It was basically a combo safety and anti-theft program. Kids took a bicycle safety class sponsored by the police force, then you get a little numbered tin tag that got attached to your bike, so if it was stolen and recovered it could be tracked down. Wasn't mandatory but most parents wanted their kids to use it. So technically it wasn't a real license, but that's how a lot of people referred to it.
The problem is not that all of them catch fire, but the cheap ass Chinese knockoffs are catching fire because they don't conform to UK safety standards. (cue the angry libertarian who will point out that it's not the governments business to protect us if we want to burn our own homes down)
You seem to misunderstand smart meters. Differential rates are only one small thing they can do which is used by only a small number of utilities. If they have differential pricing for solar, they will do it whether or not they have smart meters. The old 50's era meters are never coming back, they were very inaccurate. The newer meters have extra features, more things are measured (voltage for example, you'd be surprised how many neighborhoods have the wrong voltage), and they can discover if there are problems early and be proactive. The old method was amazingly stupid; they would have no idea at all how and where their electricity was being used except for a once a month reading (and they won't go read it if it's snowing, raining, you have a mean dog, etc, so they will estimate instead). Smart meters showed up once the utilities had to be more accountable, were encouraged/required to conserve electricity, had to justify rate increases before a PUC, etc.
True. But the sherrif that gave that information was used to the term "long gun" in his daily work conversations so he probably just used it naturally.
You can oppose TPP without endorsing or supporting any particular candidate. This is not expected to be a one-issue campaign. It is still possible, though rarer, to support politicians on one issue while opposing the same politicians on other issues. Politics is only a left vs right affair in the cartoon versions.
Agreed. There's nothing weird about referring to long guns as "long guns". The police were just pointing out that these weren't pistols. People are going to ask "what weapons were used, guns or lead pipes or knives or slow acting poison?" and so the answer is given in plain English. Maybe it's a plain English more familiar to law enforcement than to civilians not used to gun terminology.
Perhaps there was an original reason, but there are a couple problems. First it has been expanded well beyond the original concept. And second there is no proof necessary before forfeiture happens. It would be blatantly unconstitutional if it were not for the Supreme Court siding with the hysterical tough-on-crime folks.
"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "
True, but $1000 for me is not much pain compared to $1000 for someone who needs to skip meals to save money. Or are you one of those getting jailed over fines until you can manage to raise the money from family and friends? The problem is not high fees for minor traffic offenses, but the shake down from police officers and engaging in debtors prisosn in order to raise money. But points for the attempt at empathy.
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." -- Anatole France.
For students this is often not a problem. Use the devices in a school lab. I think they are confusing students at a school with hobbyists at home, where the needs are different. For example, the use of highly expensive oscilloscopes are extremely useful for physics and electrical engineering students, but may be out of the budget for a home hobbyist.
So, Raspberry Pi is just fine for many students, inappropriate for others. Going to a completely dumbed down all-in-one hobby kit also dumbs down the learning.
But they can be used interchangeably at times, at least in one direction. At least in English you can use "that is" before an example. But going the other way causes much more confusion if you say "for example" and then don't include examples.
The second example in the post works in English if you substitue either "that is" or "for example" although the meaning changes subtly.
The whole idea of "correctness" in English came about from upper class people wishing to demonstrate their superiority over the lower classes who had less education. Using proper English was an outward signifier that one was rich enough to afford a pedantic education. The problem is that this also assumed that language rules could freeze without further changes for all time, whereas natural languages are always evolving. So the struggle between people who want things to never change and the people who follow along with the changes.
But can you communicate with emojis? I mean really communicate beyond "I'm happy", "that was funny", "you're a dick", etc?
The Chinese writing system was developed and advanced in order to keep the empire together, so that officials from different provinces could understand each other in writing even if they couldn't understand when speaking to each other. But emojis were never designed to do that, they were just an expansion of the smiley face concept, used to express an emotional state that may be not seen in the actual words. They're the equivalent of the hand drawn hearts put on love letters.
And when a game is running, isn't the OS basically sitting around doing not much at all? Why keep them reserved? On my PC I can use all of my cores when I play a game even though the OS is much more bloated than on a console.
You confuse "developers" with "management" and "architects". The developers almost never have any control over the product except to implement it as directed from above. If the management never hired security experts then there won't be any security of note. If the architects never considered security then it won't exist. Many of these companies probably just had someone at the board meetings wave their hands saying "yes, yes, our developers will add security, now let's not worry about such details and instead direct your attention to these slides about projected revenue".
I'm also amazed at how a lot of people just believe all the marketing, even internal marketing where they should know better. The people who run a company really prefer to stay beyond arms length from the actual products, they don't want to know how sausage is made or even know that a pig is involved.
A fundamental feature of security is that it is opposed to convenience. Adding convenience subtracts from security. Passwords are inconvenient, dongles are inconvenient, PINs for the debit cards are inconvenient, little metal keys to the front door are inconvenient. But if you want to sell to customers then you need to increase convenience. The result is that if customers are not specifically asking for security and verifying the security actually exists, companies aren't going to bother too much about security. A security sticker serves the purpose it was intended for.
I work in a building once used by a company that stored all their customers passwords in plaintext, and apparently the CEO was warned about this but took no action. After a hacker breach exposed all the data this made a couple of buildings available for us to expand into.
It's also a startup mentality. Get an entrepreneur with zero skills, but with an "idea". Then watch as a company is created to turn that idea into a product despite the lack of competence to create such a product. That's because the goal of a company is to make money. Without customer or inevestor demand there is no need for quality.
Slashdot Mirror
It was basically a combo safety and anti-theft program. Kids took a bicycle safety class sponsored by the police force, then you get a little numbered tin tag that got attached to your bike, so if it was stolen and recovered it could be tracked down. Wasn't mandatory but most parents wanted their kids to use it. So technically it wasn't a real license, but that's how a lot of people referred to it.
I registered and licensed my bicycle when I was a kid.
The problem is not that all of them catch fire, but the cheap ass Chinese knockoffs are catching fire because they don't conform to UK safety standards. (cue the angry libertarian who will point out that it's not the governments business to protect us if we want to burn our own homes down)
Not as silly as taking a group of musicians and calling them a "Starship".
You seem to misunderstand smart meters. Differential rates are only one small thing they can do which is used by only a small number of utilities. If they have differential pricing for solar, they will do it whether or not they have smart meters. The old 50's era meters are never coming back, they were very inaccurate. The newer meters have extra features, more things are measured (voltage for example, you'd be surprised how many neighborhoods have the wrong voltage), and they can discover if there are problems early and be proactive. The old method was amazingly stupid; they would have no idea at all how and where their electricity was being used except for a once a month reading (and they won't go read it if it's snowing, raining, you have a mean dog, etc, so they will estimate instead). Smart meters showed up once the utilities had to be more accountable, were encouraged/required to conserve electricity, had to justify rate increases before a PUC, etc.
True. But the sherrif that gave that information was used to the term "long gun" in his daily work conversations so he probably just used it naturally.
You can oppose TPP without endorsing or supporting any particular candidate. This is not expected to be a one-issue campaign. It is still possible, though rarer, to support politicians on one issue while opposing the same politicians on other issues. Politics is only a left vs right affair in the cartoon versions.
Agreed. There's nothing weird about referring to long guns as "long guns". The police were just pointing out that these weren't pistols. People are going to ask "what weapons were used, guns or lead pipes or knives or slow acting poison?" and so the answer is given in plain English. Maybe it's a plain English more familiar to law enforcement than to civilians not used to gun terminology.
Perhaps there was an original reason, but there are a couple problems. First it has been expanded well beyond the original concept. And second there is no proof necessary before forfeiture happens. It would be blatantly unconstitutional if it were not for the Supreme Court siding with the hysterical tough-on-crime folks.
"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "
True, but $1000 for me is not much pain compared to $1000 for someone who needs to skip meals to save money. Or are you one of those getting jailed over fines until you can manage to raise the money from family and friends? The problem is not high fees for minor traffic offenses, but the shake down from police officers and engaging in debtors prisosn in order to raise money. But points for the attempt at empathy.
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." -- Anatole France.
They should specify the particular frequencies that cause mental discomfort.
For students this is often not a problem. Use the devices in a school lab. I think they are confusing students at a school with hobbyists at home, where the needs are different. For example, the use of highly expensive oscilloscopes are extremely useful for physics and electrical engineering students, but may be out of the budget for a home hobbyist.
So, Raspberry Pi is just fine for many students, inappropriate for others. Going to a completely dumbed down all-in-one hobby kit also dumbs down the learning.
But they can be used interchangeably at times, at least in one direction. At least in English you can use "that is" before an example. But going the other way causes much more confusion if you say "for example" and then don't include examples.
The second example in the post works in English if you substitue either "that is" or "for example" although the meaning changes subtly.
The whole idea of "correctness" in English came about from upper class people wishing to demonstrate their superiority over the lower classes who had less education. Using proper English was an outward signifier that one was rich enough to afford a pedantic education. The problem is that this also assumed that language rules could freeze without further changes for all time, whereas natural languages are always evolving. So the struggle between people who want things to never change and the people who follow along with the changes.
Also easier to hide the hammer when you're trying to look inconspicuous.
If you were a scientist you would not come up with your conclusions before having the data.
Too much cholesterol in both.
Or vice versa.
But can you communicate with emojis? I mean really communicate beyond "I'm happy", "that was funny", "you're a dick", etc?
The Chinese writing system was developed and advanced in order to keep the empire together, so that officials from different provinces could understand each other in writing even if they couldn't understand when speaking to each other. But emojis were never designed to do that, they were just an expansion of the smiley face concept, used to express an emotional state that may be not seen in the actual words. They're the equivalent of the hand drawn hearts put on love letters.
And when a game is running, isn't the OS basically sitting around doing not much at all? Why keep them reserved? On my PC I can use all of my cores when I play a game even though the OS is much more bloated than on a console.
Yes, this is my question. It's stupid. Give the customer ALL the hardware. The customer OWNS the hardware.
Zigbee is a mess at the low level too. Industry consortiums can create standards without ever having experts involved.
"So, we've got an IoT module, so let's plug it into a home security system and see if we can sell it."
You confuse "developers" with "management" and "architects". The developers almost never have any control over the product except to implement it as directed from above. If the management never hired security experts then there won't be any security of note. If the architects never considered security then it won't exist. Many of these companies probably just had someone at the board meetings wave their hands saying "yes, yes, our developers will add security, now let's not worry about such details and instead direct your attention to these slides about projected revenue".
I'm also amazed at how a lot of people just believe all the marketing, even internal marketing where they should know better. The people who run a company really prefer to stay beyond arms length from the actual products, they don't want to know how sausage is made or even know that a pig is involved.
A fundamental feature of security is that it is opposed to convenience. Adding convenience subtracts from security. Passwords are inconvenient, dongles are inconvenient, PINs for the debit cards are inconvenient, little metal keys to the front door are inconvenient. But if you want to sell to customers then you need to increase convenience. The result is that if customers are not specifically asking for security and verifying the security actually exists, companies aren't going to bother too much about security. A security sticker serves the purpose it was intended for.
I work in a building once used by a company that stored all their customers passwords in plaintext, and apparently the CEO was warned about this but took no action. After a hacker breach exposed all the data this made a couple of buildings available for us to expand into.
It's also a startup mentality. Get an entrepreneur with zero skills, but with an "idea". Then watch as a company is created to turn that idea into a product despite the lack of competence to create such a product. That's because the goal of a company is to make money. Without customer or inevestor demand there is no need for quality.