how do they determine if the crash was caused by impaired driving
The same way he determines whether you just committed a murder, or whether you have anti-government sentiments:
He doesnt.
The job of a police officer is not to exhaustively determine that no crime was committed. If he wants to do so, he needs reasonable suspicion and generally a warrant.
ARP is layer 2, and doesnt traverse routers, much less firewalls. Im also not aware of any "vulnerabilities" per se in ARP on windows, other than the whole "the entire protocol is insecure but impractical to exploit in most consumer scenarios".
Ditto with NTP and DNS... theres really not much to exploit there on the client end.
Why wouldnt he just learn the alien Windows 8 interface and have the best of both worlds-- "just works", and "doesnt cost hundreds (or thousands) extra"?
Apple makes nice machines to be sure, but their pricing is absolutely ludicrous.
One of the chief marks of being a geek is that, knowing what is possible and having a mind for connecting things together, one tends to understate obstacles and complexity.
So, a geek who understands that they can probably get a piece of software to work on Linux tends to miss that it may involve hours of work and break on the next upgrade, and that it probably will work badly with the USB scanner, and with a workflow which involves another piece of software, and that the entire thing is to complicated for most users.
The reality is that moving your whole computing life to Linux is more complicated than just "pop the disk in". When I moved from XP to Ubuntu 7.04, I had to get wine up and running for WoW. I had to switch a bunch of config files to make it use OpenGL. I had to adjust a bunch of settings to turn off poorly supported features. Then WoW worked. Next I had to get Barry-Utils to make my blackberry work. Then I had to get a custom mouse driver for my G9 to work. Then I had to fiddle around with Ventrilo to sort of kind of get it working (it immediately broke on upgrade to a new release).
Most things required a lot more tinkering once I upgraded again, particularly in the sound arena. Ventrilo never worked again after an upgrade, and is considered non-working on Ubuntu.
Because there are actually things that Word / Excel / Powerpoint are better at than Libre office, and few examples of the reverse.
Also, because there is still some degree of continuity within Office 2000-2013 whereby you can move between versions with substantially less headache than moving from Office 2003 to LibreOffice-- even with the Ribbon to deal with.
After writing a single term paper and trying to unravel the thought process behind footnotes / endnotes in LibreOffice, I found myself pining for Word.
Its a maximum sentence, and this is all hypothetical, so Im not really clear how you can judge whether its overkill. Maximums are there to prevent "overkill laws"; it doesnt mean that 95% of the cases under that law will ever see the maximum sentence, regardless of what the prosecution says.
Instead, you are threatened with the maximum, and history shows that it is very likely in any trial situation (especially regarding copyright or CFAA issues) the prosecution/plaintiff is going to go for the maximum because you dared turn down a plea bargain
Oh my gosh! I went to negotiate with the prosecution, and he implied that hes actually trying to get me punished! And that he is pushing for the harshest sentence! How utterly unexpected!
I suppose its a good thing that its "jury of your peers" and not "jury comprised of the prosecution", huh?
Right there in the summary: misdemeanor with a maximum one-year prison sentence I feel like we had an article not too long ago about how retarded it was to look at maximum sentences, and then cry about how unfair said sentence is for the average instance of that crime. Yea, well, that may be because its not the average sentence.
Perhaps the maximum is there in case someone turns it into a commercial operation. But on the face of it this looks like an utter non-issue.
Ever since Marbury vs Madison, the law is what the courts say it is. Perhaps you should brush up on your history.
You can argue that judicial review is nonsense, but the problem is the only way to overturn it would either be through the supreme court or through an amendment.
Im not defending it, Im saying that non-lawyers probably shouldnt make declarations about what is and isnt legal because they probably have no factual basis for doing so.
“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Mr. Obama told The Boston Globe in December 2007.
Obama was claiming that Bush had no unilateral power to use the military anywhere, presumably because you need congress's approval in non-national-security situations.
He then turned around and unilaterally deployed US forces with nothing more than his command and a UN authorization in a situation that had absolutely nothing to do with national security.
You made up a strawman to move away from the facts that I stated: "he stopped two wars and refused to engage in two others".
I wasnt making a strawman, I was criticizing your defense of his actions regarding Libya. That may have been one of the most brazen things Obama did early in his term after all of the noise he raised.
I also dont know that you can say "he ended the war in Afghanistan"; we still have troops deployed there, yes?
Slashdot Mirror
how do they determine if the crash was caused by impaired driving
The same way he determines whether you just committed a murder, or whether you have anti-government sentiments:
He doesnt.
The job of a police officer is not to exhaustively determine that no crime was committed. If he wants to do so, he needs reasonable suspicion and generally a warrant.
Stock tanks. Now your cost just went through the roof because you want to take the route of additional downtime versus fixing the problem outright.
Then your dog dies, you contract Ebola, and your wife leaves you.
All because you didnt upgrade to Windows 7. When will people learn?
ARP is layer 2, and doesnt traverse routers, much less firewalls. Im also not aware of any "vulnerabilities" per se in ARP on windows, other than the whole "the entire protocol is insecure but impractical to exploit in most consumer scenarios".
Ditto with NTP and DNS... theres really not much to exploit there on the client end.
Unfortunately for you that is not true. There are very few features that are better in MS suits, and the vast majority of people does not use them.
Footnotes. Endnotes. Pagination. Cell merge. Conditional formatting. Macros. Anything at all related to powerpoint. Mail merge.
I could go on, but these arent niche features.
Are they still finding vulnerabilities in Linux 2.4 after all these years?
http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-33/product_id-47/version_id-19616/Linux-Linux-Kernel-2.4.31.html
Oh look at that, they are.
Why wouldnt he just learn the alien Windows 8 interface and have the best of both worlds-- "just works", and "doesnt cost hundreds (or thousands) extra"?
Apple makes nice machines to be sure, but their pricing is absolutely ludicrous.
One of the chief marks of being a geek is that, knowing what is possible and having a mind for connecting things together, one tends to understate obstacles and complexity.
So, a geek who understands that they can probably get a piece of software to work on Linux tends to miss that it may involve hours of work and break on the next upgrade, and that it probably will work badly with the USB scanner, and with a workflow which involves another piece of software, and that the entire thing is to complicated for most users.
The reality is that moving your whole computing life to Linux is more complicated than just "pop the disk in". When I moved from XP to Ubuntu 7.04, I had to get wine up and running for WoW. I had to switch a bunch of config files to make it use OpenGL. I had to adjust a bunch of settings to turn off poorly supported features. Then WoW worked. Next I had to get Barry-Utils to make my blackberry work. Then I had to get a custom mouse driver for my G9 to work. Then I had to fiddle around with Ventrilo to sort of kind of get it working (it immediately broke on upgrade to a new release).
Most things required a lot more tinkering once I upgraded again, particularly in the sound arena. Ventrilo never worked again after an upgrade, and is considered non-working on Ubuntu.
Because there are actually things that Word / Excel / Powerpoint are better at than Libre office, and few examples of the reverse.
Also, because there is still some degree of continuity within Office 2000-2013 whereby you can move between versions with substantially less headache than moving from Office 2003 to LibreOffice-- even with the Ribbon to deal with.
After writing a single term paper and trying to unravel the thought process behind footnotes / endnotes in LibreOffice, I found myself pining for Word.
I came here hoping to see slashdotters opining on how startups are entitled to VC money, and how VCs are greedy fat cats.
Please dont disappoint me, folks.
You could always go get a loan from the bank if you dont want their money?
Whats that, the bank is interested in risking $50 million? Fascinating.
The prosecutions job isnt to make you feel safe or innocent. Why on earth would you listen to him over your own attorney?
Its almost like noone on slashdot knows what the words "maximum sentence" mean.
It means that it is a LIMIT on how much you are liable for. Would you prefer it didnt mention a maximum at all?
I know! I think they should set a "maximum sentence" on the law so that it cant be abused!
But this is stealing under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which makes it a misdemeanor with a maximum one-year prison sentence
Oh, nevermind.
Its a maximum sentence, and this is all hypothetical, so Im not really clear how you can judge whether its overkill. Maximums are there to prevent "overkill laws"; it doesnt mean that 95% of the cases under that law will ever see the maximum sentence, regardless of what the prosecution says.
Instead, you are threatened with the maximum, and history shows that it is very likely in any trial situation (especially regarding copyright or CFAA issues) the prosecution/plaintiff is going to go for the maximum because you dared turn down a plea bargain
Oh my gosh! I went to negotiate with the prosecution, and he implied that hes actually trying to get me punished! And that he is pushing for the harshest sentence! How utterly unexpected!
I suppose its a good thing that its "jury of your peers" and not "jury comprised of the prosecution", huh?
Right there in the summary:
misdemeanor with a maximum one-year prison sentence
I feel like we had an article not too long ago about how retarded it was to look at maximum sentences, and then cry about how unfair said sentence is for the average instance of that crime. Yea, well, that may be because its not the average sentence.
Perhaps the maximum is there in case someone turns it into a commercial operation. But on the face of it this looks like an utter non-issue.
If you judge the state of the PC industry by what Apple is selling, you must live in an expensive world.
12 AMD cores, not Xeon.
Thatwasthejoke.jpg
We're in the business of saving lives, Matthew. That's a responsibility we have to take pretty seriously.
--A. Patriot
If the whole thing is subject to weasely reinterpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
Someone didnt take civics class. Judicial review means that the courts-- more specifically, one court-- does have that power.
Ever since Marbury vs Madison, the law is what the courts say it is. Perhaps you should brush up on your history.
You can argue that judicial review is nonsense, but the problem is the only way to overturn it would either be through the supreme court or through an amendment.
Im not defending it, Im saying that non-lawyers probably shouldnt make declarations about what is and isnt legal because they probably have no factual basis for doing so.
"Legal" is generally what the courts say it is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22powers.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Mr. Obama told The Boston Globe in December 2007.
Obama was claiming that Bush had no unilateral power to use the military anywhere, presumably because you need congress's approval in non-national-security situations.
He then turned around and unilaterally deployed US forces with nothing more than his command and a UN authorization in a situation that had absolutely nothing to do with national security.
You made up a strawman to move away from the facts that I stated: "he stopped two wars and refused to engage in two others".
I wasnt making a strawman, I was criticizing your defense of his actions regarding Libya. That may have been one of the most brazen things Obama did early in his term after all of the noise he raised.
I also dont know that you can say "he ended the war in Afghanistan"; we still have troops deployed there, yes?
Yes, I see. Something involving that many big words could easily be true!