Actually, the British (and former colonies) drive on the left because in feudal days, horse and foot traffic was on the left side of the road so that if you needed to defend yourself from someone coming the other way, your right hand was on your opponent's side. This carried over into modern times.
In France and the US, teamsters began driving large wagons with teams of horses in the early 1700s. Typically, the teamster sat on the left rear horse, so they drove on the right side of the road so that oncoming traffic passed closer to them and both drivers could make sure that they wouldn't get tangled up.
There was also some political reasoning following the French revolution that had to do with aristocrats forcing the peasants to the right (pre-revolution). Napolean took the "right side of the road" ideal with him during his conquests.
Interestingly, though, about 34% of the world's population drives on the left side of the road - more than you might think!
That's why the most common reason why people are put in gaol ( jail for Yanks ) is for non-payment of medical bills.
Nobody goes to jail in the US for non-payment of bills. I'd ask you for a citation to back your statistic up, but there's no need since it's completely made up.
0.8 is, well, pretty much dead. You meant 0.08. And while it's not all that drunk, it's a high enough alcohol level to impair your reaction time enough to potentially cause a problem. Besides, they've got to put the limit somewhere.
I think that New Hampshire is a two party recording state - both parties must accept being recorded. That's not the same as implied consent, as far as I know, but, hey, I'm just an engineer, not a lawyer. Still, I don't think that's what the law was designed for.
The employee had permission to access social security numbers. The employee had permission to take a laptop home. The employee had permission to use database software at home.
The VA still contends that the employee did not have permission to put the social security numbers on the computer and take it home.
Look at the timeline. He gets permission to access SSNs in February. He gets permission to take a laptop home in September. Sometime during the year he got permission to use a database program at home. It still sounds to me like he took a little personal initiative to take the SSN database home.
Still, the whole affair was handled pretty damn poorly, particularly the delay in reporting it, among other things.
Interestingly, in my corner of the state, the cops were also very supportive of efforts to install cameras in police cars. The initial fallout was that the number of complaints dismissed due to video evidence increased - dramatically! The long term results are that complaints have dropped dramatically.
I guess that, at least in my neck of the woods, the cops weren't so bad after all. I know that I've never had a problem, cameras or no.
570-A:2 Interception and Disclosure of Telecommunication or Oral Communications Prohibited. -
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person:
(a) Wilfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any telecommunication or oral communication;
(b) Wilfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when:
(1) Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in telecommunication, or
(2) Such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication, or
(3) Such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on premises of any business or other commercial establishment, or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment; or
(c) Wilfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a telecommunication or oral communication in violation of this paragraph; or
(d) Willfully uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a telecommunication or oral communication in violation of this paragraph.
There are specific exemptions for law enforcement officers (among others). It would appear that the "violation" comes because the video recording included audio. It looks like they got caught on (a), (b)(1), maybe (c). I don't think that the law was meant to be used in a case like this, but I guess that it's sort of like the RICO statute - the real law is the law of unintended consequences.
I would have a lot more sympathy for the Gannons if they didn't sound like the stereotypical "I know my rights" kind of assholes, but still, I think that the law is being misapplied in this case.
The only hitch is that, in general, the pro-life lobby argues their point from a religous foundation. So, while they are not forcing anyone to embrace a particular religion, their lobby comes from a religous direction. Of course, the Bible says that we shouldn't kill each other, but that's not forcing religion down anybody's throat. I guess that if anybody is going to argue a point, there has to be some basis for it.
I don't have any problem with that, and, broadly, I agree that they are not forcing religion on anyone with their arguments. For what it's worth, I think that abortion is wrong, however I don't see legislating it away as a solution to the problem. I also don't see it as a religious issue, so I guess that's why I agree with you in a roundabout way.
Ironic, really when you consider how many of these revered founding fathers were as close to atheism as their contemporary society allowed.
Not at all - while many of them were not Christians, they were most certainly Deists. And that's definitely not atheism. However, they were also men of their times and the religion of their time was emerging from a period in which it had maintained a virtual stranglehold over politics.
Nonetheless, although some of the founders of the US were not Christians, they certainly held a moral code that is very Christian-like. Not necessarily because of the effect of Christianity, but simply because, to a rational, enlightened person, there are certain things that are simply "right" - or, as Jefferson put it, "self evident".
Enough were Christians, however, to have changed Jefferson's original wording of the Declaration of Independence to include the phrase "...endowed by their creator..." That's not what Jefferson wrote.
But I do agree that the US was not formed as a Christian country - in fact, the treaty with Tripoli from the late 1700's states that fact explicitly! However, since, for the majority of its history, the settlers of the US have been white, European Christians, laws and social mores have tended to reflect Protestant Christianity in general.
Some people honestly believe that religion is a large source of the world's problems and to truly advance we need to abandon it. If they believe this, then is it not a theological statement?
It is not a theological statement, it is a statement of confidence. There are quite a few definitions of "believe" - the definition that relates to the support of a credo or faith is not the one that fits in this case.
No. If you are a US citizen then the IRS wants your money no matter where you live in the world. However, many (not all) countries have arrangements to avoid double taxation so that US citizens who live in other countries pay local taxes but not US taxes. Of course they might have difficulty collecting it if you lived in e.g. Somalia.
Not so. I worked for a year as an advisor to the Egyptian Navy, with Booz-Allen. None of the money that I made was taxed by any government. And, believe me, I miss that $65K tax free! I make a lot more now, but after shelling out state and federal income tax, property taxes and sales tax, my dollar doesn't quite go that far.
On the other hand, living as a military advisor in Alexandria, Egypt was slightly better than living in a hell-hole, so I have to say that there are some benefits to be enjoyed from the taxes that I pay.
I haven't dealt much with the software side of Sun, but I've had such experience with the hardware. And, unfortunately, it seems that Sun, as a hardware company, is a rudderless ship. I don't lament the loss of computers built like tanks or a box the size of a suitcase sitting under my desk. I'm sorry that, somehow, Sun lost their grip on flat-out, brute force speed. The 2-1/2 D electrical simulations that I used to do on a multiprocessor Sun system used to be oh so much faster than the same simulations done on a state of the art PC. Oh, the times have changed. I still have a Blade 1000 under my desk, but my Dell Precision 470 is an absolute speed demon, and for a tiny fraction of the cost of a Sun. The Blade is relegated to running some PERL scripts that we haven't had time to format for the PC.
It's really a shame. As a software company, they may end up as the next SCO, but I'm also worried that they'll become the next SGI (builders of the other platform that I really loved).
If you're suggesting that a janitor applies scientific and technical knowledge to solve human problems, then you must work around some pretty amazing janitors.
Read the Mirriam-Webster and dictionary.com definitions for "engineer" again. You'll see in each case that there is a specific definition of the word that applies to our discussion, to wit:
One who is trained or professionally engaged in a branch of engineering. (dictionary.com)
and
a person who is trained in or follows as a profession a branch of engineering. (m-w.com)
I looked at the Wikipedia article. Right off the bat it says:
An engineer is someone who practices the profession of engineering. Engineers use creativity, technology, and scientific knowledge to solve practical problems. The title "engineer" is normally used only by individuals who have an academic degree (or equivalent work experience) in one of the engineering disciplines. In some countries of Continental Europe the title is limited by law to people with an engineering degree, and the use of the title by others (even persons with equivalent work experience) is illegal. Similar laws exist in most if not all American states and Canadian provinces; they usually dictate that only those who have passed the Professional Engineer examination may call themselves engineers. However, the reach of such laws is often limited to cover only situations involving intentional deceit or fraud. The word "technologist" is sometimes used synonymously as it derives from the prefix Techno- and the suffix -ologist, hence, someone who studies technology. This applies particularly to those European countries with laws regulating the use of the title engineer, since the term technologist is not regulated. However in some Latin countries, "technologist" is a somewhat lower certification at a level between technician and engineer.
The links that you provided don't make your case - to the contrary, they pretty much destroy it.
I studied for five years in college to get my EE degree, then spent another six years of work to become a PE. Some guy who passes a Microsoft test is not an engineer. The guy who empties my trash is not an engineer. The company may give you a title with the word "engineer" in it, but it doesn't make you an engineer.
Slashdot Mirror
No problem, mate. I just figured that, this being /. and all, I'd share a little useless information.
Actually, the British (and former colonies) drive on the left because in feudal days, horse and foot traffic was on the left side of the road so that if you needed to defend yourself from someone coming the other way, your right hand was on your opponent's side. This carried over into modern times.
In France and the US, teamsters began driving large wagons with teams of horses in the early 1700s. Typically, the teamster sat on the left rear horse, so they drove on the right side of the road so that oncoming traffic passed closer to them and both drivers could make sure that they wouldn't get tangled up.
There was also some political reasoning following the French revolution that had to do with aristocrats forcing the peasants to the right (pre-revolution). Napolean took the "right side of the road" ideal with him during his conquests.
Interestingly, though, about 34% of the world's population drives on the left side of the road - more than you might think!
That's why the most common reason why people are put in gaol ( jail for Yanks ) is for non-payment of medical bills.
Nobody goes to jail in the US for non-payment of bills. I'd ask you for a citation to back your statistic up, but there's no need since it's completely made up.
-h-
...we bought a legit copy of XP Home and installed it using the product key that the HP machine came with...
Oh no you didn't. The retail XP would not accept the OEM key. You made the story up! I guess we know why you posted AC.
-h-
1. 0.8 isn't really all that drunk.
0.8 is, well, pretty much dead. You meant 0.08. And while it's not all that drunk, it's a high enough alcohol level to impair your reaction time enough to potentially cause a problem. Besides, they've got to put the limit somewhere.
I'm just havin' a little fun.
-h-
(snicker) YHBT!
I think that New Hampshire is a two party recording state - both parties must accept being recorded. That's not the same as implied consent, as far as I know, but, hey, I'm just an engineer, not a lawyer. Still, I don't think that's what the law was designed for.
-h-
Also, it's just shameful the way a bunch of middle-management types are trying to shaft the analyst when he's had written permission for ~4 years.
Yeah, just ask the assistant secretary (Dennis Duffy) and the deputy assistant secretary (Michael McLendon). Oh wait, they've all been fired.
-h-
The employee had permission to access social security numbers. The employee had permission to take a laptop home. The employee had permission to use database software at home.
The VA still contends that the employee did not have permission to put the social security numbers on the computer and take it home.
Look at the timeline. He gets permission to access SSNs in February. He gets permission to take a laptop home in September. Sometime during the year he got permission to use a database program at home. It still sounds to me like he took a little personal initiative to take the SSN database home.
Still, the whole affair was handled pretty damn poorly, particularly the delay in reporting it, among other things.
-h-
Interestingly, in my corner of the state, the cops were also very supportive of efforts to install cameras in police cars. The initial fallout was that the number of complaints dismissed due to video evidence increased - dramatically! The long term results are that complaints have dropped dramatically.
I guess that, at least in my neck of the woods, the cops weren't so bad after all. I know that I've never had a problem, cameras or no.
-h-
The section of the NH code that applies:
570-A:2 Interception and Disclosure of Telecommunication or Oral Communications Prohibited. -
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person:
(a) Wilfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any telecommunication or oral communication;
(b) Wilfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when:
(1) Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in telecommunication, or
(2) Such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication, or
(3) Such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on premises of any business or other commercial establishment, or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment; or
(c) Wilfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a telecommunication or oral communication in violation of this paragraph; or
(d) Willfully uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a telecommunication or oral communication in violation of this paragraph.
There are specific exemptions for law enforcement officers (among others). It would appear that the "violation" comes because the video recording included audio. It looks like they got caught on (a), (b)(1), maybe (c). I don't think that the law was meant to be used in a case like this, but I guess that it's sort of like the RICO statute - the real law is the law of unintended consequences.
I would have a lot more sympathy for the Gannons if they didn't sound like the stereotypical "I know my rights" kind of assholes, but still, I think that the law is being misapplied in this case.
-h-
The only hitch is that, in general, the pro-life lobby argues their point from a religous foundation. So, while they are not forcing anyone to embrace a particular religion, their lobby comes from a religous direction. Of course, the Bible says that we shouldn't kill each other, but that's not forcing religion down anybody's throat. I guess that if anybody is going to argue a point, there has to be some basis for it.
I don't have any problem with that, and, broadly, I agree that they are not forcing religion on anyone with their arguments. For what it's worth, I think that abortion is wrong, however I don't see legislating it away as a solution to the problem. I also don't see it as a religious issue, so I guess that's why I agree with you in a roundabout way.
-h-
Ironic, really when you consider how many of these revered founding fathers were as close to atheism as their contemporary society allowed.
Not at all - while many of them were not Christians, they were most certainly Deists. And that's definitely not atheism. However, they were also men of their times and the religion of their time was emerging from a period in which it had maintained a virtual stranglehold over politics.
Nonetheless, although some of the founders of the US were not Christians, they certainly held a moral code that is very Christian-like. Not necessarily because of the effect of Christianity, but simply because, to a rational, enlightened person, there are certain things that are simply "right" - or, as Jefferson put it, "self evident".
Enough were Christians, however, to have changed Jefferson's original wording of the Declaration of Independence to include the phrase "...endowed by their creator..." That's not what Jefferson wrote.
But I do agree that the US was not formed as a Christian country - in fact, the treaty with Tripoli from the late 1700's states that fact explicitly! However, since, for the majority of its history, the settlers of the US have been white, European Christians, laws and social mores have tended to reflect Protestant Christianity in general.
-h-
Flamebait? Honestly, my head is spinning. You betcha.
Don't forget the Seventh Day Adventists. At least in my neck of the woods.
-h-
Some people honestly believe that religion is a large source of the world's problems and to truly advance we need to abandon it.
If they believe this, then is it not a theological statement?
It is not a theological statement, it is a statement of confidence. There are quite a few definitions of "believe" - the definition that relates to the support of a credo or faith is not the one that fits in this case.
-h-
Morality != religion
No. If you are a US citizen then the IRS wants your money no matter where you live in the world. However, many (not all) countries have arrangements to avoid double taxation so that US citizens who live in other countries pay local taxes but not US taxes. Of course they might have difficulty collecting it if you lived in e.g. Somalia.
Not so. I worked for a year as an advisor to the Egyptian Navy, with Booz-Allen. None of the money that I made was taxed by any government. And, believe me, I miss that $65K tax free! I make a lot more now, but after shelling out state and federal income tax, property taxes and sales tax, my dollar doesn't quite go that far.
On the other hand, living as a military advisor in Alexandria, Egypt was slightly better than living in a hell-hole, so I have to say that there are some benefits to be enjoyed from the taxes that I pay.
-h-
The Church of the Exponentially Decreasing Income, all hail their diminishing grace!
Study the Inquisition (which still exists)...
Wrong Inquisition...
Yeah, and then we'll get to hear stories that start out, "This one time at journalist camp..."
No thanks!
Hot lip fungus!
I haven't dealt much with the software side of Sun, but I've had such experience with the hardware. And, unfortunately, it seems that Sun, as a hardware company, is a rudderless ship. I don't lament the loss of computers built like tanks or a box the size of a suitcase sitting under my desk. I'm sorry that, somehow, Sun lost their grip on flat-out, brute force speed. The 2-1/2 D electrical simulations that I used to do on a multiprocessor Sun system used to be oh so much faster than the same simulations done on a state of the art PC. Oh, the times have changed. I still have a Blade 1000 under my desk, but my Dell Precision 470 is an absolute speed demon, and for a tiny fraction of the cost of a Sun. The Blade is relegated to running some PERL scripts that we haven't had time to format for the PC.
It's really a shame. As a software company, they may end up as the next SCO, but I'm also worried that they'll become the next SGI (builders of the other platform that I really loved).
-h-
In this corner - advocates of Perl, the Pathologically Ecclectic Rubbish Collector (or something like that)
.
In that corner - advocates of Ruby (I haven't got a clue on this one, folks)
And in this corner - dinosaurs like myself who still think awk/sed/sh is a pretty neat thing. Wait a minute, that's three corners. Uh . .
It's OK, you live in a triangle. Celebrate your inner trilateralness!
But what's PERC?
If you're suggesting that a janitor applies scientific and technical knowledge to solve human problems, then you must work around some pretty amazing janitors.
Read the Mirriam-Webster and dictionary.com definitions for "engineer" again. You'll see in each case that there is a specific definition of the word that applies to our discussion, to wit:
One who is trained or professionally engaged in a branch of engineering. (dictionary.com)
and
a person who is trained in or follows as a profession a branch of engineering. (m-w.com)
I looked at the Wikipedia article. Right off the bat it says:
An engineer is someone who practices the profession of engineering. Engineers use creativity, technology, and scientific knowledge to solve practical problems. The title "engineer" is normally used only by individuals who have an academic degree (or equivalent work experience) in one of the engineering disciplines. In some countries of Continental Europe the title is limited by law to people with an engineering degree, and the use of the title by others (even persons with equivalent work experience) is illegal. Similar laws exist in most if not all American states and Canadian provinces; they usually dictate that only those who have passed the Professional Engineer examination may call themselves engineers. However, the reach of such laws is often limited to cover only situations involving intentional deceit or fraud. The word "technologist" is sometimes used synonymously as it derives from the prefix Techno- and the suffix -ologist, hence, someone who studies technology. This applies particularly to those European countries with laws regulating the use of the title engineer, since the term technologist is not regulated. However in some Latin countries, "technologist" is a somewhat lower certification at a level between technician and engineer.
The links that you provided don't make your case - to the contrary, they pretty much destroy it.
I studied for five years in college to get my EE degree, then spent another six years of work to become a PE. Some guy who passes a Microsoft test is not an engineer. The guy who empties my trash is not an engineer. The company may give you a title with the word "engineer" in it, but it doesn't make you an engineer.
-h-