Your needs will depend on, among other things, your layout. Is it a shop/front office setup, a series of small rooms, or just one big open area? Depending on what the physical setup of the building (and computers/phones), a single distribution frame may not be appropriate. Considering the size of the building, I would assume that, in addition to your main distribution frame, at least one IDF (independent distribution frame, i.e. "small telecom closet") would be necessary to overcome the attenuation limitations of Ethernet cabling (assuming this isn't a end-to-end fiber shop, a situtation which would provide many different questions and answers).
Assuming that the cable is run in anything other than under-floor conduit, talk to your architect about how and where the cable raceway will be placed. It's been my experience that most architects don't take cable installation concerns into account when designing floorplans, and thus you often end up with situations where it is next-to-if-not-impossible to get a new cable down a certain length of run, because the designer placed the raceway too damn close to HVAC equipment, or it runs blind 30' up a column with no access port, or any of at least a dozen other stupid situation's I've been in because nobody thought discussing layout was worth the time.
What else, what else... Well, you'll probably want to have some 220 and/or 440 circuits brought into your distribution frames, just in case you need that sort of power at a later date (if you don't already now) - I know the Cisco Catalyst series of routers require at least 1 220v Twist-Loc connection for power, 2 with redundant power supplies.
That's about all the advice I can think of to give, considering the limited information you've provided. Still, useful stuff.
Google is also a victim here, a victim of language re-defined by rights-holders (those who usually aren't creators) such as the RIAA, MPAA, BSA and the like. They've been given power, and they use it to redefine terms. That affects how we think and react.
The obvious difference, since it seems you missed it, is that a multi-billion dollar company like Google actually has the power to do something about it, but instead, they play the game, because regardless of what they claim their company philosophy is, the bottom line is... well, their bottom line.
If Google sees more profit in "being a victim" to laws they could very well change, then they will do precisely dick to change them. Period.
Not sure what that has to do with the physics of loaded weapons at rest...
Seriously, though, I get what you were trying to say - not that owning the loaded weapon is an issue in this scenario, but rather discharging a high-powered rifle in a crowded multi-family abode that is, essentially, made of friggin' paper, is not a very nice thing to do to your neighbors.
And I guess I should break down city into "slummy inner city", "high rise style", "suburb" and "technically a city, but really more akin to a town. Not a major metropolitan area that shows up on a map of my country".
Nah, that's probably too specific. Oh, and for the record, I do not share walls with my neighbors; got enough of dealing with that mess when I was in college.
Unfortunately, I think this may be a big part of it. A lot of women seem to have a big problem with trying to hurt other women in the workplace out of jealousy, and prettier women get it much worse.
Yea, especially if the hiring manager is (or at least, considers herself) attractive as well. I assume it boils down to a primitive breeding instinct... amazing how much control our loins have on our behavior even after 135,000+ years of evolution, wouldn't you agree?
Being lucky enough to be married to one rather gorgeous woman (and that's not just bias, she's an independently confirmed looker), I've got quite a bit of second hand knowledge on how pretty women treat/are treated by their female coworkers.
Personally, I'll take the straight-up mean-to-your-face attitude of a dickish male manager, than the underhanded, backstabbing, passive-aggressive browbeating one would get from an equally dickish woman boss.
Not a win-lose situation here - I'm just trying to point out that the framers of the Constitution were very, very specific in who got which powers and rights - they are divided up among the Federal Gov't, the States, and the People, respectively. Corporations, which (many people are apparently unaware) are not a new concept, were not enumerated any rights whatsoever, and I'm pretty sure our founders had a damn good reason for leaving them out.
What particular statutes make it illegal for me to search people who enter "my" property?
None that I'm aware of. If you tell someone that they can't enter your home without your searching them, then either they allow you to search them, or they don't enter your home. If you let someone into your home, then tell them that you're going to search them and refuse to let them leave until they agree, you could potentially face criminal charges for kidnapping, wrongful imprisonment, or some similar law. The charges would be independent of your request to search them, though.
Alright, we're getting somewhere - so, with that in mind, what law/statute specifically names businesses as "persons," with respect specifically to Constitutional rights? Note that the SCOTUS decision in the Citizen's United case pertained specifically to political contributions, and did not particularly define corporate entities as "persons" for the purpose of general Constitutional rights-granting. At least, not as far as I can tell, IANAL after all.
Only two things can be taken away from this event:
1) killing ambassadors and US citizens by not so crazy Muslim fanatics WORKS and is an effective strategy.
2) If the Constitution cannot protect this guy, it sure as shit won't protect you either.
You missed one:
3) violating the conditions of your parole by using false identification will result in arrest, being considered a flight risk, and subsequent denial of bail.
FTR, I have no less than 3 loaded guns at my home at all times, but only one (a shotgun) is kept in a home-defense-convenient location. The rest stay locked up.
OK, 4 if you include my sidearm, but it's only at the house when I am.
What do physics have to do with owning a loaded AK-47?
I think the statement you're wanting to make here is, "No, you should not discharge a loaded AK-47 in your city apartment."
FTR, I have no less than 3 loaded guns at my home at all times, but only one (a shotgun) is kept in a home-defense-convenient location. The rest stay locked up.
He's locked up because he violated the terms of his probation. He apparently has a pathological tendency to refuse to give his real name to authorities or anyone else for that matter, and the Judge had enough of it.
If you had people who wanted to kill you and had the means to falsify badges/I.D./uniforms you would be giving out false names too. I concede that his own actions caused his current predicament and I don't condone anything he has put out but I can understand his motivations for lying about his name..
I understand his motivations. I also understand that providing false identities to LEOs while on legal probation is a crime in itself, and that if a person commit a crime, they will be punished accordingly.
Yea, shit like this is why I occasionally pray for a military coup d'état - hey, it's not like they could do any worse than the pirate ringmasters who currently run this freakshow, right?
Except that those who might conceivably commit a coup are NOT the ones you'd want running things. There are a lot of great people in our military, but there are some really scary people too (I'm specifically thinking of the far right "Christians" like Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley), and the good people would not be the ones to get involved in a coup. Be careful what you wish for.
The problem with your theory is that some of those "scary people" you mention support the current system and regime, and thus would probably not want it to fall, as that would be detrimental to their own agendas.
That's the thing about rhetorical hypotheticals - you can't honestly say, "it will go down this way," because there's no way of knowing for sure unless said event actually occurs. While your scenario holds merit, it's equally meritorious to believe that some rather non-scary people would lead the charge, deciding to honor their oath to defending and upholding the Constitution against domestic enemies.
We could wax philosophic about this all day, but you and I both know there's really only one way we'll ever find out...
It doesn't need to 'clarify' it, because it's intrinsically FOR the government alone. That was the whole fucking purpose of the Constitution & it's articles.
Good thing that's not talking about rights granted by or to the government.
I'm sorry, what? Either I missed something, or you're switching gears faster than a tweaker in a funny car...
Oh, cool, so that means if I run into in the street, I can just start going through your pockets, and there's nothing you can legally do to stop me? Or is it only that I can rifle through your belongings if you're on "my" property?
If the Constitution were the only law in the country, then yes, you could. Fortunately, we have other laws that cover theft, murder, and other such stuff.
Also, stealing someone's pocket change isn't usually a federal crime.
I never said anything about stealing, I was just wanting to conduct a search. You know, for my own "safety."
What particular statutes make it illegal for me to search people who enter "my" property?
Slashdot Mirror
Seconded - you rock, Woz. Hit me up next time you're in the midwest, I'll buy the beer so long as you keep being awesome.
Foosball table
Beer vending machine.
Problem solved: Beer-vending Foosball table!
Your needs will depend on, among other things, your layout. Is it a shop/front office setup, a series of small rooms, or just one big open area? Depending on what the physical setup of the building (and computers/phones), a single distribution frame may not be appropriate. Considering the size of the building, I would assume that, in addition to your main distribution frame, at least one IDF (independent distribution frame, i.e. "small telecom closet") would be necessary to overcome the attenuation limitations of Ethernet cabling (assuming this isn't a end-to-end fiber shop, a situtation which would provide many different questions and answers).
Assuming that the cable is run in anything other than under-floor conduit, talk to your architect about how and where the cable raceway will be placed. It's been my experience that most architects don't take cable installation concerns into account when designing floorplans, and thus you often end up with situations where it is next-to-if-not-impossible to get a new cable down a certain length of run, because the designer placed the raceway too damn close to HVAC equipment, or it runs blind 30' up a column with no access port, or any of at least a dozen other stupid situation's I've been in because nobody thought discussing layout was worth the time.
What else, what else... Well, you'll probably want to have some 220 and/or 440 circuits brought into your distribution frames, just in case you need that sort of power at a later date (if you don't already now) - I know the Cisco Catalyst series of routers require at least 1 220v Twist-Loc connection for power, 2 with redundant power supplies.
That's about all the advice I can think of to give, considering the limited information you've provided. Still, useful stuff.
Google is also a victim here, a victim of language re-defined by rights-holders (those who usually aren't creators) such as the RIAA, MPAA, BSA and the like. They've been given power, and they use it to redefine terms. That affects how we think and react.
The obvious difference, since it seems you missed it, is that a multi-billion dollar company like Google actually has the power to do something about it, but instead, they play the game, because regardless of what they claim their company philosophy is, the bottom line is... well, their bottom line.
If Google sees more profit in "being a victim" to laws they could very well change, then they will do precisely dick to change them. Period.
Welcome to Capitalism, comrade.
Their guns give them the right to do what they want.
Really? That's how it works??
* looks at the 1911 strapped to his own hip
Oh, FUCK yea
Here you go: http://journalstar.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/sheriff-looks-to-lock-down-open-internet-connections/article_3a98d107-05c6-5a11-8d09-8769e6e7dacd.html
Do you live in a city? In an apartment?
Not sure what that has to do with the physics of loaded weapons at rest...
Seriously, though, I get what you were trying to say - not that owning the loaded weapon is an issue in this scenario, but rather discharging a high-powered rifle in a crowded multi-family abode that is, essentially, made of friggin' paper, is not a very nice thing to do to your neighbors.
And I guess I should break down city into "slummy inner city", "high rise style", "suburb" and "technically a city, but really more akin to a town. Not a major metropolitan area that shows up on a map of my country".
Nah, that's probably too specific. Oh, and for the record, I do not share walls with my neighbors; got enough of dealing with that mess when I was in college.
Males, less sexist against good looking females than other females.
FTFY, although reading it back, that's still pretty sexist, but in a different way.
Except that in this case, only the names provided would hint towards male or female, and you can't judge looks on a name.
I (and I'm pretty sure OP too) was speaking in more of a general sense, not necessarily limited to the scope of this study.
Fair enough, thanks for clarifying.
At the same time, though, it isn't feasible for corporations to only be able to do what the law explicitly allows them to do.
Having some trouble parsing this concept, can you elaborate?
Unfortunately, I think this may be a big part of it. A lot of women seem to have a big problem with trying to hurt other women in the workplace out of jealousy, and prettier women get it much worse.
Yea, especially if the hiring manager is (or at least, considers herself) attractive as well. I assume it boils down to a primitive breeding instinct... amazing how much control our loins have on our behavior even after 135,000+ years of evolution, wouldn't you agree?
Being lucky enough to be married to one rather gorgeous woman (and that's not just bias, she's an independently confirmed looker), I've got quite a bit of second hand knowledge on how pretty women treat/are treated by their female coworkers.
Personally, I'll take the straight-up mean-to-your-face attitude of a dickish male manager, than the underhanded, backstabbing, passive-aggressive browbeating one would get from an equally dickish woman boss.
That, or I've got so many different things running through my head right now it's hard to keep them all straight...
TGIF!
Not a win-lose situation here - I'm just trying to point out that the framers of the Constitution were very, very specific in who got which powers and rights - they are divided up among the Federal Gov't, the States, and the People, respectively. Corporations, which (many people are apparently unaware) are not a new concept, were not enumerated any rights whatsoever, and I'm pretty sure our founders had a damn good reason for leaving them out.
Males, less sexist against good looking females than other females.
FTFY, although reading it back, that's still pretty sexist, but in a different way.
...
Well said, dude.
I tip my hat.
What particular statutes make it illegal for me to search people who enter "my" property?
None that I'm aware of. If you tell someone that they can't enter your home without your searching them, then either they allow you to search them, or they don't enter your home. If you let someone into your home, then tell them that you're going to search them and refuse to let them leave until they agree, you could potentially face criminal charges for kidnapping, wrongful imprisonment, or some similar law. The charges would be independent of your request to search them, though.
Alright, we're getting somewhere - so, with that in mind, what law/statute specifically names businesses as "persons," with respect specifically to Constitutional rights? Note that the SCOTUS decision in the Citizen's United case pertained specifically to political contributions, and did not particularly define corporate entities as "persons" for the purpose of general Constitutional rights-granting. At least, not as far as I can tell, IANAL after all.
Only two things can be taken away from this event: 1) killing ambassadors and US citizens by not so crazy Muslim fanatics WORKS and is an effective strategy. 2) If the Constitution cannot protect this guy, it sure as shit won't protect you either.
You missed one:
3) violating the conditions of your parole by using false identification will result in arrest, being considered a flight risk, and subsequent denial of bail.
Not Lindsey Lohan. He's the new Billy Mays.
Ah, so he's learned the ancient secret of sounding-like-you're-yelling-when-you're-not-really-yelling.
A dangerous one indeed.
FTR, I have no less than 3 loaded guns at my home at all times, but only one (a shotgun) is kept in a home-defense-convenient location. The rest stay locked up.
OK, 4 if you include my sidearm, but it's only at the house when I am.
And why's that, exactly?
Because of physics.
What do physics have to do with owning a loaded AK-47?
I think the statement you're wanting to make here is, "No, you should not discharge a loaded AK-47 in your city apartment."
FTR, I have no less than 3 loaded guns at my home at all times, but only one (a shotgun) is kept in a home-defense-convenient location. The rest stay locked up.
Only their free speech. I don't think they give a shit about your free speech.
Hey, you can't say that!
natch.
He's locked up because he violated the terms of his probation. He apparently has a pathological tendency to refuse to give his real name to authorities or anyone else for that matter, and the Judge had enough of it.
If you had people who wanted to kill you and had the means to falsify badges/I.D./uniforms you would be giving out false names too. I concede that his own actions caused his current predicament and I don't condone anything he has put out but I can understand his motivations for lying about his name..
I understand his motivations. I also understand that providing false identities to LEOs while on legal probation is a crime in itself, and that if a person commit a crime, they will be punished accordingly.
This is all much ado about nothing.
Yea, shit like this is why I occasionally pray for a military coup d'état - hey, it's not like they could do any worse than the pirate ringmasters who currently run this freakshow, right?
Except that those who might conceivably commit a coup are NOT the ones you'd want running things. There are a lot of great people in our military, but there are some really scary people too (I'm specifically thinking of the far right "Christians" like Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley), and the good people would not be the ones to get involved in a coup. Be careful what you wish for.
The problem with your theory is that some of those "scary people" you mention support the current system and regime, and thus would probably not want it to fall, as that would be detrimental to their own agendas.
That's the thing about rhetorical hypotheticals - you can't honestly say, "it will go down this way," because there's no way of knowing for sure unless said event actually occurs. While your scenario holds merit, it's equally meritorious to believe that some rather non-scary people would lead the charge, deciding to honor their oath to defending and upholding the Constitution against domestic enemies.
We could wax philosophic about this all day, but you and I both know there's really only one way we'll ever find out...
It doesn't need to 'clarify' it, because it's intrinsically FOR the government alone. That was the whole fucking purpose of the Constitution & it's articles.
Good thing that's not talking about rights granted by or to the government.
I'm sorry, what? Either I missed something, or you're switching gears faster than a tweaker in a funny car...
Oh, cool, so that means if I run into in the street, I can just start going through your pockets, and there's nothing you can legally do to stop me? Or is it only that I can rifle through your belongings if you're on "my" property?
If the Constitution were the only law in the country, then yes, you could. Fortunately, we have other laws that cover theft, murder, and other such stuff. Also, stealing someone's pocket change isn't usually a federal crime.
I never said anything about stealing, I was just wanting to conduct a search. You know, for my own "safety."
What particular statutes make it illegal for me to search people who enter "my" property?