1) The outside door is locked; no admission without identification. Any federal agent must present his warrant - not just id - to gain admission - which will be viewed by cameras that send the image overseas.
2) The warrant is not active until served. Therefore emailing all clients as soon as an agent states 'We are here to serve a warrant' is totally legitimate.
3) Make sure you have visible and invisible cameras at the front desk. Also a button on the desk that the receptionist presses as soon as a person declares themselves to be federal agent
4) An area of consecrated ground on which guns are banned on the way into the entrance hall. A sign warning that this is the case, with an arrest following immediately that the alleged federal agents enter the area. As they are under arrest, they are no longer legally entitled to serve the warrant, which can then be freely copied / distributed etc.
5) Control of the entry door is by a person located in a foreign jurisdiction.
A big visible camera - and a smaller hidden one - at the entrance to your building with microphones, so you make sure that the identity of the agents is very public information when they present themselves at your front door. Reading out of the warrant at the time of reception as is legally acceptable, would probably blow the investigation as soon as it starts. We need to play legal games the same as they do.
And was; the introduction of the Federal level ban on alcohol was merely the completion of a process that had been carried out at state level in many places. You are however right. because the 'commerce' clause has been used to extend the competence of the Federal government in ways that the Founders did not intend. It was mainly done to outlaw racial discrimination by federal law - which 'everyone' agreed was a 'good thing' - but opened the door to the power being used to allow the Feds to do everything, including banning weed etc.
A careful reading of the content of the ad makes it clear its about providing MI5 with the tools to exploit the data that it's collecting NOT making that data available to commercial groups. It's depressing that the poster misread it, and the editor didn't spike this submission; this is how a board like Slashdot gets known as conspiracy theorists.
Given that the Stafford Hospital scandal occurred in a public sector hospital, there's no rational reason for assuming that the public sector will provide better health care than private contractors. The core value of the NHS is high quality health care that is free to the patient. The rest is decoration. And of course given that most GPs surgeries are privately owned by the GPs, most NHS care is already private.
I somewhat expect the manager who lost the battle would want to win the war, regardless of the consequences to the company. Perhaps I'm unduly pessimistic...
One of the games that my previous public sector employer played was paying more for Database Administrators than for developers. As this differential increased, there were occasions when as a developer I was required to do DBA work. I ensured that this was noted - and made difficult; if there is going to be a grading difference, they can't then expect us to do the higher paid job for the lower rate of pay. Ultimately we had the last laugh; as our wages fell below the market rate, they lost more and more staff, and ended up introducing a 'market supplement' to stop the mass exodus....
But once you've finished working for that client, it's likely that your employer will seek to sideline you as a troublemaker. You might also struggle to get a fair reference from him if you try to change jobs; the concept of a 'blacklist' of 'difficult' employees still seems to happen. But let's hope I'm wrong...
both outstanding films in the past year. Sure most of it's rubbish - but it keeps the proles entertained, so let's not care too much. However just occasionally there's something special; don't give up looking out for it.
Life of Pi is a recent example. Avatar also. I also think Les Mis was much better seen in a cinema than just at home.
Yes they're rare, but they do exist...
Because we invented police forces, it made sense for us to call our force the Metropolitian, because as the first, it couldn't be confused with anyone else. It's the same with stamps; we still don't put any country identity on our stamps, just the queen's head. Just remember:
'The English the English the English are best,I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest'
and
'It's not that they're wicked or naturally bad
It's just that they're foreign that makes them so mad
The English are all that a nation should be
And the pride of the English are Chipper and me'
for the song properly sung see: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh-wEXvdW8
Enjoy!
The specific example cited was that of a guy who long ago was repossessed as a result of defaulting on his mortgage. Given that a public notice will have been issued on this, there is data about him 'in the public domain'. In the old days, when search engines didn't exist, that sort of data would have remained invisible to almost all people. These days it's suddenly become visible because of new technology. The same applies to ancient criminal convictions or other moments of fame generally forgotten. In this context, the debate is far more interesting: is my 15 minutes of fame to be available for the rest of time, or should access to it be limited. If it is as a result of an article in a newspaper, then should the newspaper be required to remove certain articles? Or should the search engines be stoppable? Or should we accept that something new has emerged?
The need to forget past mistakes is recognised in the English criminal law by banning the identities of people under 18 from being published if they come before the criminal courts. This is an attempt to allow juvenile offenders to escape a permanent black mark against their name.
Thank you for offering further evidence for my long held suspicion that a very large proportion of what passes for literary criticism is bovine faecal material. For the record I was entirely serious in my comment; I would argue that successful intelligence gathering by non-aggressive countries which undermines the actions of those seeking to damage the questing country is a good thing. For example a plot to land guns and explosive for use in domestic terrorism that is caught as a result of sigint is an unambiguously good thing. Where it gets more iffy is the use of it to maximise your negotiating position in bargaining with people you claim as allies, and its use to provide technical secrets to your commercial firms, as the French were caught doing in the 1980s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_espionage#France_and_the_United_States is an absolute no-no.
Let's clarify; I don't have a problem with the NSA doing its job as an intelligence agency. I DO have a problem with Snowden removing the 'deniability' that allows everyone to pretend it isn't happening, and so cause damage to foreign relationships. He was totally right to challenge the NSA's spying on Americans, but to reveal his country's secret intelligence activities was far more reprehensible AND DAMAGES HIS CREDIBILITY OVER HIS REAL WHISTLEBLOWING. Those who weren't sure whether to attack the NSA for its criminality, or defend it for its alleged good works are more likely now to line up to defend it. At the margins this matters...
When he was revealing actions by the US government that were clearly unconstitutional - at least on any reasonable reading of the constitution - then he could legitimately claim the status of whistleblower. But to reveal the intelligence gathering activities of your own government that are aimed at those who are clearly your enemies is an act of treachery. Which is a disaster, because it reduce the odds of the criminal actions of the Bush/Obama government being challenged, let alone punished.
which is only subsequently translated into a type face when the item is converted into an image which doesn't contain the letters. So all your data would have to be held as such PDFs, which are no longer searchable.Nice idea - shame about the reality
The profits have been competed away
on
Have We Hit Peak HFT?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
As economic theory would predict, the money that was being made by HFT isn't any more because more and more people are getting to play the same game. The virtue of HFT is the liquidity that it brings to the markets, but at the cost of possible software caused chaos, as we've seen on a few occasions. On the whole it's probably worth tolerating, because the alternative is likely to see 'regulation arbitrage' as players go round any new rules.
which was my experience of at least one chemistry prof at the end of the 70s. But yes, the first two years of most STEM courses need the core curriculum delivered by high quality 'lectures' - being full scale TV documentary productions, not just a talking head; otherwise what's wrong with a book? Obviously there needs to be someone available to dig you out of holes if you get stuck, but ideally the course will prevent most of that.
Although most people assume its purpose is to address clear criminality, its use by the British Parliament from which it originates, was a means for the legislature to punish the executive when Parliament had had enough. Thus its use here against the boss of the NSA and above is entirely justified on that approach to the constitution - and they should be grateful that the constitution specifically bans bills of attainder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bills_of_attainder
a much more entertaining prospect for those of us who enjoy public executions....;)
Slashdot Mirror
As a user of Adblocker plus I get almost zero ads.
But they may want to be cautious the next time they go to a doctor; they might be quite upset at the pay cut...
1) The outside door is locked; no admission without identification. Any federal agent must present his warrant - not just id - to gain admission - which will be viewed by cameras that send the image overseas. 2) The warrant is not active until served. Therefore emailing all clients as soon as an agent states 'We are here to serve a warrant' is totally legitimate. 3) Make sure you have visible and invisible cameras at the front desk. Also a button on the desk that the receptionist presses as soon as a person declares themselves to be federal agent 4) An area of consecrated ground on which guns are banned on the way into the entrance hall. A sign warning that this is the case, with an arrest following immediately that the alleged federal agents enter the area. As they are under arrest, they are no longer legally entitled to serve the warrant, which can then be freely copied / distributed etc. 5) Control of the entry door is by a person located in a foreign jurisdiction.
A big visible camera - and a smaller hidden one - at the entrance to your building with microphones, so you make sure that the identity of the agents is very public information when they present themselves at your front door. Reading out of the warrant at the time of reception as is legally acceptable, would probably blow the investigation as soon as it starts. We need to play legal games the same as they do.
And was; the introduction of the Federal level ban on alcohol was merely the completion of a process that had been carried out at state level in many places. You are however right. because the 'commerce' clause has been used to extend the competence of the Federal government in ways that the Founders did not intend. It was mainly done to outlaw racial discrimination by federal law - which 'everyone' agreed was a 'good thing' - but opened the door to the power being used to allow the Feds to do everything, including banning weed etc.
A careful reading of the content of the ad makes it clear its about providing MI5 with the tools to exploit the data that it's collecting NOT making that data available to commercial groups. It's depressing that the poster misread it, and the editor didn't spike this submission; this is how a board like Slashdot gets known as conspiracy theorists.
Israel's still there; that's their primary role... The bombs have stopped going off in the buses and cafes.
Given that the Stafford Hospital scandal occurred in a public sector hospital, there's no rational reason for assuming that the public sector will provide better health care than private contractors. The core value of the NHS is high quality health care that is free to the patient. The rest is decoration. And of course given that most GPs surgeries are privately owned by the GPs, most NHS care is already private.
I somewhat expect the manager who lost the battle would want to win the war, regardless of the consequences to the company. Perhaps I'm unduly pessimistic...
One of the games that my previous public sector employer played was paying more for Database Administrators than for developers. As this differential increased, there were occasions when as a developer I was required to do DBA work. I ensured that this was noted - and made difficult; if there is going to be a grading difference, they can't then expect us to do the higher paid job for the lower rate of pay. Ultimately we had the last laugh; as our wages fell below the market rate, they lost more and more staff, and ended up introducing a 'market supplement' to stop the mass exodus....
But once you've finished working for that client, it's likely that your employer will seek to sideline you as a troublemaker. You might also struggle to get a fair reference from him if you try to change jobs; the concept of a 'blacklist' of 'difficult' employees still seems to happen. But let's hope I'm wrong...
both outstanding films in the past year. Sure most of it's rubbish - but it keeps the proles entertained, so let's not care too much. However just occasionally there's something special; don't give up looking out for it.
Life of Pi is a recent example. Avatar also. I also think Les Mis was much better seen in a cinema than just at home. Yes they're rare, but they do exist...
We call it GCHQ - not National Security Agency. Being British is all about understatement; it lets us creep up on you... ;)
Because we invented police forces, it made sense for us to call our force the Metropolitian, because as the first, it couldn't be confused with anyone else. It's the same with stamps; we still don't put any country identity on our stamps, just the queen's head. Just remember: 'The English the English the English are best,I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest' and 'It's not that they're wicked or naturally bad It's just that they're foreign that makes them so mad The English are all that a nation should be And the pride of the English are Chipper and me' for the song properly sung see: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh-wEXvdW8 Enjoy!
The specific example cited was that of a guy who long ago was repossessed as a result of defaulting on his mortgage. Given that a public notice will have been issued on this, there is data about him 'in the public domain'. In the old days, when search engines didn't exist, that sort of data would have remained invisible to almost all people. These days it's suddenly become visible because of new technology. The same applies to ancient criminal convictions or other moments of fame generally forgotten. In this context, the debate is far more interesting: is my 15 minutes of fame to be available for the rest of time, or should access to it be limited. If it is as a result of an article in a newspaper, then should the newspaper be required to remove certain articles? Or should the search engines be stoppable? Or should we accept that something new has emerged? The need to forget past mistakes is recognised in the English criminal law by banning the identities of people under 18 from being published if they come before the criminal courts. This is an attempt to allow juvenile offenders to escape a permanent black mark against their name.
Thank you for offering further evidence for my long held suspicion that a very large proportion of what passes for literary criticism is bovine faecal material. For the record I was entirely serious in my comment; I would argue that successful intelligence gathering by non-aggressive countries which undermines the actions of those seeking to damage the questing country is a good thing. For example a plot to land guns and explosive for use in domestic terrorism that is caught as a result of sigint is an unambiguously good thing. Where it gets more iffy is the use of it to maximise your negotiating position in bargaining with people you claim as allies, and its use to provide technical secrets to your commercial firms, as the French were caught doing in the 1980s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_espionage#France_and_the_United_States is an absolute no-no.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa is an example of a Snowden sourced document that provides more information about the operation of arguably legitimate intelligence gathering activities than is necessary to prove breach of the constitution.
Let's clarify; I don't have a problem with the NSA doing its job as an intelligence agency. I DO have a problem with Snowden removing the 'deniability' that allows everyone to pretend it isn't happening, and so cause damage to foreign relationships. He was totally right to challenge the NSA's spying on Americans, but to reveal his country's secret intelligence activities was far more reprehensible AND DAMAGES HIS CREDIBILITY OVER HIS REAL WHISTLEBLOWING. Those who weren't sure whether to attack the NSA for its criminality, or defend it for its alleged good works are more likely now to line up to defend it. At the margins this matters...
When he was revealing actions by the US government that were clearly unconstitutional - at least on any reasonable reading of the constitution - then he could legitimately claim the status of whistleblower. But to reveal the intelligence gathering activities of your own government that are aimed at those who are clearly your enemies is an act of treachery. Which is a disaster, because it reduce the odds of the criminal actions of the Bush/Obama government being challenged, let alone punished.
which is only subsequently translated into a type face when the item is converted into an image which doesn't contain the letters. So all your data would have to be held as such PDFs, which are no longer searchable.Nice idea - shame about the reality
http://www.economist.com/blogs/leviathan/2011/11/tobin-tax-again
As economic theory would predict, the money that was being made by HFT isn't any more because more and more people are getting to play the same game. The virtue of HFT is the liquidity that it brings to the markets, but at the cost of possible software caused chaos, as we've seen on a few occasions. On the whole it's probably worth tolerating, because the alternative is likely to see 'regulation arbitrage' as players go round any new rules.
which was my experience of at least one chemistry prof at the end of the 70s. But yes, the first two years of most STEM courses need the core curriculum delivered by high quality 'lectures' - being full scale TV documentary productions, not just a talking head; otherwise what's wrong with a book? Obviously there needs to be someone available to dig you out of holes if you get stuck, but ideally the course will prevent most of that.
Although most people assume its purpose is to address clear criminality, its use by the British Parliament from which it originates, was a means for the legislature to punish the executive when Parliament had had enough. Thus its use here against the boss of the NSA and above is entirely justified on that approach to the constitution - and they should be grateful that the constitution specifically bans bills of attainder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bills_of_attainder a much more entertaining prospect for those of us who enjoy public executions.... ;)