So, you think computers in hotel rooms are just going to have their cabling laying around where people can get to it?
Cause we all know they do that with the phones and TVs.
Oh, wait, no they don't. They build them into things or at the very least have the cables non-detachable.
Gee, if they do that with a 30 dollar phone and a two dollar cable on it, I wonder if they'll do it with a 300 dollar computer and a two dollar cable on it. Not to mention the 15 dollar keyboard and 5 dollar mouse they don't want people making off with.
I'm sure they'll leave all that accessable where we can just unplug it at will, instead of putting in those computer cases that are sold exactly for the purpose of blocking access to the cabling while leaving the front accessable.
Just for laughs, at the next hotel you stay in that has an internet connection, try unplugging the TV. See how far you get. You can unplug them at cheap places that just buy a TV and put it on a table, but those are not the places that will be offering computers.
So it's your contention that VMs don't have BIOSes?
Have you ever seen VMWare, or are you just talking gibberish?
The only clue you're in VMWare is the screen mode changes sometimes result in you seeing past it for a second. And, of course, it says VMWare during the boot.
It would be rather trivial to design a VMWare that is completely invisible that operates with a fake power button. I bet the NSA is working on exactly something like that, with the ability to even boot up an existing hard drive in the virtual machine. Plug it into their USB port, make sure the computer boots off it, and they sit down at 'their' computer. If you're really clever, put it inside their USB keyboard. They can even reformat their hard drive and boot off CD, and as long as they don't uncheck 'Boot off USB device', they're still owned.
Of course, something that would be much easier would just be to hack a USB port that copies all data from any USB devices hooked up to it, and copies all your keystrokes while it's at it.
They already have network sharing devices for USB drives, so I know sharing them is possible. I think I saw a 'USB keyboard switch' that said it could take USB drives, and I think they were shared. If not, you can rig USB drive network share inside the box and use boot-from-network.
And I know they have keystroke loggers...hell, that's just a keyboard switch without the actual switch part.
Put that between your panel USB ports and your motherboard. And, of course, users aren't allowed to open the case.
No, it's rather like calling up a real pizza place with a coupon for a supreme pizza, and asking they remove everything but the green peppers, and getting charged more for that.
Dell already has an automatic process to give each drive exactly the right image, which they have to do because they sell MS Office for one thing, and XP Home and Pro. The Freedos computers don't even come with freedos installed, so they just have to push the button that says 'no image'.
I don't know in what universe that would imaginably cost more. If it did for some nonsensical reason, they should image an empty harddrive and then push the button for that.
Your rights to resell that are not being restricted by the manufacturer.
The FDA requires certain information be printed on, or come with, all food products sold. Those packages do not contain that information, and this is warning you not to attempt to sell them as-is.
You can trivially get around this 'restriction' by photocopying the information from the main package and attaching it to the smaller ones.
People need to stop looking at warnings on products in other industries, like this one, and the 'It is unlawful to use this product in a manner inconsist with it's packaging', or even 'It is illegal to copy this movie', and thinking that somehow justifies software manufacturers restricting usage of their product.
Those warnings are just there to inform you what the law is, they do not make things more or less illegal. The company just doesn't want to get sued if you do something illegal with their product.
I don't know what you mean by 'the military'. The National Guard is supposed to be the people providing martial law in the US, and the posse comitatus law doesn't talk about them.
However, that law doesn't mean what people seem to think it means, either. That merely stops the president from using the military as law enforcement in the US, despite being commander in chief.
FEMA does, in fact, have Congressional authorization to call in the military.
And it doesn't matter anyway, because 'protecting FEMA personal' isn't 'law enforcement', anymore than protecting military bases is.
To quote Chumbawamba: 'It is a great thing we have an unarmed police force in this country. It is perhaps an even greater thing that a force that is unarmed is able to shoot so many people'.
The problem with them is that they require stellar matter to behave in a very specific and peculiar way upon compression, and we have no reason to believe that it actually behaves that way.
Huh? The reason it would behave that way would presumably be explained by quantum gravity.
Hence theorizing about gravstars is silly without such a theory. And such a theory seems extremely unlikely to appear out of nowhere all the sudden unless another Einstein shows up.
As for information theory, I don't think that's an insurmountable argument against blackholes, whether or not Hawking is right.
I didn't say that was evidence for or against quantum gravity. It's just not at the same scale as everything else, which introduces a rather large hurdle to any theory of it.
And, no, I'm not misinterpeting something. And I found it! Summary here, article here.
They were trying to measure the quantum effects of gravity, and discovered it didn't appear to have any.
The emission of energy does not help the information problem, as the energy emitted bears no known relationship to the material that made up the black hole.;)
However, I think too early to to figure out what happens inside a blackhole/gravstart, which as far as I can tell is the only difference between the two.
I can't seem to find the slashdot article, slashdot does not seem to have any useful search function at all.
However, the basic concept was that they had figured out a way to cancel out normal graviational effects, so could measure the gravity of tiny objects. Even past the normal scale of quantum effects exhibited by other forces, they didn't notice any quantum effect for the gravity.
Sadly, I can't seem to find this anywhere. Grumble.
Erm, the problem with gravstars is we know there is no 'quantum gravity' theory even slightly likely to appear in a reasonable amount of time.
Or did you miss the recent discovery that gravity does not exhibit quantum effects? It was actually posted on here a few months ago.
That's not to say we will never have a quantum gravity theory, but simple 'gravitons' seem unlikely. Gravity just does not work like the electronuclear forces.
A lot of people have built a quantum gravity house of cards, but those people seem likely to be disappointed.
And the information paradox has, as far I know, has been solved by Hawking's discovery that black holes can 'emit' energy.
I am not a Clinton Apologist, whatever that is. I think what he did was idiotic.
You, however, said two things that explicitly are untrue at the start of this that I wished to correct, so I did.
First, you said 'the majority found him guilty of lying' which, as I pointed out, was gibberish, akin to saying 'The majority of Americans elected Gore', which is also some common gibberish that was going around, based on him getting more votes total. Finding someone guilty is an well-defined process that requires a supermajority.
And 'He was found guilty of perjuring himself before the bench', which he wasn't. People can't be found guilty of anything in civil court.
Considering this entire thread is a nitpick, it makes me wonder why you delibrately stated things in way to make Clinton's guilt seem worse than it did. You managed to state his actions perfectly well, and then acted like he got in more trouble for what he did, or that it was a worse crime. (Or even any crime at all.)
And, sadly for you, while a judge in the civil court system cannot hand down a bench warrant and have someone arrested (Not that she could do that to the president anyway.), she can certainly have charges filed against him. People can and do get arrested for perjury in civil cases. He wasn't.
Now, he did get his license to practice law revoked, which is a pretty serious thing to happen to a lawyer...except he hadn't practiced law in quite some time. I suspect that if he had ever planned to practice law, and wasn't already in such an untenable posistion, he would have challenged that.
And, Monica's testimony wasn't material to the case, mainly because they had other examples where he had done exactly the same thing. The pattern was already established, the weakness of the case was in other aspects.
I link this idea for a completely different reason.
It's the same reason we shouldn't publish the names of serial killers...because they want us to. They want to be famous, they want their name everywhere.
Well, fuck that. We'll just make up a name and give it to you.
Actually, pacemakers already depend greatly on the person who has them, but not for that reason.
Some people have slightly damaged natural pacemakers, and some have ones that are essentially dead, with many in between.
The ones that are only slightly damaged can be triggered by a very low voltage from a pacemaker. Slightly more than the heart itself can provide, but enough.
Many of those people, like me, can also live without our pacemakers. Our heartrate just drops to about 40 beats a minutes. So my pacemaker is only providing, on average, half the beats.
OTOH, some people have their pacemaker providing enough charge every heartbeat to operate the entire heart by itself. This obviously takes more power.
Perjury is a crime. Clinton has never been found guilt of this crime. Ergo, he has not committed perjury. A judge impeaching his testimony because he lied is not the same as being charged with a crime.
No matter how you try to spend it, that's how the legal system works.
And he was, in fact, found not guilty by the Senate. Admittedly, he was found not guilty of 'treason, high crimes, or misdemeanors', not 'perjury' per se, but that only emphasizes he's never actually been charged with normal perjury.
The fact that a judge comdemned him (rightly so) of lying to the court, and the bar (quite rightly) revoked his priviledges to practive law because of that, is no more 'perjury' than a doctor making a stupid mistake and having his medical license revoked is 'murder'.
Note that prejury requires material lies. It is possible to lie before the court, and legitmately have your law license revoked, and not commit perjury, as long as the lies are immaterial to the case, which most of the Monica Lewinsky stuff ultimately was.
Except that the Executive isn't required to wait for the the Senate, as I just said. Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem?
The only thing the Executive is required to do is listen to the Senate if they say something. He is not required to wait for them, and they are not required to actually give advice. An up or down vote is not required as the form of advice, either.
Saying 'The constitution doesn't allow fillibusters for voting for nominations' is akin to saying 'The constitution doesn't allow fillibusters for deciding who will meet with people coming in to file grievances.'. The Senate does not have to do any such thing under the constitution, and thus their inabilty to decide how to do it is perfectly legal. The Senate doesn't even legally have to advise, much less vote. The president just has to listen if they do.
And this discussion is slightly idiotic because a fillibuster is the Senate advising the president. Specifically, they're advising him that, while the majority of the Senate may agree with his candidate, a few people are very strongly opposed. It doesn't say the word 'vote' in there anywhere WRT to advising the president.
Except the constitution doesn't say that a nomination requires a vote at all.
It merely says the Senate should 'advise' the president. It would be perfectly legal for the president to just walk up and just ask every Senator 'So, what do you think?', or even going ahead and appoint someone without a vote. (Hey, if they want to advise him, they know how to reach him.)
The vote on candidates is entirely made up in the first place, and if the minority part in the Senate feels the rest is going to give bad 'advice', they are perfectly within their rights to hold it up, according to Senate rules.
No, the 'majority' didn't find him guilty of lying, and that's just gibberish. The majority voted that he was guilty of lying. Only a supermajority of the senate can find him guilty.
There was sufficient evidence to take him to court on the charge, and because he was the president his 'court' looked rather different than everyone else's. (And actually required a vote to get him into it, instead of the DA just filing charges.)
However going to court doesn't make you guilty, and seven out of twelve jurors voting to convict you when the law requires nine doesn't make you guilty either.
Which seems to be something everyone's ignoring. Clinton, according to the legal process in place to try presidents, did not commit prejury. He was found not guilty.
Now, the same charge has been leveled against him by a private organization, the Arkansas Bar, and they have revoked their permission to practice law on those ground. However, the Arkansas Bar is not the legal system, and cannot find people guilty or innocent, even if it can fine its members under the rules they agreed to when they joined.
Slashdot Mirror
Cause we all know they do that with the phones and TVs.
Oh, wait, no they don't. They build them into things or at the very least have the cables non-detachable.
Gee, if they do that with a 30 dollar phone and a two dollar cable on it, I wonder if they'll do it with a 300 dollar computer and a two dollar cable on it. Not to mention the 15 dollar keyboard and 5 dollar mouse they don't want people making off with.
I'm sure they'll leave all that accessable where we can just unplug it at will, instead of putting in those computer cases that are sold exactly for the purpose of blocking access to the cabling while leaving the front accessable.
Just for laughs, at the next hotel you stay in that has an internet connection, try unplugging the TV. See how far you get. You can unplug them at cheap places that just buy a TV and put it on a table, but those are not the places that will be offering computers.
The only people that ever use the term 'operating environment' is Sun, that I am aware of.
Have you ever seen VMWare, or are you just talking gibberish?
The only clue you're in VMWare is the screen mode changes sometimes result in you seeing past it for a second. And, of course, it says VMWare during the boot.
It would be rather trivial to design a VMWare that is completely invisible that operates with a fake power button. I bet the NSA is working on exactly something like that, with the ability to even boot up an existing hard drive in the virtual machine. Plug it into their USB port, make sure the computer boots off it, and they sit down at 'their' computer. If you're really clever, put it inside their USB keyboard. They can even reformat their hard drive and boot off CD, and as long as they don't uncheck 'Boot off USB device', they're still owned.
Of course, something that would be much easier would just be to hack a USB port that copies all data from any USB devices hooked up to it, and copies all your keystrokes while it's at it.
They already have network sharing devices for USB drives, so I know sharing them is possible. I think I saw a 'USB keyboard switch' that said it could take USB drives, and I think they were shared. If not, you can rig USB drive network share inside the box and use boot-from-network.
And I know they have keystroke loggers...hell, that's just a keyboard switch without the actual switch part.
Put that between your panel USB ports and your motherboard. And, of course, users aren't allowed to open the case.
Dell already has an automatic process to give each drive exactly the right image, which they have to do because they sell MS Office for one thing, and XP Home and Pro. The Freedos computers don't even come with freedos installed, so they just have to push the button that says 'no image'.
I don't know in what universe that would imaginably cost more. If it did for some nonsensical reason, they should image an empty harddrive and then push the button for that.
The FDA requires certain information be printed on, or come with, all food products sold. Those packages do not contain that information, and this is warning you not to attempt to sell them as-is.
You can trivially get around this 'restriction' by photocopying the information from the main package and attaching it to the smaller ones.
People need to stop looking at warnings on products in other industries, like this one, and the 'It is unlawful to use this product in a manner inconsist with it's packaging', or even 'It is illegal to copy this movie', and thinking that somehow justifies software manufacturers restricting usage of their product.
Those warnings are just there to inform you what the law is, they do not make things more or less illegal. The company just doesn't want to get sued if you do something illegal with their product.
However, that law doesn't mean what people seem to think it means, either. That merely stops the president from using the military as law enforcement in the US, despite being commander in chief.
FEMA does, in fact, have Congressional authorization to call in the military.
And it doesn't matter anyway, because 'protecting FEMA personal' isn't 'law enforcement', anymore than protecting military bases is.
To quote Chumbawamba: 'It is a great thing we have an unarmed police force in this country. It is perhaps an even greater thing that a force that is unarmed is able to shoot so many people'.
When you click on it, Firefox goes to /, like it claims.
What is your name, Mr. Poster?
Huh? The reason it would behave that way would presumably be explained by quantum gravity.
Hence theorizing about gravstars is silly without such a theory. And such a theory seems extremely unlikely to appear out of nowhere all the sudden unless another Einstein shows up.
As for information theory, I don't think that's an insurmountable argument against blackholes, whether or not Hawking is right.
And, no, I'm not misinterpeting something. And I found it! Summary here, article here.
They were trying to measure the quantum effects of gravity, and discovered it didn't appear to have any.
However, I think too early to to figure out what happens inside a blackhole/gravstart, which as far as I can tell is the only difference between the two.
However, the basic concept was that they had figured out a way to cancel out normal graviational effects, so could measure the gravity of tiny objects. Even past the normal scale of quantum effects exhibited by other forces, they didn't notice any quantum effect for the gravity.
Sadly, I can't seem to find this anywhere. Grumble.
Or did you miss the recent discovery that gravity does not exhibit quantum effects? It was actually posted on here a few months ago.
That's not to say we will never have a quantum gravity theory, but simple 'gravitons' seem unlikely. Gravity just does not work like the electronuclear forces.
A lot of people have built a quantum gravity house of cards, but those people seem likely to be disappointed.
And the information paradox has, as far I know, has been solved by Hawking's discovery that black holes can 'emit' energy.
It doens't disappear, it just pushes the universe. ;)
You, however, said two things that explicitly are untrue at the start of this that I wished to correct, so I did.
First, you said 'the majority found him guilty of lying' which, as I pointed out, was gibberish, akin to saying 'The majority of Americans elected Gore', which is also some common gibberish that was going around, based on him getting more votes total. Finding someone guilty is an well-defined process that requires a supermajority.
And 'He was found guilty of perjuring himself before the bench', which he wasn't. People can't be found guilty of anything in civil court.
Considering this entire thread is a nitpick, it makes me wonder why you delibrately stated things in way to make Clinton's guilt seem worse than it did. You managed to state his actions perfectly well, and then acted like he got in more trouble for what he did, or that it was a worse crime. (Or even any crime at all.)
And, sadly for you, while a judge in the civil court system cannot hand down a bench warrant and have someone arrested (Not that she could do that to the president anyway.), she can certainly have charges filed against him. People can and do get arrested for perjury in civil cases. He wasn't.
Now, he did get his license to practice law revoked, which is a pretty serious thing to happen to a lawyer...except he hadn't practiced law in quite some time. I suspect that if he had ever planned to practice law, and wasn't already in such an untenable posistion, he would have challenged that.
And, Monica's testimony wasn't material to the case, mainly because they had other examples where he had done exactly the same thing. The pattern was already established, the weakness of the case was in other aspects.
It's the same reason we shouldn't publish the names of serial killers...because they want us to. They want to be famous, they want their name everywhere.
Well, fuck that. We'll just make up a name and give it to you.
Some people have slightly damaged natural pacemakers, and some have ones that are essentially dead, with many in between.
The ones that are only slightly damaged can be triggered by a very low voltage from a pacemaker. Slightly more than the heart itself can provide, but enough.
Many of those people, like me, can also live without our pacemakers. Our heartrate just drops to about 40 beats a minutes. So my pacemaker is only providing, on average, half the beats.
OTOH, some people have their pacemaker providing enough charge every heartbeat to operate the entire heart by itself. This obviously takes more power.
1. Have you ever tried to get the NRC and the FDA to work together? And don't forget these people have to be able to leave the country.
2. Worries about shielding. Pacemakers can, and do, get damaged.
3. Possiblity of a race of mutant zombies arising from the corpses of people who had nuclear pacemakers.
The consumer market...for pacemakers?
Make them openable and you're seriously comprimised them.
No matter how you try to spend it, that's how the legal system works.
And he was, in fact, found not guilty by the Senate. Admittedly, he was found not guilty of 'treason, high crimes, or misdemeanors', not 'perjury' per se, but that only emphasizes he's never actually been charged with normal perjury.
The fact that a judge comdemned him (rightly so) of lying to the court, and the bar (quite rightly) revoked his priviledges to practive law because of that, is no more 'perjury' than a doctor making a stupid mistake and having his medical license revoked is 'murder'.
Note that prejury requires material lies. It is possible to lie before the court, and legitmately have your law license revoked, and not commit perjury, as long as the lies are immaterial to the case, which most of the Monica Lewinsky stuff ultimately was.
The only thing the Executive is required to do is listen to the Senate if they say something. He is not required to wait for them, and they are not required to actually give advice. An up or down vote is not required as the form of advice, either.
Saying 'The constitution doesn't allow fillibusters for voting for nominations' is akin to saying 'The constitution doesn't allow fillibusters for deciding who will meet with people coming in to file grievances.'. The Senate does not have to do any such thing under the constitution, and thus their inabilty to decide how to do it is perfectly legal. The Senate doesn't even legally have to advise, much less vote. The president just has to listen if they do.
And this discussion is slightly idiotic because a fillibuster is the Senate advising the president. Specifically, they're advising him that, while the majority of the Senate may agree with his candidate, a few people are very strongly opposed. It doesn't say the word 'vote' in there anywhere WRT to advising the president.
It merely says the Senate should 'advise' the president. It would be perfectly legal for the president to just walk up and just ask every Senator 'So, what do you think?', or even going ahead and appoint someone without a vote. (Hey, if they want to advise him, they know how to reach him.)
The vote on candidates is entirely made up in the first place, and if the minority part in the Senate feels the rest is going to give bad 'advice', they are perfectly within their rights to hold it up, according to Senate rules.
There was sufficient evidence to take him to court on the charge, and because he was the president his 'court' looked rather different than everyone else's. (And actually required a vote to get him into it, instead of the DA just filing charges.)
However going to court doesn't make you guilty, and seven out of twelve jurors voting to convict you when the law requires nine doesn't make you guilty either.
Which seems to be something everyone's ignoring. Clinton, according to the legal process in place to try presidents, did not commit prejury. He was found not guilty.
Now, the same charge has been leveled against him by a private organization, the Arkansas Bar, and they have revoked their permission to practice law on those ground. However, the Arkansas Bar is not the legal system, and cannot find people guilty or innocent, even if it can fine its members under the rules they agreed to when they joined.