. They had to give in, because their stance was causing them not to be able to play anywhere.
This is why, incidentally, sports arenas often use Ticketmaster, when logically there'd be almost no motive at all. They find it very hard to book any bands unless they sign up for it, which means their team also has to use Ticketmaster.
If Congress refuses to investigate the illegal and unconstitional NSA spying, then it does seem it would be unlikely they would investigate a leak like this, which is really just Bush violating his own policies. Yes, it was, indeed, illegal, but it could have been legal if he'd just bothered to write out an EO. I imagine it saying 'The president is hereby authorized to just decide parts of something are declassified without any procedure or notice to anyone at all, as of right now. Signed, George W. Bush' I also imagine it written in crayon.
Whereas the NSA spying is a violation of their charter, a violation of lots of laws, and a violation of the constitution.
See, violating his executive order is illegal via a law. Executive orders can't make things legal or not, so when this whole 'classified information' was thought up, Congress stepped in and passed a law saying the President could come up with a whole system of classification and declassification, and that violating that system was really and truly illegal and punishable under the actual criminal code. If you follow my link, you'll eventually find it, it's right near there.
He could have changed the rules at any time via an EO, he could have even written an EO that said he could authorize anything retroactively.
But he didn't.
And 'does the president have to follow his own Eos isn't decided case law' people are irrelevent. That might matter if he implimented a executive branch dress code, and then broke it, but it doesn't work when Congress tells him to implement one, and he does, and then breaks it. There's a big difference between EOs that are just policy statements for internal use, and if you break them you just get in trouble with your boss, and EOs that are created at demand of Congress and have criminal penalties for violating them.
The later he can ignore, but only by 'repealing' them by passing an EO that says something like 'All clothing is legal in the executive branch' or 'Anyone can declassify anything they want just by saying it outloud'. I.e, he's just instructed to pass rules...he can, if he wants, pass rules that no one can violate. (Or, in fact, not pass any rules at all, making the law dead letter. They can't make him make an EO.)
What he cannot do is pass rules and then break them.
Or, in actuality, he can, because what everyone seems to be forgetting about the technicalities of all this is the president doesn't get charged with crimes without getting impeached, and he can get impeached and removed from office without technically committing a crime at all. So whether or not he followed the letter of the law is pretty much meaningless. The president and the law have no relation to each other, the only 'law' that matters is Congress not getting so pissed at him and his behavior that they impeach him.
The president does, indeed, have the authority to declassify things, as I've already said. The exact words are:
Information shall be declassified or downgraded by the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position; the originator's successor; a supervisory official of either; or officials delegated such authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official designated pursuant to Section 5.3(a)(1).
Do you notice that it says 'shall be' instead of 'can be', like you said it did? That's right. Information is owned by various agencies, and they 'shall be' the ones to declassify it, or anyone over them. (The procedures for transfering 'ownership' are also in that EO.)
It doesn't say they can declassify it whenever they want without any procedures, as you are implying it does for the president. If that were so, than anyone could declassify information they 'owned', haphardardly, and there would be no need for the actual process.
If the law says the person taking a car from an impound lot 'shall be' the owner, by your logic, the owner can break into the impound lot and take the car back however he wants. That's not how 'shall be' works...it's not authority to do anything, it's a restriction. It means the CIA can't declassify the Department of Defense's info, and stuff like that. It doesn't mean the Department of Defense can do whatever they want.
And I cited the same damn law as you, except I cited the procedures, like I said, and you cited the definations for some strange reason. My point was that classified information doesn't exist just with an executive order...it exists within an executive order which was created within the framework of a law, and, if the law says breaking the EO is illegal, breaking the EO is illegal, even if someone who has the authority to change the EO does it, because he doesn't have the authority to change the law.
Let's say a company hires someone to impliment an accounting policy, let's call them a comptroller. They do so, and then they are found to have been breaking their own policy, or the policy of their predecessors...do they get in trouble? Of course. It doesn't matter they could have, in theory, issued new accounting policies.
Both this comptroller and the president could have issued a policy that said 'Except when I do it, then it's authorized.'. Both of them didn't for the same reason: They were delibrately operating in secret.
The law defining what it means to be 'authorized' to release classified info is here.
One of those ways is, indeed, 'executive order'. However, to make an executive order, he has to, indeed, sit down and write an executive order.
If he releases information that is classified without making out an executive order declassifying it, he is in violation of the law.
Like I said, the president can declassify whatever he wants, solely due to his operation of the executive branch, and it's even easier than I suspected, he basically just has to write down 'information X is declassified', sign it, and file it as an executive order. What he cannot do, however, is 'magically' declassify something by merely saying it outloud.
Slashdot Mirror
'If (The specific Christian) God exists, then people who believe will go to heaven when they die.'
See, it's a real theory.
Now, any volunteers to test it? You'd need some way of reporting back, but, hey, once you die, you've got access to God, surely he can figure something out.
And, no, you can't ask for unbelievers to test it with you. An experiment that could end up with someone being tortured forever is unethical, and it's unlikely that God would let them report back, as he apparently hates them.
Before anyone points out that a risk exists for the believers, scientists do, indeed, sometimes risk their life to prove they are correct. And they don't ask people who disbelieve to come along with them to certain death. ('I have a vaccine for AIDS, but no one will believe me! I will vaccinate myself, and then inject me and you with HIV. You're the control.')
This, of course, can't prove or disprove God in general. That's much too vague a concept.
No, that's not what scientists do.
After they get all this data, scientists take it, and then go, 'My theory is that carbon dioxide levels were X% 300 years ago. This makes me predict that if we measure certain things, they will fit this theory.'
And they keep measuring.
However, the GP is wrong in what he's implying, and you are correct. We pretty much have determined temperatures and CO2 levels for, I think, a few thousand years back, because various independent data all shows the same stuff. Anyone arguing we don't have 'the facts' about those things should be slotted into the same place that people who argue we don't have any evidence that the earth is really billions of years old.
What we don't know is why any of these changes happen at all, except for some very obvious exceptions like the Year Without A Summer in 1816, which we're almost certain was due to a few volcanic erruptions.
We also know that temperature changes by itself by huge amounts if you look at time on a span of hundreds of thousands of years. We don't know why that happens, and, what's more, we don't know how fast that happens.
However, what's not in question is: Ice is melting. As ice melts, the sea level must go up. If that keeps happening, we're going to be in serious trouble 'shortly'. Not just flooding, but ocean currents shifting. Ocean currents that make very inhabited places inhabitable. Randomly changing weather patterns on the earth is a good way to kill 10% of the population directly and starve another 30%. Good thing, too, because we'll lose like 20% of our living space to the ocean.
Whether this is our fault or not, whether we can stop it regardless if it is or isn't, whether it will change by itself, and whether shortly means 'two decades' or 'two hundred years' are all unknown.
It's entirely possible we're about to tip into some huge climate change completely independent of anything we've done. It's entirely possibly we're nearing one end of a 100-year yoyo and we'll soon turn around and head the other way.
It's also entirely possible the human-caused global warming people are correct. And even if they aren't correct in that we are the actual 'cause', they probably are correct in that we are speeding it up, and can slow it down if we choose.
And you're the idiot. Eisenhower, for example, while president, took the initative in creating the interstate highway system, but he didn't invent roads. Gore, while Senator, took the initative in creating ARPAnet and expanding it from a government project to the real world.(1) Hillary, while first lady, took the initative in creating a national health care system, and she isn't a doctor and didn't invent medicine.
Creation doesn't mean invention, and what's more, 'taking the initative in creation' doesn't even mean 'creation', so you're like two steps away from truthfulness. I can take the initiative to do something by standing up and getting others to do it. Senators, obviously, cannot do everything, so they tell others what to do. That is why he said he 'took initative' instead of saying he actually did it. It was, instead, done in a lab, at his direction. (Granted, his rather indirect direction. He said 'Hey, you got a bunch of computers talking to each other? Here's some more money, keep spending it on that.'.)
No one in the universe parses 'When I was in a political office, I took the the initiative in creating X' as saying 'I invented X' unless they're delibrately trying to misparse it. Politicians take initiative by championing bills.
What's more, they use that exact terminology all the time. That is, in fact, what the damn word 'initiative' means in politics. Witness Bush's 'American Competitiveness Initiative' and 'Helping America's Youth Initiative'. How is he going to help American's youth? Why, via legislation. I quote the GOP: Hughes has served as an adviser to President Bush on many foreignpolicy fronts and took a special interest in the status of women in Afghanistan, leading the President's initiative to free Afghan women from the Taliban. Holy shit. The president is wandering around freeing women in Afghanistan?
Or is Gore 'taking' the initiative somehow different from Bush possessing the initiative? What grammar silliness are you going to try to weasel through there?
The Republicans had a theme in the 2000 election that Gore lied all the time, and this is just one of their most absurd twists of his statements. (This theme is really ironic in the face of who we got instead, Mr. let's-pretend-they-have-WMD.)
1) And, in what continues to baffle me, everyone knows he was a damn champion of this. The entire fucking first term of Clinton was filled with Hillary yammering about national health care, and Gore yammering about, wait for it, The Information Superhighway. Granted, he was talking about earlier, when he was in the Senate, but if there's any politican anyone alive during the early 90s should link to the internet, it's Gore.
2 should be a technological measure. The copyright law itself would still prohibit many behaviors, the triangle would just say 'There are no technological measures in place on this CD to inhibit these behaviors'.
Same here, text appears the same size, or posibly slightly smaller, but either the font or the spacing is really doing a number on me somehow and making it twice as hard to read. I think it's the font, but we could both be right and it could be the narrowness of the font, which of course makes the letters closer together.
Turn off autoplay, you lunatic. Oooo, amazing. Look, you don't need a huge memory stick and two reboots to rip data.
They can still put the CD label on things like the Sony spyware crap, as long as MS keeps enabling them by providing the autoplay anti-functionality. This are valid CDs with a perfectly complient data track on them.
The idea of theft is, indeed, older than law, or civilization(1) The idea that your property is 'yours' even when you're not physically possessing it is probably one of the oldest abstract concepts in existence.
There is a philosophical concept of 'theft' and 'property' that might stretch back twenty thousand years. This has ended up in various religions, too. And there is the legal concept of theft that is basically exactly the same thing, except that the government says 'If we take it via various processes, it's not theft'.
And yet, you miss the entire damn point when you try to bring in copyright infringement. See, that's a BRAND NEW concept. It's only a few hundred years old, dumbass.
You might have been brainwashed into thinking that copyright somehow lines up with either the philosophical, religious, or legal concept of theft, but it obviously doesn't. So don't go yammering about how 'The concepts of theft and property are much older than law', when it's blatantly apparent that copyright isn't older than law...it's barely older than the US.
1) I think you could make the argument that the concept of theft and murder are society. If I can put my stick down to take a leak and someone tries to take it, or tries to bash my head in so they can take it, and a third party stops them because it's not allowed, that is a 'civilization' of some sort. (Note some societies only allow ownership of certain things...like you can own picked fruit, but you can't own the tree or fruit on the tree, or you can own the area round your hut, but you can't own the river.)
There is no such thing. The master boot record, the boot sector, the partition area, and the NTFS and FAT32 header areas are well defined structures. They do not have random data laying around in them.
It is stored in an area called the LDM near the end of the partition.
And, of course, you can't use LDM partitions on removable media, which is what we're talking about. (Even if you could, they wouldn't work right on other computers. Moving LDM stuff is a hassle.)
No, I looked this up too. It is in the boot sector code. In between the boot code and the partition code.
First of all, the boot sector is on the first sector of a partition. If you only have one bootable partition on a drive, boot sector is indeed 'between' the partition table and the 'partition', but it's much more accurate to say it is the first sector on every partition.
And I've already linked to it, but here goes again. The bytes in a FAT32, a FAT, and an NTFS boot sector. (There are only 512 of them, it's a single sector.) Feel free to find 'drive letter' in that list.
I have two thumb drives that i set at drive T. Went walking aeounf the office plugging then into different computers and guess what, Drive T with the exception of a 2000 box. but guess what happened there? The drive was 2 letters down at R instead of the next availible drive letter.
And henceforth it was on letter R?
Or, as I suspect, do you just have drive Q on the other computers, and it started at drive Z and worked downward? (Which is actually how it maps removable media. It takes the highest letter, and adds one, or however you want to say that. It usually won't put them in gaps, although I've seen it before...it has something to do with what kind of drivers it has.)
"Fairly random order" means random to some extent. It isn't random it is predicable by a set of defined criteria or rules. There is nothign random about it.
Okay, I'm going to explain this once more. I didn't say the drive are assigned randomly, I said the enumeration order was random, as in, they apparently flipped a few coins when making the rules, instead of thinking them out.
Random rules produce, like all rules, known outcomes. If I were calling out the names of people waiting, using the sort 'length of their last name times the day of the month they were born', that would be entirely consistent, but completely useless in anyone knowing they're about to be called. That is, in essense, what MS does when ordering drives, and produces much the same result...no one knows where anything goes in advance.
Well thought-out rules result in people saying 'Okay, if I do this, then this happens'. Poorly- or not-at-all-thought out rules result in people saying 'Crap, that's not what I wanted. What if I do this...' MS's rules for partition enumeration is very poorly thought out, or, as I suspect, not thought out at all. It's just the way the code ended up, and by the time anyone at MS realized what happened if you had multiple drives with multiple partitions, they had to keep it for backwards compatibility.
Aka, it's random. It's like Memorial Day. The selection of the last weekend in May was random, and using that random rule produces consistent results.
The windows disk administrator/manager writes a volume id to the boot/partition section of the partition. This is on both NTFS and Fat systems. This Volume id is 4 bytes and contains coded information to suggest a drive letter if it is availible and marked to do so.
Volume serial numbers don't contain any information. They are completely random based on the time. Although, admittedly, you could be talking about something besides the volume serial number, which is actually eight bytes, when you say 'volume ID', but I don't see anything else in the partition boot area you could be talking about.
With a logical Drive, The drive letter is stored in metedata near the end of the NTFS loader code. This system suggests the drive letter asignment to the IO manage which uses the mount manager when the partition information is read. If the drive letter is availible, It is then asigned to that volume.
I don't know what you mean, 'with a logical drive'. I think You're talking about the $Mft, which does indeed have something called $Volume, but that has the partition name and version, not a drive letter. Feel free to read what Microsoft says about it, and feel free to search for 'drive letter' in that document. (It is there, but not in reference to any information in the NTFS or partition.)
And just in case you were trying to assert it was the partition table the held the drive letters instead of the file system, look here and tell me in which of the 16 bytes that this data is stored. Partition tables are very very cramped.
This volume id is also mapped to a registry area HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\MountedDevices wich coresponds to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\DISK which solidifies the drive letter asignment if availible.
Well, duh. That's how partitions get drive letters. The operating system hands them out. DOS handed them out inflexibly, NT lets you move them around. They aren't stored anywhere on the partition or the drive the partition is on, which is rather my point, and hence they can NEVER transfer between XP installs.(1)
But, duh, that's so incredibly easy to test I don't know why we're even discussing this, and I know for a fact it doesn't work how you say, because I had a jump drive that was assigned to drive O or something on my computer, and took the first available one on every other one.
Seriously, Windows has a very ordered way for naming drive letters. It only gets complicated a little by what partition formats the OS version can see as well as any preformed lettering criteria. The first drive letter gets asigned to the first primary partition unless another partition on the first drive is marked active. the rest get asigned to the rest of the primary partition in the order the drivers for the device (NT ) is loaded. Then all logical and extended partitions get lettered and then finaly everything else in order of thier bus gets a letter.
I didn't say it assigned them randomly. I said they were assigned as, and I quote, 'picking the first one as the drives are enumerated in their fairly random order'. The order you just listed? First active partitions on the drive, then inactive primary ones, and then move on to the next drive and repeat? When finished, go back and do the logical ones? Then do all non-hard drives? Yup, that appears to be a fairly random order to me.
1) I did say 'machines' there, but actually if you move a disk with an XP install on it, duh, all the drive letter mappings move with it.
Spammers stopped caring if addresses were valid about four years ago.
Drive letters are assigned by the OS, period. Neither NTFS or FAT has any idea what drive letters they are, or in fact any concept of drive letters.
Letters are assigned, under Windows, by simply picking the first one as the drives are enumerated in their fairly random order. However, if a device has a 'serial number', which most USB ones do, you can assign it a specific drive letter in the console, and Windows will remember it.
Sometimes you will run across weird cases, like USB drives that share serial numbers, so whatever you assign to one of them will get assigned to the other, or ones that don't have a serial number and hence won't 'remember' any assignments. (Sometimes you can name the partition and Windows will remember, sometimes not.)
I have a computer. The hard drives partitions are C, L, M, and K. The CDs are S (real) and V (virtual).
I can access these drives over the network from any computer in the house using the same drive letter, at least the ones I have mapped.
If you start installing drives and let them go wherever you want, you will end up in bad situtations.
I thought that would have been obvious to everyone.
I didn't say that he didn't believe it, but it's trivial to believe that the Bible says something when you don't have any actual training.
The last half of lawyers are either lying or criminally incompetant. There is no logical legal way that you'd need everyone to sue.
He's approaching the entire thing without any religous training at all. Basically, he's taken several rather controversial psychological positions, and pretended they actually are supported in the Bible.
See, they sign contracts. A lot of them. Places with Ticketmaster contracts must sell their tickets via Ticketmaster.
They also sign contracts with bands. These bands 'should' use Ticketmaster. I'm not sure if they are legally required to, but a lot of pressure is put on them to not play in places that don't use Ticketmaster. If they don't, they find themselves shut out of Ticketmaster venues.
As long as Ticketmaster has, say, 80% of the venues and bands, everyone else is screwed, period. Yes, the remaining 20% of the bands could play in the 20% of the venues, but not really.
New bands come in, find they need to play at Ticketmaster venues to get anywhere at all, so they sign up. New venues pop up, and find they can't book anyone unless they use Ticketmaster.
Like others said, Pearl Jam fought them for years, because they didn't want their fans to pay that much. They had to give in, because their stance was causing them not to be able to play anywhere.
This is why, incidentally, sports arenas often use Ticketmaster, when logically there'd be almost no motive at all. They find it very hard to book any bands unless they sign up for it, which means their team also has to use Ticketmaster.
This just shows even a little bit of reality leaks into the fantasy-based community every once in a while.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It is illegal to violate the president's executive order WRT classified information, thanks to an actual law passed by Congress.
The president violated the president's executive order.
Q.E.D.
Whereas the NSA spying is a violation of their charter, a violation of lots of laws, and a violation of the constitution.
See, violating his executive order is illegal via a law. Executive orders can't make things legal or not, so when this whole 'classified information' was thought up, Congress stepped in and passed a law saying the President could come up with a whole system of classification and declassification, and that violating that system was really and truly illegal and punishable under the actual criminal code. If you follow my link, you'll eventually find it, it's right near there.
He could have changed the rules at any time via an EO, he could have even written an EO that said he could authorize anything retroactively.
But he didn't.
And 'does the president have to follow his own Eos isn't decided case law' people are irrelevent. That might matter if he implimented a executive branch dress code, and then broke it, but it doesn't work when Congress tells him to implement one, and he does, and then breaks it. There's a big difference between EOs that are just policy statements for internal use, and if you break them you just get in trouble with your boss, and EOs that are created at demand of Congress and have criminal penalties for violating them.
The later he can ignore, but only by 'repealing' them by passing an EO that says something like 'All clothing is legal in the executive branch' or 'Anyone can declassify anything they want just by saying it outloud'. I.e, he's just instructed to pass rules...he can, if he wants, pass rules that no one can violate. (Or, in fact, not pass any rules at all, making the law dead letter. They can't make him make an EO.)
What he cannot do is pass rules and then break them.
Or, in actuality, he can, because what everyone seems to be forgetting about the technicalities of all this is the president doesn't get charged with crimes without getting impeached, and he can get impeached and removed from office without technically committing a crime at all. So whether or not he followed the letter of the law is pretty much meaningless. The president and the law have no relation to each other, the only 'law' that matters is Congress not getting so pissed at him and his behavior that they impeach him.
Information shall be declassified or downgraded by the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position; the originator's successor; a supervisory official of either; or officials delegated such authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official designated pursuant to Section 5.3(a)(1).
Do you notice that it says 'shall be' instead of 'can be', like you said it did? That's right. Information is owned by various agencies, and they 'shall be' the ones to declassify it, or anyone over them. (The procedures for transfering 'ownership' are also in that EO.)
It doesn't say they can declassify it whenever they want without any procedures, as you are implying it does for the president. If that were so, than anyone could declassify information they 'owned', haphardardly, and there would be no need for the actual process.
If the law says the person taking a car from an impound lot 'shall be' the owner, by your logic, the owner can break into the impound lot and take the car back however he wants. That's not how 'shall be' works...it's not authority to do anything, it's a restriction. It means the CIA can't declassify the Department of Defense's info, and stuff like that. It doesn't mean the Department of Defense can do whatever they want.
And I cited the same damn law as you, except I cited the procedures, like I said, and you cited the definations for some strange reason. My point was that classified information doesn't exist just with an executive order...it exists within an executive order which was created within the framework of a law, and, if the law says breaking the EO is illegal, breaking the EO is illegal, even if someone who has the authority to change the EO does it, because he doesn't have the authority to change the law.
Let's say a company hires someone to impliment an accounting policy, let's call them a comptroller. They do so, and then they are found to have been breaking their own policy, or the policy of their predecessors...do they get in trouble? Of course. It doesn't matter they could have, in theory, issued new accounting policies.
Both this comptroller and the president could have issued a policy that said 'Except when I do it, then it's authorized.'. Both of them didn't for the same reason: They were delibrately operating in secret.
Executive orders are official written policies that the executive branch should follow. They are numbered and filed.
One of those ways is, indeed, 'executive order'. However, to make an executive order, he has to, indeed, sit down and write an executive order.
If he releases information that is classified without making out an executive order declassifying it, he is in violation of the law.
Like I said, the president can declassify whatever he wants, solely due to his operation of the executive branch, and it's even easier than I suspected, he basically just has to write down 'information X is declassified', sign it, and file it as an executive order. What he cannot do, however, is 'magically' declassify something by merely saying it outloud.