Don't worry about it. Thanks to a combination of short-term negotiating (such as the agreements by GM in the 1980s to take on unmanageable long-term benefits for short-term wage cuts), speculative investment (the housing bubble), and the deregulated backing of it for short term appearance-of-profitability (such as the creation, sale, and purchase of debt-backed securities by agents looking for a quick commission, and CEOs looking for a rise in stock-value), it's hardly worth the paper it's written on... assuming that your 401k wasn't with Madoff or the like... in which case it isn't even worth that.
So if I look around the world, I will find a direct correlation between taxes and unemployment? Because I don't see it.
Perhaps if I pick a single country and look through history? There does seem to be one, but it's where government spending made jobs (such as the new deal and WWII).
On what planet does the presence of concentrated wealth mean that jobs will be made. I don't see it at all. Companies will continue to spend as little on employment as possible to make their revenue streams look as good as possible, because the people who make the decisions (executives and stock-holders) are directly tied, not even to the long-term survival of the company, but rather to the stock value... wich is from the earnings report... which is most effected in the sort-term by reducing costs (like employees).
The problem with calling something "not part of economic stimulus" is: All spending is stimulus.
Volcano monitoring, which is part of the money in question, gives money to consumers (workers who are paid) to place and monitor equipment which is purchased (money to sales) from a manufacturer (money to manufacturing company and workers therein).
"spending money", by definition, "stimulates spending" (as it *is* spending)
Yes. Using a smaller chip will cost less than a larger one. That doesn't change the transistor count / cost effective value.
If you look at "chips costing a nickle" and count the transistors, Moore says that will double every two years.
If you look at "chips costing $100", he says the same thing.
Nothing about the choice of one company to manufacture "chips costing a nickle" rather than "chips costing $100" seems to muck with Moore's law in any way.
There are a couple of versions by Moore, but the two most common seem to be talking.
1) about the number of transistors that can cost-effectively be placed on a chip and,
2) about the density of transistors on a chip.
I don't see that the choice to produce a low-transistor-count chip has any more relation to this law than the fact that people still produce vacuum tubes does.
Yes. But Slashdot users have a propensity for Libertarian anarchism.
If it's the FBI doing its job in enforcing copywrite law then they're henchmen for the recording industry Mafiaa.
Firstly: it's "copyright".
Secondly: it's a civil matter (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html), and so not in the general perview of law enforcement.
If it's the FBI doing its job in enforcing fraud then they're henchmen for the telecommunications industry.
We won't know until we see the warrant, but that part of "not paying the phone bill" involves criminal law or law enforcement? That would be another civil matter which should go straight to court.
This also seems to a failure to elucidate. It is the FBI's job to investigate (some types of) fraud. You've not established that this is fraud.
The FBI is in the executive branch and its job is to respect and uphold the law.
Not a very typical attitude of the executive branch. Start with "the trail of tears" and move forward to Bush's many statements that he would not enforce laws he didn't like.
I'm not sure perpetual motion is, strictly speaking, impossible.
Thermodynamics doesn't seem to preclude 100% efficiency, allowing motion in perpituity. Some real-universe examples:
Light on the fringes of the universe will continue travelling forever (unless we assume something new to stop it).
The electron on an atom that never falls into a star, black hole, or the like will forever circle the nucleus.
Heck: the atom itself will never stop moving.
Nor, best as we can tell, will the universe. It will be in motion perpetually (I suppose unless it all disintegrates into Hawking radiation, but then *that* will be in motion.
There are two problems with perpetual motion machines. One is the false math that you can derive infinate energy from one. That's not true at all. You could derive exactly the energy put into one.
The second is 100% effeciency, which is required for perpetual motion to obey thermodynamics, is not possible in what we would likely call "a machine"
And when these people are left alone by the law we know that we can do the same thing for people of the wrong race, or religion, or sexual-orintation, or political affiliation, or income-level try to drive into our neighborhood... just harrass them and block their legal right-of-way until they leave.
The vehicle in question is an ascent/re-entry craft. It might be sufficient for the trip to the moon (though certainly landing and relaunching will require a second craft as it did for Apollo), but this vehicle is not up to the task of providing suitable living conditions for a trip to Mars.
For a Mars trip this is at best a way to get up to the interplanetary vessel and return to Earth from it. Given that, I can't imagine why you would bother to cart it all the way there just to cart it back.
I disagree. I think laws are drafted extremely precisely but are weighted by a need for them to be understandable. It is language itself which causes the imprecision in most cases I've seen; followed closely I think by societal or technological changes.
I was fined for a dog pooping on someone's lawn once.
The dog did not belong to me. I did not take the dog out. The person who did take the dog out was identified by the complaining witness. She was identified as the owner, as the person who took the dog out, and as the person who let the dog poop on the lawn.
Funny thing. The law made the "owner" responsible, and defined the owner as *anyone* who had ever controlled, fed, or housed the dog. Legally, they could have fined the pet sitter, the vet, and the shelter the dog was bought from, but I answered the door at the house so it was me.
Funny story you can actually look up. A 19-year old male had oral sex with a 17-year-old female. There's an exception to the statutory rape law to protect 19-year-olds from being labeled sex offenders and spending 10 years in jail when their partner is 2 years younger... but the statutory rape law covered oral sex and the "Romeo and Juliet" exception failed to.
The state congress said that they had meant to, and everyone from the judge to the governor called the sentence overly-harsh. They finally amended the law.
There's why I think laws are often poorly written... examples of them, in fact, being poorly written. What is the empirical basis for your legal opinion?
If a child (under 16) sets up a child porn website, would you think they could be prosecuted or not?
Yes I do, though not for child porn (classing stupid teenagers with pedophiles is inappropriate).
Is that what happened? Is that what is being discussed? Is that what I said?
Your conclusion is invalid because you falsely assume that the law will necessarily be written in a way compliant with what those who passed it attempted to accomplish.
The fact is that most laws are written very sloppily, and can easily be twisted around just the way this one is.
For an easy example: look at the kid in Georgia a few years back who got 10 years (since overturned by a change in legislation) for receiving oral sex from a girl a couple of years younger.
They made an exception ("Romeo and Juliet" clause) for sex between an adult and minor where the age difference is small, but simply failed to use sufficiently inclusive language (making intercourse a non-felony, but not oral sex).
As pointed out, the child-porn laws are unreasonable and getting worse. The thought that you can be prosecuted for possession of a picture of yourself is just one example. We *must* protect children (and I would argue a 16-year-old, while a minor, isn't a child; so there should be a difference as there is between "child molestation" and "statutory rape"), but we shouldn't do it by punishing the innocent... innocent at least of this.
I'd love to live in a world where movies were made how best the story could be told and the ratings were figured out later... but it comes down to simple economics.
The R-rated version of a movie might be the better one, but reducing it to PG-13 is not going to cost as many people as it gains.
IOW. People who want Watchmen as PG and won't go to R > people who want it R and won't go to PG.
It's the same problem in the video game world. It's not that niche' games won't sell... it's that non-niche' games sell better.
Eyeglasses don't fix poor vision. They compensate for it.
Why would you want to deslect for it? Because a population that needs braces, eyeglasses, custom shoes, and a pace-maker at birth is not a laudable goal. In addition to the clear inferiority of "overcoming problems" to "never having problems", there's the issue of what happens if the technology infrastructure breaks down.
On the other hand: the beauty of gene-therepy is that it should be applicable to reproductive cells. Alter the MD gene in an egg or zygote and you remove it from future generations as well. Presumably the same applies to altering the semenal-creating cells in the testies.
SMM is volitile, so anything trying to load itself there would have to have a presence on the HDD, where it could be found by an anti-virus (even if it had to be one from a clean boot-disk).
If SIMM is inaccessable, then how does the root-kit access it. If the root-kit can access it, then how is it inaccessable?
Last I checked, the CPU SMM doesn't directly connect with other computers. That requires using the network card, which is attached over the bus to a controller (south-bridge?), all of which is potentially monitorable. Then it has to interface with that card (does the exploit include deice drivers for PCI, PCI-E, the network card, etc?) which in turn has a TCP/IP stack (does the SMM package contain that too? Otherwise it seems it's interfacing with the OS and that interface could be monitored) using an IP address that the router will accept (again an action outside the SMM), and sending packets (again monitorable).
What happens when Staples sues you for reporting them to the Better-Business Bureau? What happens when bad reviews on Amazon become liabel?
Its one thing if we want ot make rules about privacy, allowing a disclosure to be an invasion of said privacy; but this is a Pandora's box that I prey to his noodley goodness gets overturned.
I hope the disabilities groups sue the pants off those fighting text-to-speech. I understand that audio rights are derivative, but this is just ridiculous.
If a man says "I was with the victim in central park", and then clams up citing the fifth; he can't say that what he's already told them is inadmissible under the amendment (he waived it when he volunteered), but that doesn't mean that he can be compelled to confess to the crime either.
His existing assistance is legal, because he cooperated. To say that he cannot invoke his right at will seems silly.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Because we are the west
2) For this particular espionage, we are the most vunerable/biggesst target. We spend more on weapons development than the rest of the world combined.
I didn't know "soldier" was no longer a job.
Don't worry about it. Thanks to a combination of short-term negotiating (such as the agreements by GM in the 1980s to take on unmanageable long-term benefits for short-term wage cuts), speculative investment (the housing bubble), and the deregulated backing of it for short term appearance-of-profitability (such as the creation, sale, and purchase of debt-backed securities by agents looking for a quick commission, and CEOs looking for a rise in stock-value), it's hardly worth the paper it's written on... assuming that your 401k wasn't with Madoff or the like... in which case it isn't even worth that.
So if I look around the world, I will find a direct correlation between taxes and unemployment? Because I don't see it.
Perhaps if I pick a single country and look through history? There does seem to be one, but it's where government spending made jobs (such as the new deal and WWII).
On what planet does the presence of concentrated wealth mean that jobs will be made. I don't see it at all. Companies will continue to spend as little on employment as possible to make their revenue streams look as good as possible, because the people who make the decisions (executives and stock-holders) are directly tied, not even to the long-term survival of the company, but rather to the stock value... wich is from the earnings report... which is most effected in the sort-term by reducing costs (like employees).
We turn executions into theatre, why not trials with jail time?
It would be nice to see this question directly asked to Obama in a press conference.
How about band-depth?
The problem with calling something "not part of economic stimulus" is: All spending is stimulus.
Volcano monitoring, which is part of the money in question, gives money to consumers (workers who are paid) to place and monitor equipment which is purchased (money to sales) from a manufacturer (money to manufacturing company and workers therein).
"spending money", by definition, "stimulates spending" (as it *is* spending)
Yes. Using a smaller chip will cost less than a larger one. That doesn't change the transistor count / cost effective value.
If you look at "chips costing a nickle" and count the transistors, Moore says that will double every two years.
If you look at "chips costing $100", he says the same thing.
Nothing about the choice of one company to manufacture "chips costing a nickle" rather than "chips costing $100" seems to muck with Moore's law in any way.
There are a couple of versions by Moore, but the two most common seem to be talking.
1) about the number of transistors that can cost-effectively be placed on a chip and,
2) about the density of transistors on a chip.
I don't see that the choice to produce a low-transistor-count chip has any more relation to this law than the fact that people still produce vacuum tubes does.
Yes. But Slashdot users have a propensity for Libertarian anarchism.
If it's the FBI doing its job in enforcing copywrite law then they're henchmen for the recording industry Mafiaa.
Firstly: it's "copyright".
Secondly: it's a civil matter (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html), and so not in the general perview of law enforcement.
If it's the FBI doing its job in enforcing fraud then they're henchmen for the telecommunications industry.
We won't know until we see the warrant, but that part of "not paying the phone bill" involves criminal law or law enforcement? That would be another civil matter which should go straight to court.
This also seems to a failure to elucidate. It is the FBI's job to investigate (some types of) fraud. You've not established that this is fraud.
The FBI is in the executive branch and its job is to respect and uphold the law.
Not a very typical attitude of the executive branch. Start with "the trail of tears" and move forward to Bush's many statements that he would not enforce laws he didn't like.
I'm not sure perpetual motion is, strictly speaking, impossible.
Thermodynamics doesn't seem to preclude 100% efficiency, allowing motion in perpituity. Some real-universe examples:
Light on the fringes of the universe will continue travelling forever (unless we assume something new to stop it).
The electron on an atom that never falls into a star, black hole, or the like will forever circle the nucleus.
Heck: the atom itself will never stop moving.
Nor, best as we can tell, will the universe. It will be in motion perpetually (I suppose unless it all disintegrates into Hawking radiation, but then *that* will be in motion.
There are two problems with perpetual motion machines. One is the false math that you can derive infinate energy from one. That's not true at all. You could derive exactly the energy put into one.
The second is 100% effeciency, which is required for perpetual motion to obey thermodynamics, is not possible in what we would likely call "a machine"
And when these people are left alone by the law we know that we can do the same thing for people of the wrong race, or religion, or sexual-orintation, or political affiliation, or income-level try to drive into our neighborhood... just harrass them and block their legal right-of-way until they leave.
As I understand it, there is already a variant out undetectable to anti-smiley software as it embeds itself in a frowny-face.
I wonder if it's transmittable on a discussion board as well? :(
The vehicle in question is an ascent/re-entry craft. It might be sufficient for the trip to the moon (though certainly landing and relaunching will require a second craft as it did for Apollo), but this vehicle is not up to the task of providing suitable living conditions for a trip to Mars.
For a Mars trip this is at best a way to get up to the interplanetary vessel and return to Earth from it. Given that, I can't imagine why you would bother to cart it all the way there just to cart it back.
I disagree. I think laws are drafted extremely precisely but are weighted by a need for them to be understandable. It is language itself which causes the imprecision in most cases I've seen; followed closely I think by societal or technological changes.
I was fined for a dog pooping on someone's lawn once.
The dog did not belong to me. I did not take the dog out. The person who did take the dog out was identified by the complaining witness. She was identified as the owner, as the person who took the dog out, and as the person who let the dog poop on the lawn.
Funny thing. The law made the "owner" responsible, and defined the owner as *anyone* who had ever controlled, fed, or housed the dog. Legally, they could have fined the pet sitter, the vet, and the shelter the dog was bought from, but I answered the door at the house so it was me.
Funny story you can actually look up. A 19-year old male had oral sex with a 17-year-old female. There's an exception to the statutory rape law to protect 19-year-olds from being labeled sex offenders and spending 10 years in jail when their partner is 2 years younger... but the statutory rape law covered oral sex and the "Romeo and Juliet" exception failed to.
The state congress said that they had meant to, and everyone from the judge to the governor called the sentence overly-harsh. They finally amended the law.
There's why I think laws are often poorly written... examples of them, in fact, being poorly written. What is the empirical basis for your legal opinion?
If a child (under 16) sets up a child porn website, would you think they could be prosecuted or not?
Yes I do, though not for child porn (classing stupid teenagers with pedophiles is inappropriate).
Is that what happened? Is that what is being discussed? Is that what I said?
No. It is not. It is a red-herring.
Your conclusion is invalid because you falsely assume that the law will necessarily be written in a way compliant with what those who passed it attempted to accomplish.
The fact is that most laws are written very sloppily, and can easily be twisted around just the way this one is.
For an easy example: look at the kid in Georgia a few years back who got 10 years (since overturned by a change in legislation) for receiving oral sex from a girl a couple of years younger.
They made an exception ("Romeo and Juliet" clause) for sex between an adult and minor where the age difference is small, but simply failed to use sufficiently inclusive language (making intercourse a non-felony, but not oral sex).
As pointed out, the child-porn laws are unreasonable and getting worse. The thought that you can be prosecuted for possession of a picture of yourself is just one example. We *must* protect children (and I would argue a 16-year-old, while a minor, isn't a child; so there should be a difference as there is between "child molestation" and "statutory rape"), but we shouldn't do it by punishing the innocent... innocent at least of this.
I'd love to live in a world where movies were made how best the story could be told and the ratings were figured out later... but it comes down to simple economics.
The R-rated version of a movie might be the better one, but reducing it to PG-13 is not going to cost as many people as it gains.
IOW. People who want Watchmen as PG and won't go to R > people who want it R and won't go to PG.
It's the same problem in the video game world. It's not that niche' games won't sell... it's that non-niche' games sell better.
Much like the desktop itself eliminated the terminal interface, and computers meant the end of paper and pencils.
Eyeglasses don't fix poor vision. They compensate for it.
Why would you want to deslect for it? Because a population that needs braces, eyeglasses, custom shoes, and a pace-maker at birth is not a laudable goal. In addition to the clear inferiority of "overcoming problems" to "never having problems", there's the issue of what happens if the technology infrastructure breaks down.
On the other hand: the beauty of gene-therepy is that it should be applicable to reproductive cells. Alter the MD gene in an egg or zygote and you remove it from future generations as well. Presumably the same applies to altering the semenal-creating cells in the testies.
SMM is volitile, so anything trying to load itself there would have to have a presence on the HDD, where it could be found by an anti-virus (even if it had to be one from a clean boot-disk).
If SIMM is inaccessable, then how does the root-kit access it. If the root-kit can access it, then how is it inaccessable?
Last I checked, the CPU SMM doesn't directly connect with other computers. That requires using the network card, which is attached over the bus to a controller (south-bridge?), all of which is potentially monitorable. Then it has to interface with that card (does the exploit include deice drivers for PCI, PCI-E, the network card, etc?) which in turn has a TCP/IP stack (does the SMM package contain that too? Otherwise it seems it's interfacing with the OS and that interface could be monitored) using an IP address that the router will accept (again an action outside the SMM), and sending packets (again monitorable).
Or am I just clueless here?
Successful salesmen and executives get the same treatement (better?)
So it's only for private-vs-private?
What happens when Staples sues you for reporting them to the Better-Business Bureau? What happens when bad reviews on Amazon become liabel?
Its one thing if we want ot make rules about privacy, allowing a disclosure to be an invasion of said privacy; but this is a Pandora's box that I prey to his noodley goodness gets overturned.
I hope the disabilities groups sue the pants off those fighting text-to-speech. I understand that audio rights are derivative, but this is just ridiculous.
INAL but it seems clear. Let's try an analogy:
If a man says "I was with the victim in central park", and then clams up citing the fifth; he can't say that what he's already told them is inadmissible under the amendment (he waived it when he volunteered), but that doesn't mean that he can be compelled to confess to the crime either.
His existing assistance is legal, because he cooperated. To say that he cannot invoke his right at will seems silly.