They can do what they want if the registrar's offices are in USA. The data is stored on a hard disk in the USA then the court can sieze it.
The original poster was talking about ICANN not being able to do anything, and rightly so. I haven't read the contract between PIR and ICANN, but I doubt it includes the ability for ICANN to remove specific delegations from the.ORG domain.
You are correct that the court could theoretically size the servers that are located in the USA, although I'm not sure what the legal justification would be. PIR is not a party in this legal proceeding, as far as I know.
What names will be remembered 200 years from now when children read about the second revolutionary war?
I don't think it's going to happen.
My ex-wife thinks the Republicans win because they put winning as their highest goal, and did whatever it takes to win. So, lots of propaganda, careful setting of agenda, trading personal stances for party unity, and so on.
I think the Republicans win because people really do support the public ideals of the Republican party. (I don't believe the party actions match their ideals, but I also don't believe people really pay too much attention.)
Americans really do hate gays, and they really don't give a shit about the environment, and they would prefer to have a crushingly expensive medical system that omits a large fraction of the country, and they are perfectly happy with the government tapping their phones (because they have nothing to hide). They would choose different language to express their position, but that's the bottom line.
Hell, my own father told me that the outrageous treatment of José Padilla is okay, because "we're at war".
Personally, I moved away to a place that cares way more about freedom and the good of the people than the US seems to. I might move back to the US someday, but I don't really see a way out of the spiral of conflicted interest between the government, corporations, and powerful individuals that has locked the US into its current path.:(
Please remind me, but I think it was the conservative hero Reagan running the show at that time. Bin Laden is also a bit upset about the first Iraqi war (which is kind of ironic considering he volunteered to help defend Saudi Arabia from Iraq in the same way he considers himself to have expelled the Soviets from Afghanistan), and none too happy about Israel.
You can say Clinton was ineffective at eliminating the terrorist threat, either by the Bush-style double strategy of war abroad and removing civil liberty at home, or by other means. But to say that the 9/11 terrorists attacked because of Clinton's policies is very, very close to being completely wrong.
At least you don't agree with Bush, who claims the attacks were because they hate our freedom:
You say, Running remote scripts sans security model is a quaint idea. What do you mean by a "security model"?
I googled for "javascript security model" and the very first link is pretty good article that seems to describe the JavaScript security model. It doesn't have many good things to say about it, but there clearly is a JavaScript security model.
So I think you overstate the case, but I don't really know what you mean.
This is an unadulterated power play and invasion of a candidate's privacy. And I suggest all out there looking for work decline the credit check as a part of the interview process.
Unequal Bargaining Positions
Employer (or potential employers) and employees do not have equal bargaining positions. In almost every case, people need their job a lot more than the company they work for needs them. (*)
Further, even small companies have vast resources, far beyond that of all but the super rich. These resources include money, of course, but also huge amounts of mainpower and expertise that the company can use for anything it needs to do to reach its goals.
Corporate Goals
I admit it is an oversimplification to speak of company's goals as if a corporation has pure of thought and purpose. Companies are made of people, and each person has their own ideas for what the company should do. Companies are also hierarchies, which means that people near the top have more influence over things.
In spite of this simplification, companies do tend to act in predictable ways, and we can talk of them having goals. So of course most companies want staff to work hard and get low salaries. It's a natural source of conflict.
Levelling the Playing Field
In reality, the system mostly works. But it works because of controls on the power of companies. Historically these came from workers collaborating to equalize their bargaining positions (union activity). More recently, the government has created a series of laws to try to keep things working (for instance, if none of the staff but senior management take advantage of a company 401(k), then it's tax-sheltered status is revoked).
I don't believe vast amounts of new regulations are necessary, but I do believe that employers will constantly try to take advantage of employees in new and creative ways, and regulators need to be willing and able to review each of their tactics and push back against it if it too egregious.
So... should something be done in this case? My gut feeling is yes, credit checks are far too invasive for a job applicant. If the problem is that former employers are unwilling to give accurate references for fear of being sued, then the legislature can grant a limited immunity to former employees answering reference checks. It's a shame that the courts aren't more reasonable, and that people don't feel like they can say when someone is crap or not, but there it is.
(*) I've seen several people who thought they were critical for their company. In all cases, they were fired, and in all cases, the company survived without them. I have a theory that this is because the modern corporation is modelled after the military. Military units are designed with the expectation that people will die, and that the unit should still be operational (of course with reduced efficiency). Likewise, people leave companies with short notice, so companies need to be able to survive the loss of any one person.
In the end, it is no different than closed-source to those that can't code.
It is different.
If the developers aren't fixing bugs that you want fixed and you can't fix them yourself, you can get someone else to fix them for you. For example, you could pay someone to fix the bugs.
With closed source code, you don't have that option.
If memory serves, Microsoft had an IPv6 stack for Windows 2000 that you could download from Microsoft's research site. In XP, IPv6 is included, but is disabled by default. A single command enables it. My understanding is that in Vista, IPv6 will be enabled by default.
Honestly, we're going to run out of new IPv4 addresses to hand out in a few years. We need IPv6, and I think Microsoft would be foolish not to enable it by default in Vista.
Actually, your program doesn't reproduce the behavior. The debug statements simple write directly to video memory. This means that the "=)" is written to the upper left of the screen, without changing anything else. You probably want something like this:
100 ' Save the original cursor position 110 SAVEROW=CSRLIN:SAVECOL=POS(0) 200 ' Output our message 210 LOCATE 1,1 220 PRINT "=)"; 300 ' Restore our original position 310 LOCATE SAVEROW,SAVECOL
It's not quite the same, because it actually moves the cursor and restores it, but your screen should look the same as if you used the "debug" commands. This program also reproduces the "bug" that if you enter either program when you are already at the bottom of the screen, the smiley will scroll off the top right after it appears.:)
In your average program, most code never gets executed, and most data is never used. For a long-lived process, swapping out the unnecessary bits frees the memory for disk cache.
While you may improve overall performance, by minimizing the average completion time for operations, the downside is responsiveness. As a user, I don't care if Firefox reads cached images a few milliseconds faster (by reading from cache instead of disk) if I have to wait 3 seconds for Thunderbird to respond to my clicks (because it has to swap in) after I've been browsing for a while. Average speed be damned!:)
Having said that, I just set my swappiness to 100.
Ants and other eusocial critters may die for the hive, but arguably they are cells in the larger organism that is the hive.
While I agree with your overall sentiment, I think it this statement is misleading. Ants and other eusocial animals, like every other "critter", act in ways that attempt to maximize the survival of their genes. It just happens that through a quirk of genetics, female ants are more related to their sisters than to their own offspring.
Calling ants "cells in the larger organism that is the hive" is misleading, as they all have unique DNA, completely unlike real cells in an organism, which share the same DNA.
UDP still carries a checksum, which does involve doing calculation over the entire contents of the packet and header. I admit, the calculation is simple, and the amount of data in the packet is small, but it is non-zero.
Also, IP supports packet fragmentation and reassembly. This is why you can send a 5000 byte UDP packet on an Ethernet network, which sends data in chucks of 1500 bytes. I think the main "win" here is that by handling fragmentation on the network card, you avoid the main CPU having to context switch to collect the state before the entire IP packet has arrived. I also freely admit you probably don't get many packets of this size during gameplay.
You are right that network processing does not require much processing power, but that's not the point. The point is latency. The checksum calculation can be sped up by doing it on an ASIC (as this board does I think), and the fragmentation/reassembly can be sped up by avoiding extra context switches of the main CPU.
Personally, I doubt going from (for example) 30 msec to 25 msec ping time is worth it, but I also don't think getting 100 frames per second versus 70 frames per second from your graphics card is worth it, so what do I know?:)
Except it doesn't support ACPI, which makes it pretty useless for a laptop, which is where I do most of my development. From the XenFaq:
1.5. Does Xen run on laptops?
Xen will typically run on laptops, but there's currently no support for APM or ACPI, hence you'll experience reduced battery life and no suspend/resume. We hope to add ACPI support in the future, exploiting Linux's existing support.
I'm using the gratis VMWare Server until the day that Xen actually suits my needs.
But frankly, if we just stay out of their business and stop backing Israel, I think we'd have little to no threat since this is ultimately what this boils down to in the first place... that and oil which could be, I'm sure, managed in other ways.
The Wikipedia documents Bin Laden's fatwa (I have heard and read this elsewhere as well, I think it's pretty trustworthy):
"The fatwa lists three crimes and sins committed by the Americans:
- U.S. support of Israel. - U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula. - U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people."
So, basically you're right.
Osama offered to protect Saudi Arabia against Saddam (back in 1990), but the Saud decided that the U.S. Military would be a better guarantee of victory. (To be fair, I'm pretty sure they were correct.) I wonder if a lot of this comes from his personal bitterness at being "passed over" as the protector of Mecca. (Who me? A pop psychologist?)
Slashdot Mirror
They can do what they want if the registrar's offices are in USA. The data is stored on a hard disk in the USA then the court can sieze it.
.ORG domain.
The original poster was talking about ICANN not being able to do anything, and rightly so. I haven't read the contract between PIR and ICANN, but I doubt it includes the ability for ICANN to remove specific delegations from the
You are correct that the court could theoretically size the servers that are located in the USA, although I'm not sure what the legal justification would be. PIR is not a party in this legal proceeding, as far as I know.
What names will be remembered 200 years from now when children read about the second revolutionary war?
:(
I don't think it's going to happen.
My ex-wife thinks the Republicans win because they put winning as their highest goal, and did whatever it takes to win. So, lots of propaganda, careful setting of agenda, trading personal stances for party unity, and so on.
I think the Republicans win because people really do support the public ideals of the Republican party. (I don't believe the party actions match their ideals, but I also don't believe people really pay too much attention.)
Americans really do hate gays, and they really don't give a shit about the environment, and they would prefer to have a crushingly expensive medical system that omits a large fraction of the country, and they are perfectly happy with the government tapping their phones (because they have nothing to hide). They would choose different language to express their position, but that's the bottom line.
Hell, my own father told me that the outrageous treatment of José Padilla is okay, because "we're at war".
Personally, I moved away to a place that cares way more about freedom and the good of the people than the US seems to. I might move back to the US someday, but I don't really see a way out of the spiral of conflicted interest between the government, corporations, and powerful individuals that has locked the US into its current path.
The terrorists were already in place by then attacking us for Bill Clinton's policies during his term.
8 FB-4A1C-B21F-2
0 010920-8.html
Bin Laden claims he got his first revelation in 1982, because of US support for Israeli involvement in Lebanon:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-9
Please remind me, but I think it was the conservative hero Reagan running the show at that time. Bin Laden is also a bit upset about the first Iraqi war (which is kind of ironic considering he volunteered to help defend Saudi Arabia from Iraq in the same way he considers himself to have expelled the Soviets from Afghanistan), and none too happy about Israel.
You can say Clinton was ineffective at eliminating the terrorist threat, either by the Bush-style double strategy of war abroad and removing civil liberty at home, or by other means. But to say that the 9/11 terrorists attacked because of Clinton's policies is very, very close to being completely wrong.
At least you don't agree with Bush, who claims the attacks were because they hate our freedom:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/2
You say, Running remote scripts sans security model is a quaint idea. What do you mean by a "security model"?
I googled for "javascript security model" and the very first link is pretty good article that seems to describe the JavaScript security model. It doesn't have many good things to say about it, but there clearly is a JavaScript security model.
So I think you overstate the case, but I don't really know what you mean.
But I'm not fearless. I just don't let my fear stop me.
That is the essence of bravery.
This is an unadulterated power play and invasion of a candidate's privacy. And I suggest all out there looking for work decline the credit check as a part of the interview process.
Unequal Bargaining Positions
Employer (or potential employers) and employees do not have equal bargaining positions. In almost every case, people need their job a lot more than the company they work for needs them. (*)
Further, even small companies have vast resources, far beyond that of all but the super rich. These resources include money, of course, but also huge amounts of mainpower and expertise that the company can use for anything it needs to do to reach its goals.
Corporate Goals
I admit it is an oversimplification to speak of company's goals as if a corporation has pure of thought and purpose. Companies are made of people, and each person has their own ideas for what the company should do. Companies are also hierarchies, which means that people near the top have more influence over things.
In spite of this simplification, companies do tend to act in predictable ways, and we can talk of them having goals. So of course most companies want staff to work hard and get low salaries. It's a natural source of conflict.
Levelling the Playing Field
In reality, the system mostly works. But it works because of controls on the power of companies. Historically these came from workers collaborating to equalize their bargaining positions (union activity). More recently, the government has created a series of laws to try to keep things working (for instance, if none of the staff but senior management take advantage of a company 401(k), then it's tax-sheltered status is revoked).
I don't believe vast amounts of new regulations are necessary, but I do believe that employers will constantly try to take advantage of employees in new and creative ways, and regulators need to be willing and able to review each of their tactics and push back against it if it too egregious.
So... should something be done in this case? My gut feeling is yes, credit checks are far too invasive for a job applicant. If the problem is that former employers are unwilling to give accurate references for fear of being sued, then the legislature can grant a limited immunity to former employees answering reference checks. It's a shame that the courts aren't more reasonable, and that people don't feel like they can say when someone is crap or not, but there it is.
(*) I've seen several people who thought they were critical for their company. In all cases, they were fired, and in all cases, the company survived without them. I have a theory that this is because the modern corporation is modelled after the military. Military units are designed with the expectation that people will die, and that the unit should still be operational (of course with reduced efficiency). Likewise, people leave companies with short notice, so companies need to be able to survive the loss of any one person.
I'm so sick of hearing people say that they don't have a choice.
Nobody is forcing you to listen to them.
Why yes, Geoff Huston has analyzed the problem pretty thoroughly:
http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/
So, we're looking at just under 6 years.
BTW, Geoff Huston is a guru.
However, the stack does not support DNS query in IPv6 (not AAAA query via IPv4), which kind of destroy the hope of deploying pure IPv6 network.
:)
You don't need a "pure IPv6 network".
You can give private IP addresses (10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16) to users' computers for talking with your recursive DNS servers.
They can use IPv4 to talk to your DNS server, and IPv6 to talk to the Internet (or anyplace else they need a globally unique IP address).
Of course, you'd need to use non-Microsoft software on your recursive DNS servers. But BIND runs on Windows, so it's not a huge problem.
In the end, it is no different than closed-source to those that can't code.
It is different.
If the developers aren't fixing bugs that you want fixed and you can't fix them yourself, you can get someone else to fix them for you. For example, you could pay someone to fix the bugs.
With closed source code, you don't have that option.
If memory serves, Microsoft had an IPv6 stack for Windows 2000 that you could download from Microsoft's research site. In XP, IPv6 is included, but is disabled by default. A single command enables it. My understanding is that in Vista, IPv6 will be enabled by default.
Honestly, we're going to run out of new IPv4 addresses to hand out in a few years. We need IPv6, and I think Microsoft would be foolish not to enable it by default in Vista.
That's why I keep KCharSelect on my toolbar, for passwords like "gøLd.Ís.79".
Any of the players supported by Rockbox will play Vorbis formats, if you run Rockbox:
http://www.rockbox.org/
I use it on my iRiver H340, and it's pretty good.
Or to put it a third way, is there any situation where swapping is helpful, anymore?
:)
Sure. Consider Andrew Morton's logic:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/3000
In your average program, most code never gets executed, and most data is never used. For a long-lived process, swapping out the unnecessary bits frees the memory for disk cache.
While you may improve overall performance, by minimizing the average completion time for operations, the downside is responsiveness. As a user, I don't care if Firefox reads cached images a few milliseconds faster (by reading from cache instead of disk) if I have to wait 3 seconds for Thunderbird to respond to my clicks (because it has to swap in) after I've been browsing for a while. Average speed be damned!
Having said that, I just set my swappiness to 100.
You can always test drive it first:
http://thepiratebay.org/
The moment science presumes to have found certain truth, it ceases to be science and becomes just a different form of religion.
I disagree. Science is fundamentally different from religion in that its claims can be checked.
...there are no kangaroos in Austria.
Ants and other eusocial critters may die for the hive, but arguably they are cells in the larger organism that is the hive.
While I agree with your overall sentiment, I think it this statement is misleading. Ants and other eusocial animals, like every other "critter", act in ways that attempt to maximize the survival of their genes. It just happens that through a quirk of genetics, female ants are more related to their sisters than to their own offspring.
It's kin selection.
Calling ants "cells in the larger organism that is the hive" is misleading, as they all have unique DNA, completely unlike real cells in an organism, which share the same DNA.
UDP still carries a checksum, which does involve doing calculation over the entire contents of the packet and header. I admit, the calculation is simple, and the amount of data in the packet is small, but it is non-zero.
:)
Also, IP supports packet fragmentation and reassembly. This is why you can send a 5000 byte UDP packet on an Ethernet network, which sends data in chucks of 1500 bytes. I think the main "win" here is that by handling fragmentation on the network card, you avoid the main CPU having to context switch to collect the state before the entire IP packet has arrived. I also freely admit you probably don't get many packets of this size during gameplay.
You are right that network processing does not require much processing power, but that's not the point. The point is latency. The checksum calculation can be sped up by doing it on an ASIC (as this board does I think), and the fragmentation/reassembly can be sped up by avoiding extra context switches of the main CPU.
Personally, I doubt going from (for example) 30 msec to 25 msec ping time is worth it, but I also don't think getting 100 frames per second versus 70 frames per second from your graphics card is worth it, so what do I know?
Sad that Rumsfeld is getting credit for it, when the idea actually comes from the original BHA, Carl Sagan:
http://www.fatemag.com/wordpress/?p=103
Have you seen Mythbusters? All you need to do original research is the will to do it. :)
Thomas Jefferson believed in Democracy, more than almost any other founding father. Anyway, here's an article about the quote you posted:
http://www.cronaca.com/archives/003038.html
It could be bogus, but I can't seem to find any actual references on the "mob rule" quote that make it seem genuine.
Except it doesn't support ACPI, which makes it pretty useless for a laptop, which is where I do most of my development. From the XenFaq:
I'm using the gratis VMWare Server until the day that Xen actually suits my needs.
But frankly, if we just stay out of their business and stop backing Israel, I think we'd have little to no threat since this is ultimately what this boils down to in the first place... that and oil which could be, I'm sure, managed in other ways.
The Wikipedia documents Bin Laden's fatwa (I have heard and read this elsewhere as well, I think it's pretty trustworthy):
"The fatwa lists three crimes and sins committed by the Americans:
- U.S. support of Israel.
- U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
- U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people."
So, basically you're right.
Osama offered to protect Saudi Arabia against Saddam (back in 1990), but the Saud decided that the U.S. Military would be a better guarantee of victory. (To be fair, I'm pretty sure they were correct.) I wonder if a lot of this comes from his personal bitterness at being "passed over" as the protector of Mecca. (Who me? A pop psychologist?)