In the UK it is:
11(2) The Licensee shall only address Messages to other Amateurs or to the stations of
those Amateurs and shall not encrypt these Messages for the purpose of rendering the
Message unintelligible to other radio spectrum users.
Australia allows encryption for emergency incidents, but I believe most of the world have similar clauses to the one above in their licence.
Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's legal. In most jurisdictions encrypted telex over shortwave would not be allowed under an amateur licence.
Heck, when I get home I could knock up a point-to-point SRTP stream over amateur radio as a proof of concept - but it wouldn't be legal.
The internet is better for communicating with random strangers, sure.
But show me how you can experiment with different modulation schemes using the internet... show me how you can do something as geekycool as bouncing a signal of Venus and receiving it just to see if it can be done using the internet.
In the UK it is "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court." So no comment, whether it's on the advice of a lawyer or not, may still harm your defence in court.
It is a personal opinion, and that's always subjective.
The fact that the whole user experience is messed up is objective. I expected to hate Win 8 because it was different and I was ready for that. I didn't expect to hate it because of a bunch of stuff that MS should know better than to screw up!
Windows 8 doesn't suck because of the lack of a start button.
It doesn't suck because of a lack of an Aero like interface
The Metro interface doesn't suck
Windows 8 sucks because it flips between the classic and the metro interface seemingly at random. Yes, we computer folks know that it depends on whether the program has been written as a metro program or a classic one, but from the start screen there is no way to tell what interface you'll end up in when you click on a program. And I'm pretty sure that consistency is one of the central tenets of good UI design.
1. One size doesn't fit all though.
Most filesystems aside from ZFS sacrifice correctness for the sake of performance.
* For enterprise correctness is more important then performance.
* For home use performance is more important then correctness.
There's another issue mixed in there: only 3 of those systems support clustering - and that's counting OCFS and OCFS2 as different filesystems. So you can add single machine performance vs. distributed performance into the mix. Then there's small file vs. large file performance: if you're only ever storing virtual machine disk images and you could get a 1% I/O boost by using an optimized FS then you'd probably take it. Suddenly the number of filesystems which need supporting starts to look reasonable.
Given a choice of production ready according to (my tests) or production ready according to (my tests Red Hat tests) I'd take the latter every time.
Yes, sooner or later Red Hat WILL miss something. Sooner or later I WILL miss something too. I trust Red Hat to do a breadth of testing which I don't do, and then I do a depth of testing for my specific workload as best as I can model it (and real life has this really annoying habit of finding inventive ways not to conform to my models.)
You've asked for a meeting with their security people so that you can jointly plan to do whatever is needed?
I never have mod points when there's something I want to moderate!
This is the thing to do. Get in touch with the hospital's security people. If the scans are causing any problems with IT operations then arrange with them to schedule the scans differently. Otherwise, explain that you've picked up the scans and blocked them per procedure. Ask if they want you to unblock their specific scan so that they can find any issues which would reveal weaknesses you could defend against in more depth.
All this may be unwelcome but it doesn't sound like there's much you can do about it, so treat it as an opportunity.
True, but that's the most glaring one. Also, if you can't make it to chapter two without a discrepancy, what hope is there for the rest of it?
Wherever there's a discrepancy they'll just say "Oh, that bit's metaphorical, you have to interpret it as XXXXXX."
But he's asking people to disprove that Genesis is literally true. If he is saying that the discrepancies are caused by some of Genesis not being literally true then his argument vanishes in a puff of logic.
I think you misunderstood the GNU/Linux claim.
The GNU people have never (as far as I know) claimed to have built the Linux kernel. They got upset that people were running systems where everything except the kernel was written by GNU(*), and they weren't getting any credit. Referring to the systems as GNU/Linux was an attempt to redress that.
(*): Admittedly, many users would have been running XFree86 and other software not written by GNU as well, but I don't think anyone was running a Linux kernel and not running GNU.
But the Internet has been around since 1969 (and the idea for it since 1962.) The web was just an incremental improvement over Gopher. Nothing about the Internet as in invention in 1990 (or 1995) was surprising to people who knew what had come before. The invention itself contained no surprise.
What surprised Microsoft (and others) wasn't "The Internet," it was people's response to it and the fact that a HUGE network effect meant that an exponentially growing number of people wanted to use the internet.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
Except I can't help but to read that the power of the president to be "Commander in Chief of the... Militia" in a kind of jury nullification sense. Just because a judge says you have to convict if so-and-so is presented as evidence, doesn't mean a damned if that jury really doesn't want to convict. The power to rebuke authority is built into the system.
I parse that as:
The US has a navy and an army. The President is Commander in Chief of these.
The individual states also have militias. Sometimes these will be called to serve alongside the army and navy. When this happens, the President is also Commander in Chief of these militias.
I've got no idea what the legal situation would be if the militias were called to serve the United States and refused, but I think it'd be a moot point. To me, it reads like that clause is more to clarify that when the militias are fighting alongside the army they are under the same commander rather than being about when there is civil war.
The whole proposal covers all the amateur bands - but I think (the FCC are not my radio authority) that the mode issue is something which only affects the HF bands.
I agree that it's a great thing though - I was amazed just the other day when I suggested sending data during silent portions of a voice conversation and was told that this would be against US rules.
This will affect the amateur HF bands, not the agency bands.
At the moment, US rules have separate sub-bands for voice, data and image transmissions. This does not really fit with how modern digital schemes transmit - there could be a lot of metadata carried with digital voice signals, for example. What this proposal does is do away with the rules which say where you can transmit voice and replace it with rules which say you can transmit any signal which takes less than X khz bandwidth in this segment.
I mean, let's keep in mind that the definition of "one for the history books", for a space geek who's spent his entire working career on one or two missions to an easy to get to and agreeable planet, is probably different than that of the average denizen of/..
I'm not sure I'd class Mars as either easy to get to or agreeable.
It's quite a long way away, and a minority of people would like the climate there.
Not necessarily. Good code can show what is being done, but it can't show different approaches which were rejected. Comments can explain why certain shortcuts are valid or not valid in a way which won't be obvious from the code.
I apologise for making you sad. Here is a smiley face to hopefully cheer you up::-)
The problem is that the family computer is generally something you don't want the kids to mess up, which means they are limited in the things they can try. (I still remember getting told off by my dad for writing a program which poked random values to random addresses when I was a lad.)
You can mess up the Pi software COMPLETELY and restore it by re-copying it to the SD card.
You can solder stuff to the Pi and learn how computers interact with the rest of the world - I can imagine parents getting slightly upset if a child did that to their shiny iMac.
Slashdot Mirror
11(2) The Licensee shall only address Messages to other Amateurs or to the stations of those Amateurs and shall not encrypt these Messages for the purpose of rendering the Message unintelligible to other radio spectrum users.
Australia allows encryption for emergency incidents, but I believe most of the world have similar clauses to the one above in their licence.
Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's legal. In most jurisdictions encrypted telex over shortwave would not be allowed under an amateur licence. Heck, when I get home I could knock up a point-to-point SRTP stream over amateur radio as a proof of concept - but it wouldn't be legal.
But show me how you can experiment with different modulation schemes using the internet... show me how you can do something as geekycool as bouncing a signal of Venus and receiving it just to see if it can be done using the internet.
In the UK it is "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court." So no comment, whether it's on the advice of a lawyer or not, may still harm your defence in court.
It is a personal opinion, and that's always subjective.
The fact that the whole user experience is messed up is objective. I expected to hate Win 8 because it was different and I was ready for that. I didn't expect to hate it because of a bunch of stuff that MS should know better than to screw up!
Windows 8 doesn't suck because of the lack of a start button.
It doesn't suck because of a lack of an Aero like interface
The Metro interface doesn't suck
Windows 8 sucks because it flips between the classic and the metro interface seemingly at random. Yes, we computer folks know that it depends on whether the program has been written as a metro program or a classic one, but from the start screen there is no way to tell what interface you'll end up in when you click on a program. And I'm pretty sure that consistency is one of the central tenets of good UI design.
Nope. I thought that was the whole of the story, rather than an introduction.
.gif on the wiki though, the dialogue really has a Waiting For Godot feel about it.
Watching the animated
1. One size doesn't fit all though. Most filesystems aside from ZFS sacrifice correctness for the sake of performance. * For enterprise correctness is more important then performance. * For home use performance is more important then correctness.
There's another issue mixed in there: only 3 of those systems support clustering - and that's counting OCFS and OCFS2 as different filesystems. So you can add single machine performance vs. distributed performance into the mix. Then there's small file vs. large file performance: if you're only ever storing virtual machine disk images and you could get a 1% I/O boost by using an optimized FS then you'd probably take it. Suddenly the number of filesystems which need supporting starts to look reasonable.
Given a choice of production ready according to (my tests) or production ready according to (my tests Red Hat tests) I'd take the latter every time.
Yes, sooner or later Red Hat WILL miss something. Sooner or later I WILL miss something too. I trust Red Hat to do a breadth of testing which I don't do, and then I do a depth of testing for my specific workload as best as I can model it (and real life has this really annoying habit of finding inventive ways not to conform to my models.)
A more appropriate time would be, y'know, when a North Korean missile is inbound.
No - only people with savings they can afford to risk can invest.
You've asked for a meeting with their security people so that you can jointly plan to do whatever is needed?
I never have mod points when there's something I want to moderate! This is the thing to do. Get in touch with the hospital's security people. If the scans are causing any problems with IT operations then arrange with them to schedule the scans differently. Otherwise, explain that you've picked up the scans and blocked them per procedure. Ask if they want you to unblock their specific scan so that they can find any issues which would reveal weaknesses you could defend against in more depth.
All this may be unwelcome but it doesn't sound like there's much you can do about it, so treat it as an opportunity.
True, but that's the most glaring one. Also, if you can't make it to chapter two without a discrepancy, what hope is there for the rest of it?
Wherever there's a discrepancy they'll just say "Oh, that bit's metaphorical, you have to interpret it as XXXXXX."
But he's asking people to disprove that Genesis is literally true. If he is saying that the discrepancies are caused by some of Genesis not being literally true then his argument vanishes in a puff of logic.
I think you misunderstood the GNU/Linux claim.
The GNU people have never (as far as I know) claimed to have built the Linux kernel. They got upset that people were running systems where everything except the kernel was written by GNU(*), and they weren't getting any credit. Referring to the systems as GNU/Linux was an attempt to redress that.
(*): Admittedly, many users would have been running XFree86 and other software not written by GNU as well, but I don't think anyone was running a Linux kernel and not running GNU.
But the Internet has been around since 1969 (and the idea for it since 1962.) The web was just an incremental improvement over Gopher. Nothing about the Internet as in invention in 1990 (or 1995) was surprising to people who knew what had come before. The invention itself contained no surprise.
What surprised Microsoft (and others) wasn't "The Internet," it was people's response to it and the fact that a HUGE network effect meant that an exponentially growing number of people wanted to use the internet.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
Except I can't help but to read that the power of the president to be "Commander in Chief of the... Militia" in a kind of jury nullification sense. Just because a judge says you have to convict if so-and-so is presented as evidence, doesn't mean a damned if that jury really doesn't want to convict. The power to rebuke authority is built into the system.
I parse that as:
The US has a navy and an army. The President is Commander in Chief of these. The individual states also have militias. Sometimes these will be called to serve alongside the army and navy. When this happens, the President is also Commander in Chief of these militias.
I've got no idea what the legal situation would be if the militias were called to serve the United States and refused, but I think it'd be a moot point. To me, it reads like that clause is more to clarify that when the militias are fighting alongside the army they are under the same commander rather than being about when there is civil war.
US based amateurs?
Personally I'm happy with my OFCOM rules though.
MD1CLV
The whole proposal covers all the amateur bands - but I think (the FCC are not my radio authority) that the mode issue is something which only affects the HF bands.
I agree that it's a great thing though - I was amazed just the other day when I suggested sending data during silent portions of a voice conversation and was told that this would be against US rules.
This will affect the amateur HF bands, not the agency bands. At the moment, US rules have separate sub-bands for voice, data and image transmissions. This does not really fit with how modern digital schemes transmit - there could be a lot of metadata carried with digital voice signals, for example. What this proposal does is do away with the rules which say where you can transmit voice and replace it with rules which say you can transmit any signal which takes less than X khz bandwidth in this segment.
The guidelines are that people should be a bit more liberal in what they accept - not the scariest thing that the UK government has ever proposed.
That's possible.
I mean, let's keep in mind that the definition of "one for the history books", for a space geek who's spent his entire working career on one or two missions to an easy to get to and agreeable planet, is probably different than that of the average denizen of /..
I'm not sure I'd class Mars as either easy to get to or agreeable.
It's quite a long way away, and a minority of people would like the climate there.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was seen as "contempt of court" which is a pretty serious crime.
Not necessarily. Good code can show what is being done, but it can't show different approaches which were rejected. Comments can explain why certain shortcuts are valid or not valid in a way which won't be obvious from the code.
I apologise for making you sad. Here is a smiley face to hopefully cheer you up: :-)
The problem is that the family computer is generally something you don't want the kids to mess up, which means they are limited in the things they can try. (I still remember getting told off by my dad for writing a program which poked random values to random addresses when I was a lad.)
You can mess up the Pi software COMPLETELY and restore it by re-copying it to the SD card.
You can solder stuff to the Pi and learn how computers interact with the rest of the world - I can imagine parents getting slightly upset if a child did that to their shiny iMac.
It's not completely open - but that was never the idea of it. The idea is to get something into the hands of kids to help them learn programming.
Bare metal programming is possible though, and the system is fairly open.