I get that there are a lot of AMI meters out there that were installed with the old 2G protocol and should be upgraded, which probably means a meter by meter physical upgrade (though perhaps additional encryption software running over 2G could be installed in firmware, which could also take care of hard coded passwords).
But more modern meters are using 3G or 4G, and overall security has been upgraded. The article only covers the older installs without saying that more modern meters and software have addressed the security concerns outlined in the article.
There was no comment on demographics in these predictions. Much of the world is actually de-populating because of a low birthrate. That's quite an omission.
My inclination (though I don't know that it's a good idea to make this an absolute rule) is to require the plaintiff in a civil suit to reveal all their evidence.
The defendant is being compelled to answer the charges so more leeway should be given to what they make public. Otherwise, one company could sue another, just to get trade secrets revealed of the defendant. It should be harder to sue, and consequences to the plaintiff he loses.
Civil suits give too many advantages to the plaitiff as it is (a lower standard is used to determine guilt than in criminal cases).
1. Congress may fund something like this, but only through localities. It will be up to state legislatures to lead the way on this. It could very well happen. There are local communities that ARE getting away with it in the U.S.
2. Most surveillance, and there's a lot of it, is done by private concerns that do not have the legal restrictions to its use that law enforcement does.
3. It's interesting to me that gun crimes are going up in Britain despite restrictive gun control laws. Also overall crime is going up despite all the cameras in Britain.
It's unrealistic to expect the government to enforce good parenting. For one thing no one can agree precisely as to what that is. Here's things the education system can do.
Smaller schools. Most of these shootings occur in big High Schools. I didn't say smaller classes, I said smaller schools.
School uniforms (I don't care what they look like; they don't have to wear ties for example, but everyone should wear the same thing to school).
Separate the boys from the girls. That will take a lot of the social pressure off the bullies. An all male school will also taylor their way of teaching to males. The feminization of schools has probably had an indirect affect on these incidents. Some elementary schools have canceled recess. That's a good policy, maybe, for girls, but boys are too restless for that. By the way, I read an article recently where a (female) elementary principal has banned tag during recess.
What not to do? Cut the crap on all the "zero-tolerance" policies that have cropped up. I don't mind a zero-tolerance policy against REAL guns, but finger pointing? Or even a small pocket knife? There's been a lack of common sense lately.
One other thought: Winston Churchill was picked on mercilessly in school according to his auto-biography. Admittedly, it occurred in an all-male school, which belies one of my arguments.
I worked for a campus library (as IT support; not as a librarian). I don't think any library is allowed, anymore, to track who checks out what. In other words, once you return a book, any record associating your name with that book is supposed to be wiped.
Re:Thurmond for Prez!
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
That is ironic. However, another issue is the president pro-tempe of the Senate being in the line of sucession in the event of a vacancy in the Presidency. Traditionally, the senior most member of the majority party is placed in that position. If that tradition isn't going to change, then that office should not be in the line of succession.
Since the line of succession past the Vice President is established by statute, it would be easy to change.
Just because there are people who disagree with you doesn't mean they "are full of hate."
Vermont is in this pickle because a court of law tried to impose its views on the electorate. Like the abortion (I oppose Roe vs Wade while still being pro-choice), when the courts try to set social policy and in so doing bypass the elected portion of the government, you end up getting more polarization than if you simply let that process work its way out.
Getting back to the abortion issue, in Western Europe you have countries that are on both ends of the spectrum on how they allow it or disallow it. Ireland and Italy are very restrictive (I believe the ban is outright in Ireland). In Sweden it's very liberal. Yet no one is blowing up abortion clinics there (that I've heard of). In the U.S., many pro-lifers regard teh issue as a "civil war". The difference? Pro choice in this country was mandated by court order.
There are plenty of indications that w/o Roe vs Wade, there would have been a liberalization of the abortion laws in this country, with some states being liberal about it and others not. I doubt we would have had the backlash that ensued after the Supreme Court's ruling.
As for Vermont, I'm glad the electorate decided to stand up for themselves. It gives me hope that judiciary in this country will get its come-uppance.
As someone with mostly libertarian views, I don't think that there should be a legal distinction between married and unmarried. It's a religious institution. It should be a wholly religious institution, with little or no recognition of its existence by the state.
Europe is dependent on the U.S. mostly by its own choice, and its unwillingness to spend money on its own defense budget. If you want your nation, or the European Community to have more of an ability to determine its destiny, then you will need to have an environment that's more business friendly, as well as a defense budget.
Europe has had to depend on the U.S. to get out of their scrapes since 1916 when the U.S. entered WWI. Europe has proved inept at handling their own crises, and deserves to be where it's at.
You've lost the point. Most of the legal problems companies have had with email have been internal emails sent within the company. Remember Microsoft? The emails the government has used against them were mostly internal.
The New York Times firings were over "inappropriate" emails between employees, not external emails.
I'm using Opera (MS Windows) which you have to pay for (very affordable). It's my understanding that the Opera folks are making an Opera for Linux. Opera doesn't work for everything, and sometimes you have to go back to Netscape. But it's got all sorts of hot keys, and navigating the links is very easy. When you tab the links with Netscape, it's vry hard to see what is "highlighted". That's not the case with Opera. See, http://www.opera.com
I bought one gold commodity option last Friday (paid about $500). I'm hoping gold will spike tomorrow, and I'll make a few bucks. Ain't capitalism great?
Slashdot Mirror
I get that there are a lot of AMI meters out there that were installed with the old 2G protocol and should be upgraded, which probably means a meter by meter physical upgrade (though perhaps additional encryption software running over 2G could be installed in firmware, which could also take care of hard coded passwords).
But more modern meters are using 3G or 4G, and overall security has been upgraded. The article only covers the older installs without saying that more modern meters and software have addressed the security concerns outlined in the article.
There was no comment on demographics in these predictions. Much of the world is actually de-populating because of a low birthrate. That's quite an omission.
My inclination (though I don't know that it's a good idea to make this an absolute rule) is to require the plaintiff in a civil suit to reveal all their evidence.
The defendant is being compelled to answer the charges so more leeway should be given to what they make public. Otherwise, one company could sue another, just to get trade secrets revealed of the defendant. It should be harder to sue, and consequences to the plaintiff he loses.
Civil suits give too many advantages to the plaitiff as it is (a lower standard is used to determine guilt than in criminal cases).
1. Congress may fund something like this, but only through localities. It will be up to state legislatures to lead the way on this. It could very well happen. There are local communities that ARE getting away with it in the U.S.
2. Most surveillance, and there's a lot of it, is done by private concerns that do not have the legal restrictions to its use that law enforcement does.
3. It's interesting to me that gun crimes are going up in Britain despite restrictive gun control laws. Also overall crime is going up despite all the cameras in Britain.
It's unrealistic to expect the government to enforce good parenting. For one thing no one can agree precisely as to what that is. Here's things the education system can do. Smaller schools. Most of these shootings occur in big High Schools. I didn't say smaller classes, I said smaller schools. School uniforms (I don't care what they look like; they don't have to wear ties for example, but everyone should wear the same thing to school). Separate the boys from the girls. That will take a lot of the social pressure off the bullies. An all male school will also taylor their way of teaching to males. The feminization of schools has probably had an indirect affect on these incidents. Some elementary schools have canceled recess. That's a good policy, maybe, for girls, but boys are too restless for that. By the way, I read an article recently where a (female) elementary principal has banned tag during recess. What not to do? Cut the crap on all the "zero-tolerance" policies that have cropped up. I don't mind a zero-tolerance policy against REAL guns, but finger pointing? Or even a small pocket knife? There's been a lack of common sense lately. One other thought: Winston Churchill was picked on mercilessly in school according to his auto-biography. Admittedly, it occurred in an all-male school, which belies one of my arguments.
I worked for a campus library (as IT support; not as a librarian). I don't think any library is allowed, anymore, to track who checks out what. In other words, once you return a book, any record associating your name with that book is supposed to be wiped.
That is ironic. However, another issue is the president pro-tempe of the Senate being in the line of sucession in the event of a vacancy in the Presidency. Traditionally, the senior most member of the majority party is placed in that position. If that tradition isn't going to change, then that office should not be in the line of succession. Since the line of succession past the Vice President is established by statute, it would be easy to change.
Uhhh....
Just because there are people who disagree with you doesn't mean they "are full of hate."
Vermont is in this pickle because a court of law tried to impose its views on the electorate. Like the abortion (I oppose Roe vs Wade while still being pro-choice), when the courts try to set social policy and in so doing bypass the elected portion of the government, you end up getting more polarization than if you simply let that process work its way out.
Getting back to the abortion issue, in Western Europe you have countries that are on both ends of the spectrum on how they allow it or disallow it. Ireland and Italy are very restrictive (I believe the ban is outright in Ireland). In Sweden it's very liberal. Yet no one is blowing up abortion clinics there (that I've heard of). In the U.S., many pro-lifers regard teh issue as a "civil war". The difference? Pro choice in this country was mandated by court order.
There are plenty of indications that w/o Roe vs Wade, there would have been a liberalization of the abortion laws in this country, with some states being liberal about it and others not. I doubt we would have had the backlash that ensued after the Supreme Court's ruling.
As for Vermont, I'm glad the electorate decided to stand up for themselves. It gives me hope that judiciary in this country will get its come-uppance.
As someone with mostly libertarian views, I don't think that there should be a legal distinction between married and unmarried. It's a religious institution. It should be a wholly religious institution, with little or no recognition of its existence by the state.
Europe is dependent on the U.S. mostly by its own choice, and its unwillingness to spend money on its own defense budget. If you want your nation, or the European Community to have more of an ability to determine its destiny, then you will need to have an environment that's more business friendly, as well as a defense budget. Europe has had to depend on the U.S. to get out of their scrapes since 1916 when the U.S. entered WWI. Europe has proved inept at handling their own crises, and deserves to be where it's at.
You've lost the point. Most of the legal problems companies have had with email have been internal emails sent within the company. Remember Microsoft? The emails the government has used against them were mostly internal. The New York Times firings were over "inappropriate" emails between employees, not external emails.
I'm using Opera (MS Windows) which you have to pay for (very affordable). It's my understanding that the Opera folks are making an Opera for Linux. Opera doesn't work for everything, and sometimes you have to go back to Netscape. But it's got all sorts of hot keys, and navigating the links is very easy. When you tab the links with Netscape, it's vry hard to see what is "highlighted". That's not the case with Opera. See, http://www.opera.com
I bought one gold commodity option last Friday (paid about $500). I'm hoping gold will spike tomorrow, and I'll make a few bucks. Ain't capitalism great?