Either you're trolling or you honestly have no idea why it's a good idea to throw up all sorts of errors on encountering a self-signed certificate.
Clue: SSL is intended to guarantee that nobody can eavesdrop on your connection. As soon as you start to see anomalies in the certificate chain (such as a self-signed certificate), that guarantee cannot be upheld.
Did you read my post? That's why the user shouldn't be given any indication that the connection is secured when a self-signed cert has been presented, because it's really not.
Sites where sensitive data is managed should not used self-signed certs, so that the certificate chain can be verified, to defeat MITM attacks. But sites that would currently not use any encryption could increase their security by a non-negligible amount by using HTTPS and a self-signed cert -- but the way browsers handle self-signed certificates is stupid and broken.
As a matter of course, we should use SSL on all connections. In some rare cases the computation may be too much of a burden, but in the vast majority of situations it's trivial and there's no reason not to do it.
IMO, the only reason we don't do it more is because the way browsers handle self-signed certificates is broken.
There's no reason for a browser to throw up nasty error dialogs when it encounters a self-signed certificate. Instead, browsers should silently accept such certificates and record the public key fingerprint. Browsers shouldn't turn on the lock icon when using a self-signed cert, or do anything else to make the user think they're browsing on a secure connection, because they're really not, but they should go ahead and encrypt the traffic.
Not only would that provide some measure of security against eavesdropping, but it would also assist with detection of phishing attacks. Browsers could and should throw up nasty warnings/errors when connecting to a site whose certificate has inexplicably changed. This is similar to how SSH handles trust of server keys, a system that works very well in practice.
Regarding this move by Google, I think it's great. I applauded their decision to make Gmail and Google Apps HTTPS-only, and providing the option for Google Search is great, too. Hopefully they'll eventually go to HTTPS-only for search as well. Their page volumes are such that they'll have to seriously consider the impact of the encryption overhead, but I think they'll get there.
High School seniors are between 4 and 8 years away from working in an engineering field. That's enough time for things to change considerably, and even if it weren't, the operating system really doesn't make that much difference. If you could give them some experience using the apps that will be relevant to them, that might be a little more useful, but that space is so broad that there's no way you could know what will be needed.
I'd make sure you pick a platform that runs the software the teachers want to use for classes. If that software is available on multiple platforms, then pick the one that is most cost-effective, considering acquisition and maintenance both.
Windows just doesn't use the labeling you want it to use.
The labeling I want it to use? I couldn't care less what labeling Windows uses.
The point is that drive manufacturers' listed sizes aren't wrong, they're not "marketing speak", and the only difference between advertised size and usable size is that usable size is typically a little bit more than advertised size.
Ok, to clarify for the hopelessly pedantic- yes I realize it is possible (but not probable) to buy automatic weapons - however with a lot of restrictions.
What restrictions? Look into what it takes to get an NFA class III stamp and you'll see it basically boils down to you are not a felon, or crazy. Those are the same requirements for owning any firearm.
unless you are rich and lucky enough to find someone who wants to sell one
As many have pointed out in this thread, finding a full auto to buy isn't hard at all. There are plenty of gun stores willing to sell you all you want. Of course, each one will cost as much as a car.
Yes, but it isn't as easy as walking in with a pile of cash, and walking out with an automatic weapon.
No, it's as easy as walking in with a pile of cash, filling out a bunch of paperwork, waiting a couple months and THEN walking out with an automatic weapon. There's a little time lag in the process, but basically if you can legally possess any firearm you can buy an automatic weapon.
That's 596.13 GiB. The "i" is important. Also, 640 * 10^9 / 2^30 = 596.05, not 596.13.
I know this is/. and MacOS/Ubuntu are changing to Base10 file size nomenclature
I'm not sure about OS X, without walking upstairs to look on my wife's MacBook, but the Ubuntu initiative is to correctly label the units used, not necessarily to use SI units. In fact, I'm typing this on Ubuntu 10.04, and the half-dozen places I just checked all use IEEE base-2 units.
Until the advertised disk capacity is in the same format as the OS reports for the majority of users I think it's fair to say that the average user considers this misleading.
That would hardly be the only thing the average user is wrong about.
If anything, to survive, an airline that slows down "to save the planet!" is going to have to increase ticket costs modestly.
According to the article, the planes only fly about 10% slower, and existing aircraft already fly at least that much below their top speed in order to save fuel. If your arguments were accurate, existing planes would be flying faster. I'm sure that if the airlines could reduce fuel expenses by merely slowing down another 45 mph, they'd do it tomorrow.
That would be a 3TB drive in marketing speak and 2.x TB in usable capacity
What's this "marketing speak" vs "usable capacity" crap? It's 3TB, or 2.73 TiB. Both numbers are identical and valid (modulo a little rounding on the latter). This is no different from saying that a distance is 3 km or 1.86 miles; same distance, just different units.
In reality, the drive is unlikely to be exactly 3TB, either. Generally their capacity is a little bit more than advertised. For example, the 320 GB drive in my desktop isn't 320,000,000,000 bytes in size. It reports that it holds 320,072,933,376 bytes -- but even that isn't exactly right, because that includes the space allocated to spare sectors which will be used when localized failures are discovered. The true, usable size is 512*255*63*38913 = 320,070,320,640 bytes.
Storage sizes are a little complicated, but it has nothing to do with "marketing speak" vs "usable capacity".
Yes of course I wasn't talking about collector's pieces and such. I am talking about going into a gun store and buying an automatic weapon. It just isn't happening.
Sure it does. If you have the cash, you can go buy one. You have to buy it, then do the paperwork, then wait three months for your NFA stamp, then you can go pick it up. You can even buy one on-line, though you'll have to go to a local FFL to do the paperwork. Here are some to choose from:
Note that not all of the firearms on that page are fully automatic, though all require NFA tax stamps. Many are full auto, though, and you can buy one if you have the money.
discharging them is a whole other ballgame
No different than shooting any other firearm, other than some gun ranges don't allow full-auto fire, because it's hard on the backstops.
don't know of any real cities that allow the discharge of firearms in the city limits except in designated areas like gun ranges.
Typically even small towns ban discharge except at designated ranges. In most states, however, once you get outside of city limits there are no laws against shooting, as long as you're not too close to roads, buildings, etc.
I guess that is why the crazy gun-loving anti-government groups seem to have their compounds out in the middle of nowhere in rural states. When you own the 1000 acres that surround you, you are free to do just about anything you want...
No need to be a member of a "crazy gun-loving anti-government group", thank goodness. Or even a gun-loving pro-government group. Discharge is legal on most public lands in most states, and any pretty much any private property outside of city limits.
you are not allowed to own and carry an automatic weapon.
Actually in the US, even if you are not a felon you cannot own and/or carry an automatic weapon. Semi-automatic is ok, but to own and use a fully automatic you either need to be military or law enforcement. You can rent and shoot automatic weapons in firing ranges, but they cannot be taken off the ranges.
Incorrect. Ordinary citizens in the US can own fully-automatic firearms. There are some hoops to jump through, but the biggest obstacle is that the things are really expensive. Thanks to a law passed in 1987, it is only legal for full auto firearms that were already in civilian hands in 1987 to be transferred to civilians. So, the supply is fixed, and demand continues to increase, which means that prices are high and climbing. It's difficult to find any functional fully-automatic weapon for under $10K, and many cost as much as a luxury automobile.
As a result, the only citizens in the US who have legal full-auto firearms are wealthy collectors. And they are kept in locked gun safes and display cases, not carried about. Oh, and many gun stores own a full-auto or two to rent for use on their ranges.
Criminals, of course, can import full auto firearms from overseas manufacturers at much more reasonable prices. The street price of an illegal machine gun is one quarter of the price of a legal machine gun, or less.
Uh, all you have to do is fine the businesses that hire them severely until hiring illegal aliens is no longer economically viable.
To find those businesses, I suggest offering green cards to illegal aliens who rat out their bosses.
You don't have to find very many. After a few businessmen lose everything, the rest will catch on. If we really need a manual labor force, we can get them here legally.
With my suggestion, you may not have to actually find any of them. As soon as businesses who want to employ illegals realize that they people they most need to hide their shady business practice from are exactly the people they can't hide it from -- the illegal employees -- they'll give up the idea. In fact, they'll become really paranoid about making absolutely sure that everyone they hire is legal, because it would be in an undocumented worker's best interest to find a way to get hired specifically so they could turn in their boss.
If something feels like a punishment, it doesn't make one. If we would have been punished, tha actual drain on his wallet would have been 100 times of what happened.
So it has to be 10,000 euros to be a punishment? Geez, I'm glad you're not a judge.
Furthermore i find myself in agreement with the court: having an open WLAN puts him and others at risk and usually is a violation of ToS of his provider. He should either secure his WLAN or turn it off: his choice.
Bah.
My Wifi is wide open and I like it that way. Better performance, and I feel it's neighborly to share.
The problem with wikipedia is that the wikiadmins CHOOSE which articles get to go, and which stay -- regardless of truth. There is a massive abuse of power.
It's really odd the wikiadmins should be complaining about someone else making up things to put on their site. All things considered, it seems somewhat hypocritical.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
It's precisely because it's so easy for random people to document made-up stuff on Wikipedia that the wikiadmins take such a hard line about removing it. Without a serious focus on removing such articles, the encyclopedia would be flooded with them.
But, it's broadly worded enough, that MacGyver or any special forces who can make a weapon out of pocket lint are going to be shafted no matter what.;^)
Yeah. But the other side is that if it were any more specific it would exclude things that people pick up and use as weapons. The fact is that darned near anything can be a dangerous weapon, it's more about what you do with it than what it is (regardless of what the TSA thinks). So, the laws are worded broadly enough that anything used as a dangerous weapon legally qualifies as a dangerous weapon, as well as anything that clearly is a dangerous weapon (like a knife, gun or bow).
Then we rely on the judges not to shaft people who weren't really doing anything objectionable.
I don't think it's a double standard. In most municipalities, firing a gun within the city limits is a crime regardless of damage done (except in cases of defense).
I haven't seen a municipal discharge law that doesn't exempt accidental discharges.
You can choose to define "fined" narrowly enough that this statement is factually correct, but it doesn't change the fact that this guy had to deal with the legal system and pay our 100 Euros for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
However - I don't *believe* that any state in the US considers a bow to be a weapon.
Umm, I'd be surprised if there is any state in the US that *doesn't* consider a bow to be a weapon. It certainly is in my state (Utah). Here's the relevant section of the code:
UCA 76-10-501(6)
(6) (a) "Dangerous weapon" means any item that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.
(b) The following factors shall be used in determining whether a knife, or any other item, object, or thing not commonly known as a dangerous weapon is a dangerous weapon:
(i) the character of the instrument, object, or thing;
(ii) the character of the wound produced, if any;
(iii) the manner in which the instrument, object, or thing was used; and
(iv) the other lawful purposes for which the instrument, object, or thing may be used.
(c) "Dangerous weapon" does not include any explosive, chemical, or incendiary device as defined by Section 76-10-306.
In the case of a bow, I don't think the court would even bother looking at the criteria in (6)(b), since a bow is clearly an item whose manner of use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.
Every state whose weapons laws I've examined (and the number is at least a half-dozen) has a similar broadly-applicable definition of "dangerous weapon", though they often use other terms.
BTW, the reason (6)(c) excludes explosives, etc. isn't because they're not dangerous or can't be weapons, it's because they're classified differently, and have more severe restrictions associated with them.
If they feel it was reckless, an arrest (and criminal charge) will be made. If they feel it was just an inexperienced driver acting immaturely they will usually let it go
That is the point. With a firearm recklessness is essentially presumed. With the vastly-more-dangerous automobile, it's not. That is a double standard, and it's better for society to be consistent. We should either relax about negligent firearm discharges, etc., or get serious about vehicle negligence. I prefer the latter, myself.
You ought to read the damn summary before you go around telling people what they're wrong about. The GPL only mandates source code disclosure for *EXTERNAL* distribution. There's no indication here that the app was distributed at all, let alone distributed outside the university.
It may not be that simple.
When the poster wrote his initial code, he was not an employee of the university. He was probably a student, and if the initial work was an assignment the university may have some rights to it (I don't know if they do; I know some universities claim they do). If it wasn't an assignment, but instead something he did purely on his own, then clearly they have no rights to that code. It's also possible that when they hired him to work on it, the contract may have transferred his rights to them. I think that's unlikely, but possible.
If they have some legal ownership of the code via either of those routes, then you're right, there was no distribution. If the original code is purely his, however, then he distributed it to the university. Under what license? If he didn't provide them with some other license, didn't assign copyright, and if the code had GPL notices, etc., in the initial distribution, he may be able to argue that he gave it to them under the GPL. It gets harder parse out if he never gave them a copy of the original code, only the modified code as it was after he'd started working under contract to them.
Another issue that could matter is if he'd distributed it to someone else before he gave it to them. If, for example, he'd begun hosting the work on sourceforge, github or the like, as a public project, before starting work as a contractor, that previously-created work was already distributed under the GPL, and that can't be taken back. Anyone who received a copy of that code (including, probably, the hosting site), is free to distribute it as GPL -- including back to the author, if he's subsequently handed over his copyrights to the university (unless he's contractually barred)!
If he continued hosting the work on the public server even after his employment began, and he had permission from his employer to do so -- even if the employer merely knew about it and didn't tell him not to, since that would seem to be implicit permission -- then all of the code has been distributed as GPL, including the portion that is clearly owned by the university. If they tried to go after anyone who'd gotten it that way for copyright infringement, there'd be a clear estoppel argument.
If this is important, the poster really needs to get a lawyer to look over the details. They matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Either you're trolling or you honestly have no idea why it's a good idea to throw up all sorts of errors on encountering a self-signed certificate.
Clue: SSL is intended to guarantee that nobody can eavesdrop on your connection. As soon as you start to see anomalies in the certificate chain (such as a self-signed certificate), that guarantee cannot be upheld.
Did you read my post? That's why the user shouldn't be given any indication that the connection is secured when a self-signed cert has been presented, because it's really not.
Sites where sensitive data is managed should not used self-signed certs, so that the certificate chain can be verified, to defeat MITM attacks. But sites that would currently not use any encryption could increase their security by a non-negligible amount by using HTTPS and a self-signed cert -- but the way browsers handle self-signed certificates is stupid and broken.
As a matter of course, we should use SSL on all connections. In some rare cases the computation may be too much of a burden, but in the vast majority of situations it's trivial and there's no reason not to do it.
IMO, the only reason we don't do it more is because the way browsers handle self-signed certificates is broken.
There's no reason for a browser to throw up nasty error dialogs when it encounters a self-signed certificate. Instead, browsers should silently accept such certificates and record the public key fingerprint. Browsers shouldn't turn on the lock icon when using a self-signed cert, or do anything else to make the user think they're browsing on a secure connection, because they're really not, but they should go ahead and encrypt the traffic.
Not only would that provide some measure of security against eavesdropping, but it would also assist with detection of phishing attacks. Browsers could and should throw up nasty warnings/errors when connecting to a site whose certificate has inexplicably changed. This is similar to how SSH handles trust of server keys, a system that works very well in practice.
Regarding this move by Google, I think it's great. I applauded their decision to make Gmail and Google Apps HTTPS-only, and providing the option for Google Search is great, too. Hopefully they'll eventually go to HTTPS-only for search as well. Their page volumes are such that they'll have to seriously consider the impact of the encryption overhead, but I think they'll get there.
High School seniors are between 4 and 8 years away from working in an engineering field. That's enough time for things to change considerably, and even if it weren't, the operating system really doesn't make that much difference. If you could give them some experience using the apps that will be relevant to them, that might be a little more useful, but that space is so broad that there's no way you could know what will be needed.
I'd make sure you pick a platform that runs the software the teachers want to use for classes. If that software is available on multiple platforms, then pick the one that is most cost-effective, considering acquisition and maintenance both.
Windows just doesn't use the labeling you want it to use.
The labeling I want it to use? I couldn't care less what labeling Windows uses.
The point is that drive manufacturers' listed sizes aren't wrong, they're not "marketing speak", and the only difference between advertised size and usable size is that usable size is typically a little bit more than advertised size.
Ok, to clarify for the hopelessly pedantic- yes I realize it is possible (but not probable) to buy automatic weapons - however with a lot of restrictions.
What restrictions? Look into what it takes to get an NFA class III stamp and you'll see it basically boils down to you are not a felon, or crazy. Those are the same requirements for owning any firearm.
unless you are rich and lucky enough to find someone who wants to sell one
As many have pointed out in this thread, finding a full auto to buy isn't hard at all. There are plenty of gun stores willing to sell you all you want. Of course, each one will cost as much as a car.
Yes, but it isn't as easy as walking in with a pile of cash, and walking out with an automatic weapon.
No, it's as easy as walking in with a pile of cash, filling out a bunch of paperwork, waiting a couple months and THEN walking out with an automatic weapon. There's a little time lag in the process, but basically if you can legally possess any firearm you can buy an automatic weapon.
640GB = 596.13GB
That's 596.13 GiB. The "i" is important. Also, 640 * 10^9 / 2^30 = 596.05, not 596.13.
I know this is /. and MacOS/Ubuntu are changing to Base10 file size nomenclature
I'm not sure about OS X, without walking upstairs to look on my wife's MacBook, but the Ubuntu initiative is to correctly label the units used, not necessarily to use SI units. In fact, I'm typing this on Ubuntu 10.04, and the half-dozen places I just checked all use IEEE base-2 units.
Until the advertised disk capacity is in the same format as the OS reports for the majority of users I think it's fair to say that the average user considers this misleading.
That would hardly be the only thing the average user is wrong about.
If anything, to survive, an airline that slows down "to save the planet!" is going to have to increase ticket costs modestly.
According to the article, the planes only fly about 10% slower, and existing aircraft already fly at least that much below their top speed in order to save fuel. If your arguments were accurate, existing planes would be flying faster. I'm sure that if the airlines could reduce fuel expenses by merely slowing down another 45 mph, they'd do it tomorrow.
That would be a 3TB drive in marketing speak and 2.x TB in usable capacity
What's this "marketing speak" vs "usable capacity" crap? It's 3TB, or 2.73 TiB. Both numbers are identical and valid (modulo a little rounding on the latter). This is no different from saying that a distance is 3 km or 1.86 miles; same distance, just different units.
In reality, the drive is unlikely to be exactly 3TB, either. Generally their capacity is a little bit more than advertised. For example, the 320 GB drive in my desktop isn't 320,000,000,000 bytes in size. It reports that it holds 320,072,933,376 bytes -- but even that isn't exactly right, because that includes the space allocated to spare sectors which will be used when localized failures are discovered. The true, usable size is 512*255*63*38913 = 320,070,320,640 bytes.
Storage sizes are a little complicated, but it has nothing to do with "marketing speak" vs "usable capacity".
Yes of course I wasn't talking about collector's pieces and such. I am talking about going into a gun store and buying an automatic weapon. It just isn't happening.
Sure it does. If you have the cash, you can go buy one. You have to buy it, then do the paperwork, then wait three months for your NFA stamp, then you can go pick it up. You can even buy one on-line, though you'll have to go to a local FFL to do the paperwork. Here are some to choose from:
http://www.impactguns.com/store/machineguns.html.
Note that not all of the firearms on that page are fully automatic, though all require NFA tax stamps. Many are full auto, though, and you can buy one if you have the money.
discharging them is a whole other ballgame
No different than shooting any other firearm, other than some gun ranges don't allow full-auto fire, because it's hard on the backstops.
don't know of any real cities that allow the discharge of firearms in the city limits except in designated areas like gun ranges.
Typically even small towns ban discharge except at designated ranges. In most states, however, once you get outside of city limits there are no laws against shooting, as long as you're not too close to roads, buildings, etc.
I guess that is why the crazy gun-loving anti-government groups seem to have their compounds out in the middle of nowhere in rural states. When you own the 1000 acres that surround you, you are free to do just about anything you want...
No need to be a member of a "crazy gun-loving anti-government group", thank goodness. Or even a gun-loving pro-government group. Discharge is legal on most public lands in most states, and any pretty much any private property outside of city limits.
you are not allowed to own and carry an automatic weapon.
Actually in the US, even if you are not a felon you cannot own and/or carry an automatic weapon. Semi-automatic is ok, but to own and use a fully automatic you either need to be military or law enforcement. You can rent and shoot automatic weapons in firing ranges, but they cannot be taken off the ranges.
Incorrect. Ordinary citizens in the US can own fully-automatic firearms. There are some hoops to jump through, but the biggest obstacle is that the things are really expensive. Thanks to a law passed in 1987, it is only legal for full auto firearms that were already in civilian hands in 1987 to be transferred to civilians. So, the supply is fixed, and demand continues to increase, which means that prices are high and climbing. It's difficult to find any functional fully-automatic weapon for under $10K, and many cost as much as a luxury automobile.
As a result, the only citizens in the US who have legal full-auto firearms are wealthy collectors. And they are kept in locked gun safes and display cases, not carried about. Oh, and many gun stores own a full-auto or two to rent for use on their ranges.
Criminals, of course, can import full auto firearms from overseas manufacturers at much more reasonable prices. The street price of an illegal machine gun is one quarter of the price of a legal machine gun, or less.
Uh, all you have to do is fine the businesses that hire them severely until hiring illegal aliens is no longer economically viable.
To find those businesses, I suggest offering green cards to illegal aliens who rat out their bosses.
You don't have to find very many. After a few businessmen lose everything, the rest will catch on. If we really need a manual labor force, we can get them here legally.
With my suggestion, you may not have to actually find any of them. As soon as businesses who want to employ illegals realize that they people they most need to hide their shady business practice from are exactly the people they can't hide it from -- the illegal employees -- they'll give up the idea. In fact, they'll become really paranoid about making absolutely sure that everyone they hire is legal, because it would be in an undocumented worker's best interest to find a way to get hired specifically so they could turn in their boss.
Uh, all you have to do is fine the businesses that hire them severely until hiring illegal aliens is no longer economically viable.
To find those businesses, I suggest offering green cards to illegal aliens who rat out their bosses.
If something feels like a punishment, it doesn't make one. If we would have been punished, tha actual drain on his wallet would have been 100 times of what happened.
So it has to be 10,000 euros to be a punishment? Geez, I'm glad you're not a judge.
Furthermore i find myself in agreement with the court: having an open WLAN puts him and others at risk and usually is a violation of ToS of his provider. He should either secure his WLAN or turn it off: his choice.
Bah.
My Wifi is wide open and I like it that way. Better performance, and I feel it's neighborly to share.
The problem with wikipedia is that the wikiadmins CHOOSE which articles get to go, and which stay -- regardless of truth. There is a massive abuse of power.
[Citation needed]
(Especially on the "massive" part).
It's really odd the wikiadmins should be complaining about someone else making up things to put on their site. All things considered, it seems somewhat hypocritical.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
It's precisely because it's so easy for random people to document made-up stuff on Wikipedia that the wikiadmins take such a hard line about removing it. Without a serious focus on removing such articles, the encyclopedia would be flooded with them.
Interesting.
But, it's broadly worded enough, that MacGyver or any special forces who can make a weapon out of pocket lint are going to be shafted no matter what. ;^)
Yeah. But the other side is that if it were any more specific it would exclude things that people pick up and use as weapons. The fact is that darned near anything can be a dangerous weapon, it's more about what you do with it than what it is (regardless of what the TSA thinks). So, the laws are worded broadly enough that anything used as a dangerous weapon legally qualifies as a dangerous weapon, as well as anything that clearly is a dangerous weapon (like a knife, gun or bow).
Then we rely on the judges not to shaft people who weren't really doing anything objectionable.
It's an imperfect world.
I don't think it's a double standard. In most municipalities, firing a gun within the city limits is a crime regardless of damage done (except in cases of defense).
I haven't seen a municipal discharge law that doesn't exempt accidental discharges.
The user was not fined
You can choose to define "fined" narrowly enough that this statement is factually correct, but it doesn't change the fact that this guy had to deal with the legal system and pay our 100 Euros for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
However - I don't *believe* that any state in the US considers a bow to be a weapon.
Umm, I'd be surprised if there is any state in the US that *doesn't* consider a bow to be a weapon. It certainly is in my state (Utah). Here's the relevant section of the code:
UCA 76-10-501(6)
(6) (a) "Dangerous weapon" means any item that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.
(b) The following factors shall be used in determining whether a knife, or any other item, object, or thing not commonly known as a dangerous weapon is a dangerous weapon:
(i) the character of the instrument, object, or thing;
(ii) the character of the wound produced, if any;
(iii) the manner in which the instrument, object, or thing was used; and
(iv) the other lawful purposes for which the instrument, object, or thing may be used.
(c) "Dangerous weapon" does not include any explosive, chemical, or incendiary device as defined by Section 76-10-306.
In the case of a bow, I don't think the court would even bother looking at the criteria in (6)(b), since a bow is clearly an item whose manner of use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.
Every state whose weapons laws I've examined (and the number is at least a half-dozen) has a similar broadly-applicable definition of "dangerous weapon", though they often use other terms.
BTW, the reason (6)(c) excludes explosives, etc. isn't because they're not dangerous or can't be weapons, it's because they're classified differently, and have more severe restrictions associated with them.
If they feel it was reckless, an arrest (and criminal charge) will be made. If they feel it was just an inexperienced driver acting immaturely they will usually let it go
That is the point. With a firearm recklessness is essentially presumed. With the vastly-more-dangerous automobile, it's not. That is a double standard, and it's better for society to be consistent. We should either relax about negligent firearm discharges, etc., or get serious about vehicle negligence. I prefer the latter, myself.
You ought to read the damn summary before you go around telling people what they're wrong about. The GPL only mandates source code disclosure for *EXTERNAL* distribution. There's no indication here that the app was distributed at all, let alone distributed outside the university.
It may not be that simple.
When the poster wrote his initial code, he was not an employee of the university. He was probably a student, and if the initial work was an assignment the university may have some rights to it (I don't know if they do; I know some universities claim they do). If it wasn't an assignment, but instead something he did purely on his own, then clearly they have no rights to that code. It's also possible that when they hired him to work on it, the contract may have transferred his rights to them. I think that's unlikely, but possible.
If they have some legal ownership of the code via either of those routes, then you're right, there was no distribution. If the original code is purely his, however, then he distributed it to the university. Under what license? If he didn't provide them with some other license, didn't assign copyright, and if the code had GPL notices, etc., in the initial distribution, he may be able to argue that he gave it to them under the GPL. It gets harder parse out if he never gave them a copy of the original code, only the modified code as it was after he'd started working under contract to them.
Another issue that could matter is if he'd distributed it to someone else before he gave it to them. If, for example, he'd begun hosting the work on sourceforge, github or the like, as a public project, before starting work as a contractor, that previously-created work was already distributed under the GPL, and that can't be taken back. Anyone who received a copy of that code (including, probably, the hosting site), is free to distribute it as GPL -- including back to the author, if he's subsequently handed over his copyrights to the university (unless he's contractually barred)!
If he continued hosting the work on the public server even after his employment began, and he had permission from his employer to do so -- even if the employer merely knew about it and didn't tell him not to, since that would seem to be implicit permission -- then all of the code has been distributed as GPL, including the portion that is clearly owned by the university. If they tried to go after anyone who'd gotten it that way for copyright infringement, there'd be a clear estoppel argument.
If this is important, the poster really needs to get a lawyer to look over the details. They matter.
...which doesn't work with many sites. Yes, I installed that extension the same day I installed Chrome.
Tried that. Doesn't work on all sites.
PDFs displayed inside the browser window is a bug more than a feature. Almost 100% of the time, this causes problems, of all kinds.
I don't have any problems with it.
And a couple of the banks I do business with make it very hard to get a downloadable PDF. It's nearly impossible to look at my statements with Chrome.