In my area and within the past two years, AT&T has decided to begin offering DSL without local phone service. Their highest speed plan is about $10 more than if you get it with local phone service, but even still it is only $45. Two years ago when I looked at Comcast in my area, it would've been $54 at least for me to have internet service alone.
I loved System Shock 2 for how it handled respawns. If you walked into an area and cleared it of enemies, it would stay clear as long as you stayed there. Enemies would always respawn in areas outside of where you were at, and usually at a slow pace to give that truly creepy "omg, I don't know where they're coming from next!" feel. It always kept you on your toes and enhanced that feeling of the environment closing in around behind you as you moved.
While it would be nice to say that one can go to any pediatrician you want, depending on your health care plan, such a choice might not be within your reach. HMO plans are typically restrictive on what doctors you can choose from, and even within that small pool, only a few may be accepting new patients at all. Those fortunate enough to be able to switch pediatricians probably would for other factors.
I had one pediatrician visit my child and when we expressed concern over the mercury preservative in vaccines (not just vaccines themselves, though there is a different concern for those), she tried to fearmonger us into her way of thinking. We were one of those fortunate ones to choose a different pediatrician, and we did so. Eventually we opted to do SOME vaccinations, delaying others due to the sheer number of them. Didn't do us much good, though, as the doctors did at least one of them (hepatitis) anyways without our consent. One of those "oops" moments of "what, you had a different desire than what we usually recommend?"
So of course, there's no bias or distrust between supposed experts and those seeking services from them. In this world of prescribe first, prevent or mitigate without drugs maybe never, it's so difficult to see that perhaps some parents are trying to do what's best for their child with what incomplete knowledge they can find. Parents are given the legal right to make decisions on behalf of their children and, shockingly, act like parents. If you start advocating that just because some parent has a different experience or opinion, educated or not, and should have their children taken away, this opens the door to no parent having the right to choose for their child.
Remote Assistance is built off the RDC protocol and is built into Windows starting with Windows XP. Vista takes RA and makes it more accessible, but RA does exactly what you envision. What it adds over VNC is manageability via Active Directory and Group Policy to provide security to the end user that their sessions aren't being spied upon and permissibility so that a help desk agent can offer unsolicited assistance (different than when a user generates a ticket and ships by email, im, or file a request for assistance). In fact, RA is now being integrated into Microsoft's new System Center Configuration Manager (the replacement for SMS).
I had enjoyed AVG even though I didn't frequent sites or normally present infectable machines to the Internet. However, with their latest version (v8), I've found this to be the case as well, it quarantines legitimate files. Specifically, a program I used with nLite to create add-in programs for build CD's was flagged as dangerous and to be quarantined. I sent it in and AVG basically told me it was detected properly.
I've uninstalled AVG and don't plan to look at it for AV protection in the future.
Re:How long before the feds get involved?
on
Googling Security
·
· Score: 1
I didn't know that the events that happened on 9/11/01 went away just because GWB has finished his term in office. Also, regardless of who is in power at the time, it is always important to be vigilant over the powers that the government is allowed to hold over its people. Just because Obama, who appears to have the people's interest in mind, is in office NOW doesn't mean that something done with good intentions for him can't be twisted into something particularly evil later on.
There have been reported cases of government offices (CIA, FBI or whatever) collecting information and 'mislabeling' a particular group of patriots (people rooted in the ideals of the country, if not the government in power) as terrorists. These are people that just want the war to end in Iraq, or to end corruption in the government, and they're called anti-government or anti-war terrorists; people exercising their Constitutionally protected right to assembly and freedom of speech. Even if not true in the US at this time, it has been evident in other countries throughout history, and history has a nasty habit of repeating itself.
That's funny. I consolidated my loans from whatever rate they were at into a fixed rate (a rate chosen by weighting the loans and their rates together, around 4-5% or so) just before the Federal Government released the locks holding the variability out of my loans. I believe that the interest rates jumped about 2 or 3% just after I fixed the rate at which I would be paying back at.
Not that I condone the forgiving of college loans even though I carry a significant burden of debt in from my degree achievements, I would think that of the things listed (car, house, education, lifestyle) that education is one thing we want to make as prolific as possible within our society. A more educated public means that we can advance technology, status, solve problems better, and hope to steward this little rock of ours well enough to sustain our species over the long term. Maybe it's time we also took a look at the alarming rise of tuition and wonder just what we get out of such an inflated figure.
Your statements are true only if you assume the following:
1) That after that party is elected once, they're never elected again. After all, you can't say that they have nothing (potentially) to hide once that third party is elected the second time into office. 2) That lobbyists have no quick and easy methods to find their way into the sitting room with whatever president is in office (and they probably do). 3) That a third party isn't just a front for the same ol' people we used to know as Democratic or Republican. These people are usually businessmen as well as politicians. Never heard of front companies?
The GP was right, you are hopelessly naive. Most politicians have been at this game for longer than you've been watching it, and they're at least good enough at their job to convince a large number of people they're fit for the job. What is necessary is not another black-box candidate that we can willfully trust without oversight, it's that we need honest oversight no matter whom is in the White House.
The idea isn't to guarantee the service you would want to have in your wildest dreams. It is to receive all terms and conditions prior to sale so that you can make an informed decision. It is fraud prevention.
The fact it could be either does merit some scrutiny, especially in light of the other issues surrounding her governorship of Alaska. Also, with our lovely President's current dealings, it admittedly makes people gun shy.
There is a failed chain of evidence that would prevent the information from being admissible because of the taint of someone with 'unclean hands' in the chain. However, it may be enough evidence for them to seek the proper chain of evidence and subpoena the emails themselves from Yahoo. That would provide a clean chain of evidence that would most likely be admissible in court.
So here's the question. If the firefighters saw the chemicals and LATER reported it to the police, the police had ample time to follow the law and obtain a warrant for search and seizure of potentially dangerous chemicals. If the police were there at the time and took the chemicals then, then it is less likely that it was a violation of the 4th amendment and more immediate reaction to secure a potentially dangerous situation.
The following segments of the story make me wonder which was correct.
Vessels of chemicals were all over the furniture and the floor, authorities said. The ensuing investigation involved a state hazardous materials team, fire and police officials, health officials, environmental officials and code enforcement officials. The Deebs were told to stay in a hotel while the slew of officials investigated and emptied the basement.
Chemicals, especially flammable ones, should be properly stored. Chemical fires and fumes, spills and accidents pose issues to neighboring residents and first responders should something like, say, that air conditioner fire had spread to the rest of the house.
One major reason cited in Discovery's latest synopsis of the space program is that the Challenger's SRB o-ring failure was aggravated/caused by the insistence that Challenger launch despite a sub-zero night preceding launch day.
But private property becomes a little less private property when it's open to the public. Especially in cases like Hospitals, they cannot turn you away if you come in with an emergency, nor can they simply tell you to leave if they are providing care and it is still needed (anti-dumping laws). Besides, sensitive equipment that EM fields interfere with are or should be contained within shielded rooms anyways. Regardless if there is a cell phone within 15 feet, there is a lot of EM noise all about you on all frequencies. If the equipment is that sensitive, then you have to contend with far more than cell phones, and this 'manners' technology is useless against all that noise.
How does the card company or merchant know what the card says after you walk away from the store? What they have on file is the signature of the "authorizing person" on the receipt. I'm sure they could come to your house and ask to see the card, but honestly, how likely is that?
Oddly, I've had only one merchant refuse my purchases due to the "See ID" on the back of the card. In the spirit of confirming the notion that it adds security, I called my card's customer service (A Visa, I believe). The CSR thought about it and, while probably not the legally-binding voice of authority, saw no reason why it wouldn't be a good idea. It seeks to help protect the merchants from loss by instructing them to verify the signature on a photo ID instead of a faceless card.
Composed, used as fertilizer, and used as a base for other growing plants still leaves it in the ecosystem, basically. It's not airborn, yet, but might be depending on what happens afterwards.
It's simple. Autodesk goes to the Court saying "we feel that is happening and request that you restrain from his actions". The Court looks at it under the eyes of the law and grants or denies based on proper merits. Said restraining order is then enacted on the third-party (eBay) and they are told to pull his auction/accounts until it can go to court.
By having Autodesk and eBay cut the Court out of the process means that Autodesk can harrass a legal seller and get away with it, should the legal seller decide that it is not worth their time to fight it. Restraining someone without legal process seems oppressive to me. Requiring that due process be followed to stop someone from doing something seems to place the emphasis on freedoms.
That's lovely, except that it doesn't address the net carbon change to the ecosystem. What is being burned that is releasing CO2? Coal? So what you're doing is still taking carbon out of the ground (outside the ecosystem) and instead of dumping it into the air, they're siphoning off a portion (whatever the algae can use before the air is released) of the CO2 into biomass. What do they do with the algae once they're done? Unless your answer is "Remove it from the ecosystem", there is a net carbon addition to the ecosystem.
When algae take the carbon from the air, and it goes back into the air, there is a balance. Carbon out, carbon in at the same volume. If any stage is 'outside -> in' without an equal removal back out, you fail.
I read the summary, kicked over to the article to find a few more details, but I'm having trouble comprehending the logical leap that's being made here. To start off with, the definition of 'Hate Speech' that I'm commonly familiar with.
Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability.
To me, that would include such things as cursing out a group of people for being [whatever criteria from above] or as is done with such groups as the KKK, inciting violence based on the aforementioned criteria. Such hate speech doesn't make the victim angry per sae (though it has the possibility to), but would seem to be used to restrict or remove the rights of a particular covered entity and force them to endure intimidation, threats, or have to live in fear.
With that understanding in mind, how does one make the rational leap that speech-that-makes-the-victim-angry is on the same level as speech-meant-to-intimidate? Does that mean that were I to lean over to a friend and say something that made my friend angry, that even if it was as simple as "I don't like your hairstyle today" or "You stink!", that is hate speech?
Frankly, I agree with some other posters here that protections for hate speech should not be applied to groups that get offended by what someone else says, if what was said was not intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence. You do not have the right not to be offended by what others say. Only when they say something that would effectively remove your rights from you should you be able to seek protection.
What about the number of 'complaints' they get in the form of a lost sale? Those will go unrecorded and deemed simply a failure of the title of the game, not for the retarded component within it.
Funny. You were living on $12k/yr on student loan surpluses. Let's see, did you have to pay for housing out of that total? I know right now I pay around $900/mo for my apartment alone (a nice place, but bottom rung , and that's in the far suburbs. I'd have $1200 a year left over for all the rest of my expenses, and that just doesn't cover it.
Now, I would believe if you were pulling down $40k/yr in student loans, paying tuition, room, and board, and having $12k left over that you didn't have to take care of the basics with. Otherwise, I agree, this is BS.
Slashdot Mirror
In my area and within the past two years, AT&T has decided to begin offering DSL without local phone service. Their highest speed plan is about $10 more than if you get it with local phone service, but even still it is only $45. Two years ago when I looked at Comcast in my area, it would've been $54 at least for me to have internet service alone.
I loved System Shock 2 for how it handled respawns. If you walked into an area and cleared it of enemies, it would stay clear as long as you stayed there. Enemies would always respawn in areas outside of where you were at, and usually at a slow pace to give that truly creepy "omg, I don't know where they're coming from next!" feel. It always kept you on your toes and enhanced that feeling of the environment closing in around behind you as you moved.
While it would be nice to say that one can go to any pediatrician you want, depending on your health care plan, such a choice might not be within your reach. HMO plans are typically restrictive on what doctors you can choose from, and even within that small pool, only a few may be accepting new patients at all. Those fortunate enough to be able to switch pediatricians probably would for other factors.
I had one pediatrician visit my child and when we expressed concern over the mercury preservative in vaccines (not just vaccines themselves, though there is a different concern for those), she tried to fearmonger us into her way of thinking. We were one of those fortunate ones to choose a different pediatrician, and we did so. Eventually we opted to do SOME vaccinations, delaying others due to the sheer number of them. Didn't do us much good, though, as the doctors did at least one of them (hepatitis) anyways without our consent. One of those "oops" moments of "what, you had a different desire than what we usually recommend?"
So of course, there's no bias or distrust between supposed experts and those seeking services from them. In this world of prescribe first, prevent or mitigate without drugs maybe never, it's so difficult to see that perhaps some parents are trying to do what's best for their child with what incomplete knowledge they can find. Parents are given the legal right to make decisions on behalf of their children and, shockingly, act like parents. If you start advocating that just because some parent has a different experience or opinion, educated or not, and should have their children taken away, this opens the door to no parent having the right to choose for their child.
Remote Assistance is built off the RDC protocol and is built into Windows starting with Windows XP. Vista takes RA and makes it more accessible, but RA does exactly what you envision. What it adds over VNC is manageability via Active Directory and Group Policy to provide security to the end user that their sessions aren't being spied upon and permissibility so that a help desk agent can offer unsolicited assistance (different than when a user generates a ticket and ships by email, im, or file a request for assistance). In fact, RA is now being integrated into Microsoft's new System Center Configuration Manager (the replacement for SMS).
I had enjoyed AVG even though I didn't frequent sites or normally present infectable machines to the Internet. However, with their latest version (v8), I've found this to be the case as well, it quarantines legitimate files. Specifically, a program I used with nLite to create add-in programs for build CD's was flagged as dangerous and to be quarantined. I sent it in and AVG basically told me it was detected properly.
I've uninstalled AVG and don't plan to look at it for AV protection in the future.
I didn't know that the events that happened on 9/11/01 went away just because GWB has finished his term in office. Also, regardless of who is in power at the time, it is always important to be vigilant over the powers that the government is allowed to hold over its people. Just because Obama, who appears to have the people's interest in mind, is in office NOW doesn't mean that something done with good intentions for him can't be twisted into something particularly evil later on.
There have been reported cases of government offices (CIA, FBI or whatever) collecting information and 'mislabeling' a particular group of patriots (people rooted in the ideals of the country, if not the government in power) as terrorists. These are people that just want the war to end in Iraq, or to end corruption in the government, and they're called anti-government or anti-war terrorists; people exercising their Constitutionally protected right to assembly and freedom of speech. Even if not true in the US at this time, it has been evident in other countries throughout history, and history has a nasty habit of repeating itself.
Reference, please.
That's funny. I consolidated my loans from whatever rate they were at into a fixed rate (a rate chosen by weighting the loans and their rates together, around 4-5% or so) just before the Federal Government released the locks holding the variability out of my loans. I believe that the interest rates jumped about 2 or 3% just after I fixed the rate at which I would be paying back at.
Not that I condone the forgiving of college loans even though I carry a significant burden of debt in from my degree achievements, I would think that of the things listed (car, house, education, lifestyle) that education is one thing we want to make as prolific as possible within our society. A more educated public means that we can advance technology, status, solve problems better, and hope to steward this little rock of ours well enough to sustain our species over the long term. Maybe it's time we also took a look at the alarming rise of tuition and wonder just what we get out of such an inflated figure.
Your statements are true only if you assume the following:
1) That after that party is elected once, they're never elected again. After all, you can't say that they have nothing (potentially) to hide once that third party is elected the second time into office.
2) That lobbyists have no quick and easy methods to find their way into the sitting room with whatever president is in office (and they probably do).
3) That a third party isn't just a front for the same ol' people we used to know as Democratic or Republican. These people are usually businessmen as well as politicians. Never heard of front companies?
The GP was right, you are hopelessly naive. Most politicians have been at this game for longer than you've been watching it, and they're at least good enough at their job to convince a large number of people they're fit for the job. What is necessary is not another black-box candidate that we can willfully trust without oversight, it's that we need honest oversight no matter whom is in the White House.
The idea isn't to guarantee the service you would want to have in your wildest dreams. It is to receive all terms and conditions prior to sale so that you can make an informed decision. It is fraud prevention.
The fact it could be either does merit some scrutiny, especially in light of the other issues surrounding her governorship of Alaska. Also, with our lovely President's current dealings, it admittedly makes people gun shy.
There is a failed chain of evidence that would prevent the information from being admissible because of the taint of someone with 'unclean hands' in the chain. However, it may be enough evidence for them to seek the proper chain of evidence and subpoena the emails themselves from Yahoo. That would provide a clean chain of evidence that would most likely be admissible in court.
IANAL, and YMMV, but that's my understanding.
So here's the question. If the firefighters saw the chemicals and LATER reported it to the police, the police had ample time to follow the law and obtain a warrant for search and seizure of potentially dangerous chemicals. If the police were there at the time and took the chemicals then, then it is less likely that it was a violation of the 4th amendment and more immediate reaction to secure a potentially dangerous situation.
The following segments of the story make me wonder which was correct.
Chemicals, especially flammable ones, should be properly stored. Chemical fires and fumes, spills and accidents pose issues to neighboring residents and first responders should something like, say, that air conditioner fire had spread to the rest of the house.
One major reason cited in Discovery's latest synopsis of the space program is that the Challenger's SRB o-ring failure was aggravated/caused by the insistence that Challenger launch despite a sub-zero night preceding launch day.
But private property becomes a little less private property when it's open to the public. Especially in cases like Hospitals, they cannot turn you away if you come in with an emergency, nor can they simply tell you to leave if they are providing care and it is still needed (anti-dumping laws). Besides, sensitive equipment that EM fields interfere with are or should be contained within shielded rooms anyways. Regardless if there is a cell phone within 15 feet, there is a lot of EM noise all about you on all frequencies. If the equipment is that sensitive, then you have to contend with far more than cell phones, and this 'manners' technology is useless against all that noise.
How does the card company or merchant know what the card says after you walk away from the store? What they have on file is the signature of the "authorizing person" on the receipt. I'm sure they could come to your house and ask to see the card, but honestly, how likely is that?
Oddly, I've had only one merchant refuse my purchases due to the "See ID" on the back of the card. In the spirit of confirming the notion that it adds security, I called my card's customer service (A Visa, I believe). The CSR thought about it and, while probably not the legally-binding voice of authority, saw no reason why it wouldn't be a good idea. It seeks to help protect the merchants from loss by instructing them to verify the signature on a photo ID instead of a faceless card.
Composed, used as fertilizer, and used as a base for other growing plants still leaves it in the ecosystem, basically. It's not airborn, yet, but might be depending on what happens afterwards.
Dust of sufficiently small granularity would seem to act like a liquid.
It's simple. Autodesk goes to the Court saying "we feel that is happening and request that you restrain from his actions". The Court looks at it under the eyes of the law and grants or denies based on proper merits. Said restraining order is then enacted on the third-party (eBay) and they are told to pull his auction/accounts until it can go to court.
By having Autodesk and eBay cut the Court out of the process means that Autodesk can harrass a legal seller and get away with it, should the legal seller decide that it is not worth their time to fight it. Restraining someone without legal process seems oppressive to me. Requiring that due process be followed to stop someone from doing something seems to place the emphasis on freedoms.
Depending on the values of the person demanding, power over another is far greater than any power bestowed by having a few shiny baubles.
That's lovely, except that it doesn't address the net carbon change to the ecosystem. What is being burned that is releasing CO2? Coal? So what you're doing is still taking carbon out of the ground (outside the ecosystem) and instead of dumping it into the air, they're siphoning off a portion (whatever the algae can use before the air is released) of the CO2 into biomass. What do they do with the algae once they're done? Unless your answer is "Remove it from the ecosystem", there is a net carbon addition to the ecosystem.
When algae take the carbon from the air, and it goes back into the air, there is a balance. Carbon out, carbon in at the same volume. If any stage is 'outside -> in' without an equal removal back out, you fail.
I read the summary, kicked over to the article to find a few more details, but I'm having trouble comprehending the logical leap that's being made here. To start off with, the definition of 'Hate Speech' that I'm commonly familiar with.
To me, that would include such things as cursing out a group of people for being [whatever criteria from above] or as is done with such groups as the KKK, inciting violence based on the aforementioned criteria. Such hate speech doesn't make the victim angry per sae (though it has the possibility to), but would seem to be used to restrict or remove the rights of a particular covered entity and force them to endure intimidation, threats, or have to live in fear.
With that understanding in mind, how does one make the rational leap that speech-that-makes-the-victim-angry is on the same level as speech-meant-to-intimidate? Does that mean that were I to lean over to a friend and say something that made my friend angry, that even if it was as simple as "I don't like your hairstyle today" or "You stink!", that is hate speech?
Frankly, I agree with some other posters here that protections for hate speech should not be applied to groups that get offended by what someone else says, if what was said was not intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence. You do not have the right not to be offended by what others say. Only when they say something that would effectively remove your rights from you should you be able to seek protection.
What about the number of 'complaints' they get in the form of a lost sale? Those will go unrecorded and deemed simply a failure of the title of the game, not for the retarded component within it.
Funny. You were living on $12k/yr on student loan surpluses. Let's see, did you have to pay for housing out of that total? I know right now I pay around $900/mo for my apartment alone (a nice place, but bottom rung , and that's in the far suburbs. I'd have $1200 a year left over for all the rest of my expenses, and that just doesn't cover it.
Now, I would believe if you were pulling down $40k/yr in student loans, paying tuition, room, and board, and having $12k left over that you didn't have to take care of the basics with. Otherwise, I agree, this is BS.