It's been discussed here on/. many times. Unless you believe that phone companies have no idea who to bill when someone makes a call, spoofing CAN be stopped.
I made no such claim. I claimed only that because the viper was more interested in self promotion and a bit of theater than it was in actual security, it attracted a bad actor who would have otherwise walked by without incident, just as he did with all of the other cars that remained silent.
It's well and good to learn some self defense, but if you then go to a dive bar and yell "I'm the biggest badass in this bar!" repeatedly, right or wrong you're going to get your ass kicked. It's a stupid strategy.
Actually, those tests weren't all that controlled. More than one ended in fallout landing on civilians. They had no plan at all to contain or clean up after the blasts. In fact, very little cleanup was done. You can still distinguish wine produced before and after the tests based on analysis of isotopes.
Do you have any idea how funny it is when I state a basic principle from Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" and you decry me as a Marxist? Have you even read "The Wealth of Nations"? Do give it a read. It doesn't say what you think it does.
The mere possibility doesn't mean the market is working. I MIGHT be able to row a cardboard box to Hawaii, but that doesn't make it a seaworthy yacht.
The market hasn't managed to correct in a decade. Since a healthy market would correct, this is not a healthy market.
You see a huge opportunity for disruption, but it's not happening. That implies that there must be a roadblock to that disruption that you're not seeing.
They DO have a legitimate purpose. The people being called are public officials. They are the natural recipients of petitions for the redress of grievances WRT communications in the United States. No law may abridge that right.
The entire justification of market economies hinges on the central premise that competition drives the retail price towards the marginal cost of production. If that is untrue, the market has failed and intervention is necessary if the economy is to remain market based.
Interestingly, during the meltdown, authorities went all over Japan checking for traces of radiation. They were extremely concerned when their detectors went off in Tokyo. Quite a panic ensued while they pinpointed the source.
Then they discovered a radium watch paint kit under someone's floor boards. It had apparently been there since the '50s.
You took it as evidence of guilt. That's what suspicious means. That is, you assumed that evidence of innocence is evidence of guilt. Exactly what do you suppose happens if a defendant is required to prove innocence but evidence of innocence is taken to be evidence of guilt? And of course, evidence of guilt is taken as evidence of guilt. Given that, there can be only one result no matter the circumstance. I made an ANALOGY to her situation in that case.
If it's a criminal matter, the state or feds will foot the bill for the trial, not the school. All the school has to do is turn everything over to the investigators.
No, you claimed that evidence of innocence is evidence of guilt in a case where the defendant is being required to prove innocence. If we extend your principle in a logical manner, she's left in that perfect catch-22.
Slashdot Mirror
Other than corruption, there's no reason the Japanese government shouldn't bill TEPCO for the lot of it.
Missing information is still a market failure. In particular when it is sufficiently obscure that it hasn't forced the competition to match the deal.
It's been discussed here on /. many times. Unless you believe that phone companies have no idea who to bill when someone makes a call, spoofing CAN be stopped.
I made no such claim. I claimed only that because the viper was more interested in self promotion and a bit of theater than it was in actual security, it attracted a bad actor who would have otherwise walked by without incident, just as he did with all of the other cars that remained silent.
It's well and good to learn some self defense, but if you then go to a dive bar and yell "I'm the biggest badass in this bar!" repeatedly, right or wrong you're going to get your ass kicked. It's a stupid strategy.
Actually, those tests weren't all that controlled. More than one ended in fallout landing on civilians. They had no plan at all to contain or clean up after the blasts. In fact, very little cleanup was done. You can still distinguish wine produced before and after the tests based on analysis of isotopes.
Do you have any idea how funny it is when I state a basic principle from Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" and you decry me as a Marxist? Have you even read "The Wealth of Nations"? Do give it a read. It doesn't say what you think it does.
Sure. And monopolies are evidence for and a natural result of a failed market.
Since nobody is taking that "opportunity", there must be a roadblock you can't see from where you're standing.
One, that's the judicial branch. Two, it looks like the merger will ultimately be permitted.
The mere possibility doesn't mean the market is working. I MIGHT be able to row a cardboard box to Hawaii, but that doesn't make it a seaworthy yacht.
The market hasn't managed to correct in a decade. Since a healthy market would correct, this is not a healthy market.
You see a huge opportunity for disruption, but it's not happening. That implies that there must be a roadblock to that disruption that you're not seeing.
They DO have a legitimate purpose. The people being called are public officials. They are the natural recipients of petitions for the redress of grievances WRT communications in the United States. No law may abridge that right.
They have been, but those calls have exploded in volume in the last 2 or 3 years.
And yet, both the GOP and Libertarian party are opposed to reigning in corporations, much less abolishing them.
Here in the U.S. the invisible hand is in traction from so many megacorps whacking it with a mallet.
The entire justification of market economies hinges on the central premise that competition drives the retail price towards the marginal cost of production. If that is untrue, the market has failed and intervention is necessary if the economy is to remain market based.
I think they understand that just fine.
Interestingly, during the meltdown, authorities went all over Japan checking for traces of radiation. They were extremely concerned when their detectors went off in Tokyo. Quite a panic ensued while they pinpointed the source.
Then they discovered a radium watch paint kit under someone's floor boards. It had apparently been there since the '50s.
The U.S. and Soviet testing of nuclear weapons have released far more radioactive material into the environment. On purpose.
I'm not claiming it's harmless, but let's keep things in perspective.
You took it as evidence of guilt. That's what suspicious means. That is, you assumed that evidence of innocence is evidence of guilt. Exactly what do you suppose happens if a defendant is required to prove innocence but evidence of innocence is taken to be evidence of guilt? And of course, evidence of guilt is taken as evidence of guilt. Given that, there can be only one result no matter the circumstance. I made an ANALOGY to her situation in that case.
If the expulsion hearing was anything like honest, they have already gathered and reviewed all of the evidence.
If it's a criminal matter, the state or feds will foot the bill for the trial, not the school. All the school has to do is turn everything over to the investigators.
The people she asked if there were any bad thingies on her laptop told her.
OTOH, you get in the house before the temperature starts dropping due to sunset.
If she was doing it herself on her own laptop, why would she install a RAT at all?
middle of Summer.
The proposal under discussion is about the daylight hours IN THE WINTER.
Unless you live in some crazy ass place where you have summer in the winter, your entire train of thought is irrelevant to the question at hand.
No, you claimed that evidence of innocence is evidence of guilt in a case where the defendant is being required to prove innocence. If we extend your principle in a logical manner, she's left in that perfect catch-22.