In that situation? No. They needed to buy 14 drives a day to maintain their storage increase rate; the companies they usually used were out of drives, and wholesalers were selling to the big box stores rather than their corporate customers.
No, but in a worst-case-scenario - say, a nearby gas main explosion that takes out the local electricity - they will only have as much gas as they have stored, and be unable to get more easily. Contrast this with a system that, as noted, uses fuel that can be obtained at almost any gas station. Local stations are closed? Go a bit farther out.
They're stupid enough to execute code formed from non-executable input.
* FIX OVER
Yes, let's go ahead and presume that the institutions that figuratively and in some cases literally built the first world nations we sit on our asses in have no idea how to sandbox and bound check a code read from a scanner in order to stop an "infection" from taking over... Why, there is no way every single bank, even the podunk credit unions that dot the land near and far, can figure out how to run a completely public banking portal without getting completely pwned on their first day and having their vaults emptied. Wait, no, I have that backwards. Good security IS possible, it's just hard for most slashpundits to imagine since it is completely beyond them.
My spouse used to do IT at a financial institution. Some of her tales scared the hell out of me - I don't keep any money at that bank anymore. Not that I ever had much to keep there in the first place, mind.
The CW actually has a lot of decent scifi/fantasy shows. True, they're more aimed at a teen audience, but Supernatural's probably one of the best shows on television period, Smallville was a pretty decent take on Superman (Michael Rosenbaum is an incredible Lex Luthor in that show!), Nikita's a pretty decent spy/action show, and they usually add at least one scifi/fantasy show a year (I think they're showing "Arrow" this year - a show about the Green Arrow.)
That said, Comedy Central would be slightly more appropriate for the Sing-Along Blog.
There's nothing in the article that explicitly says this, but I wouldn't be too surprised to find out that the harrowing stop had more to do with Chris and his husband than the official excuse of Kinder Eggs - especially since they weren't even confiscated. But maybe I'm just paranoid.
So we don't need to discuss this anymore. Copyright infringement is "THEFT"
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr
Preventing intellectual property theft is a top priority of the FBI’s cyber program. We specifically focus on the theft of trade secrets and infringements on products that can impact consumers’ health and safety, such as counterfeit aircraft, car, and electronic parts. Key to our success is linking the considerable resources and efforts of the private sector with law enforcement partners on local, state, federal, and international levels.
No, according to the FBI theft of trade secrets is theft. Trade Secrets are on a completely different (and pretty much reasonable) level than simple copyright infringement. In fact, infringement on movies & music isn't even listed there - counterfeit parts are again a legitimate concern.
Not that I believe they won't go after music & movie infringers, but that claiming that they call it "theft" is incorrect.
Indeed. He's made this constituent *very* happy. Really, we here in Eugene have it pretty good - Wyden and DeFazio both do a fabulous job of handling what we care about.
Obamacare could have - should have - been a lot better, but it's probably better than no change in the area. At least it's gotten people *talking* about health care reform... and if it gets stopped by the S.C., I would be willing to bet good money on a new version with a public option being put in place within a year or two.
So what you're saying is that there is a benefit to buying a physical product instead of licensing an electronic one? Who would have thought.
Alternatively, keep track of who you sell it to: Make them sign something and mail (separately) two copies to you, then open only one of them. There's your (datestamped) proof of sale. Or use some other convoluted scheme.
What it comes down to is that the publisher is in no way required to go out of their way to make it easier for you to sell your copy of the book: They can if they want, but it's not required.
And the problem with this - assuming it doesn't interfere with the function of the book in any way - is what exactly? It's like a registered serial number - it's *your* copy. Quite honestly, it's probably the single best copy protection method out there - both from an enforcement ("See this? It's yours") and rights (But make backups and change formats as much as you want) way.
Unless you quote the person who, in your opinion, is "full of it", it's difficult to determine whom you think is full. You seem to be disputing someone who advocated steel and concrete construction, and you hypothetically put your own life on the line to attest.
Really, regarding the ability of a structure to endure an earthquake, to make a judgement, much more information is needed beyond the type of construction employed. One steel structure is weaker than another, for example. And, in construction, there is a size division between single-family and multi-family dwellings that must be considered. But anyway...
I'll clarify some terms.
Most houses today (post WWII) are built using a wood construction system called "platform framing". Colloquially, this is called "stick built". However, stick build is a more general term just meaning using 2x4s and can include systems that are not platform framing.
In platform framing, one story is built after another. This is opposed to obsolete balloon framing which uses structural members that span more than one story. Platform framing uses the familiar stud and plate (top or bottom horizontal member) wall arrangement.
Timber framing usually means post & beam construction, which is also called post-frame construction. Large pieces of wood spaced a few feet (a couple meters) apart form the structure.
In this thread, some seem to be using "timber" to simply mean wooden.
Steel-reinforced concrete is a very strong method of construction. The Japanese buildings using this method did well in the recent earthquake. And we must remember, earthquakes aren't the only possible hazards. Nowadays, a larger building should also be able to withstand small bombs, high winds, and vehicle impacts.
Another method of single-family dwelling construction is SIP (Structural Insulated Panel). The walls are made with SIPs, which are composed of thin plywood exteriors encasing thick polystyrene foam in-between.
Sure, wood platform framing is economical and sufficient for small structures, like single-family dwellings, but it's not suitable for larger structures.
And in terms of a single-family dwelling contest for ability of withstand to withstand an earthquake, a mobile home on beam (rather than discrete "jacks") supports wins.
Bah, I was replying to the person that said:
I need to use more smileys:-( . Just sayin', walls built of sticks or straw are not real walls as the GGP claims.
Japanese houses, like American houses, are not built to last. But I understand that Japanese and Californians have good reason not to build solid walls.
Steel and concrete construction is perfectly fine, but so is wood - and, assuming I'm in a small building, I prefer wood construction over steel or concrete.
A few years ago, my area had a worst-case windstorm. We had a brief boom in business - mostly dealing with houses and other buildings with cosmetic or tree damage. Despite the fact that windspeed exceeded the design value by 20%, there was minimal permanent damage. This is despite the fact that 90% of construction in my area - logging country - is wood, and that a large percentage of it is at least thirty years old.
As for the manufactured home, maybe. Depends on if it's properly braced - a lot of them aren't. And they're really not good when it comes to wind loads.
Actually, I suspect I'd feel less than secure there. While it sounds horribly overdesigned, that's more of a problem than you might think: Your octagon won't bend, it will shatter. That's why they design weak points in steel and concrete buildings: A bent beam can still hold up a floor, while a broken connection is useless. Sure, it'll take one hell of a jolt to do it, but once it's failed it's gone.
Worse than stick built? Yeah. Doesn't mean you can't get enough load resistance out of it to survive a quake. There's a paper on straw bale construction that I read that provides vertical & lateral failure information.
Yes. I've done steel stud construction design for a handful of homes. Insulated Concrete Forms are also popular for exterior walls - they're set up like Legos, and then concrete is poured in them. Still, the use of wood outweighs concrete or steel by far more than 9:1 for home construction.
As someone with 12 years of structural experience, currently studying for their Structural Engineering exam: You're full of it.
A "stick built" home - that is, one built with sawn lumber and plywood - is generally better than a steel or concrete structure. A properly designed wood structure is much harder to permanently damage during a seismic or wind event than a concrete structure, and is generally easier to repair than a steel structure. The problem comes in that our older homes and buildings are *not* designed properly.
Speaking personally - If I'm in an earthquake, I would rather be in a stick-built structure built in the last twenty years than in a Concrete building built within the last five.
This isn't to say that there is *no* damage - there is - it's just that it's primarily cosmetic.
Actually, I've heard people use almost that exact reasoning.
"Why do I need to have an accessible fire exit? Disabled people don't come in here, and if they do the employees will just carry them out" and the like.
Also, "Yes, I know the building doesn't have anchors or clips keeping pieces together, but it's survived since 1930. Why should I add them just because I'm putting an HVAC system on the roof?
Very true. I worked on the design for a winery last year; the maximum runoff of their grey water was something along the lines of 1/8 of the total water needed for irrigation - and that's with a fairly water-heavy system on site.
And theres the rub. Warrantless wiretapping is clearly out-of-bounds for any level of government. Even if congress passed a law allowing this, the president signed it, his executive branch enforced it, and the supreme court affirmed it (and PUBLIC legal defense against the government attempts is the first place the telcos should have gone with this).
Except that warrantless wiretapping *is* allowed - for short periods of time, after which they need a FISA warrant. And wiretapping/review of foreign correspondence is explicitly allowed. Which means that there was a potentially legal argument that the orders were legit. As for it being out-of-bounds for government, yes it is. But let's take the case to the NSA, not the civilian schlubs they got to do the work.
As far as I know, I haven't personally committed any gross violations of the law in the past year, let alone the past month. By gross violation, I mean something other than parking illegally or speeding. We geeks like to think that everyone does what we do, but the truth is that geeks tend to enjoy dancing back and forth along the line of acceptability - and that leads to frequent violations of the law.
Either that, or I'm far more abnormal than I thought.
Let's be honest here: "I was just following orders" *should* be a valid defense, when you're referring to civilians. Is it *right*? No. But my understanding is that the Telecoms were given apparently-legal instructions by a legitimate authority, obeyed them, and then someone pointed out "Wait, that's not exactly kosher, people..."
Did they (the telecoms) screw up? Absolutely. But there was an assumption that the telecoms made that the people in legal authority would not overstep their bounds. It's the same assumption we as civilians make every day - and the reason why we as a society prefer come down like a ton of bricks on anyone we find that violates that trust. Not because the crime itself is necessarily horrible (though it frequently is), but because by committing the crime through their offices, they stain the honor and/or sanctity of those offices. This isn't even entirely a governmental thing; it also applies to Doctors, Engineers, Religious teachers, Lawyers, and any of a thousand other situations.
If a person with apparently legitimate authority tells you to do something that doesn't seem ridiculously out-of-bounds for their authority and you do it, you damned well should be protected.
Probably not, no. It'd have to be 1-1/4" or so (3.3 cm), which is effectively impossible with joists.
If there's a concrete floor reinforced with some form of steel *fiber* - as opposed to rebar - I could see that interfering. Or steel mesh on the walls.
Heh. I designed a house a few years ago that had chicken wire in the walls. I wonder if they can get 900Mhz reception?
Slashdot Mirror
US law trumps FSF preferences.
In that situation? No. They needed to buy 14 drives a day to maintain their storage increase rate; the companies they usually used were out of drives, and wholesalers were selling to the big box stores rather than their corporate customers.
No, but in a worst-case-scenario - say, a nearby gas main explosion that takes out the local electricity - they will only have as much gas as they have stored, and be unable to get more easily. Contrast this with a system that, as noted, uses fuel that can be obtained at almost any gas station. Local stations are closed? Go a bit farther out.
* FIX
They're stupid enough to execute code formed from non-executable input.
* FIX OVER
Yes, let's go ahead and presume that the institutions that figuratively and in some cases literally built the first world nations we sit on our asses in have no idea how to sandbox and bound check a code read from a scanner in order to stop an "infection" from taking over... Why, there is no way every single bank, even the podunk credit unions that dot the land near and far, can figure out how to run a completely public banking portal without getting completely pwned on their first day and having their vaults emptied. Wait, no, I have that backwards. Good security IS possible, it's just hard for most slashpundits to imagine since it is completely beyond them.
My spouse used to do IT at a financial institution. Some of her tales scared the hell out of me - I don't keep any money at that bank anymore. Not that I ever had much to keep there in the first place, mind.
The CW actually has a lot of decent scifi/fantasy shows. True, they're more aimed at a teen audience, but Supernatural's probably one of the best shows on television period, Smallville was a pretty decent take on Superman (Michael Rosenbaum is an incredible Lex Luthor in that show!), Nikita's a pretty decent spy/action show, and they usually add at least one scifi/fantasy show a year (I think they're showing "Arrow" this year - a show about the Green Arrow.)
That said, Comedy Central would be slightly more appropriate for the Sing-Along Blog.
There's nothing in the article that explicitly says this, but I wouldn't be too surprised to find out that the harrowing stop had more to do with Chris and his husband than the official excuse of Kinder Eggs - especially since they weren't even confiscated. But maybe I'm just paranoid.
So we don't need to discuss this anymore. Copyright infringement is "THEFT"
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr
No, according to the FBI theft of trade secrets is theft. Trade Secrets are on a completely different (and pretty much reasonable) level than simple copyright infringement. In fact, infringement on movies & music isn't even listed there - counterfeit parts are again a legitimate concern. Not that I believe they won't go after music & movie infringers, but that claiming that they call it "theft" is incorrect.
Indeed. He's made this constituent *very* happy. Really, we here in Eugene have it pretty good - Wyden and DeFazio both do a fabulous job of handling what we care about.
Obamacare could have - should have - been a lot better, but it's probably better than no change in the area. At least it's gotten people *talking* about health care reform... and if it gets stopped by the S.C., I would be willing to bet good money on a new version with a public option being put in place within a year or two.
The Laffer Curve is absolutely a real thing. It's just that we're not at the peak yet; we should be raising, not lowering, taxes.
So what you're saying is that there is a benefit to buying a physical product instead of licensing an electronic one? Who would have thought.
Alternatively, keep track of who you sell it to: Make them sign something and mail (separately) two copies to you, then open only one of them. There's your (datestamped) proof of sale. Or use some other convoluted scheme. What it comes down to is that the publisher is in no way required to go out of their way to make it easier for you to sell your copy of the book: They can if they want, but it's not required.
And the problem with this - assuming it doesn't interfere with the function of the book in any way - is what exactly? It's like a registered serial number - it's *your* copy. Quite honestly, it's probably the single best copy protection method out there - both from an enforcement ("See this? It's yours") and rights (But make backups and change formats as much as you want) way.
Unless you quote the person who, in your opinion, is "full of it", it's difficult to determine whom you think is full. You seem to be disputing someone who advocated steel and concrete construction, and you hypothetically put your own life on the line to attest. Really, regarding the ability of a structure to endure an earthquake, to make a judgement, much more information is needed beyond the type of construction employed. One steel structure is weaker than another, for example. And, in construction, there is a size division between single-family and multi-family dwellings that must be considered. But anyway... I'll clarify some terms. Most houses today (post WWII) are built using a wood construction system called "platform framing". Colloquially, this is called "stick built". However, stick build is a more general term just meaning using 2x4s and can include systems that are not platform framing. In platform framing, one story is built after another. This is opposed to obsolete balloon framing which uses structural members that span more than one story. Platform framing uses the familiar stud and plate (top or bottom horizontal member) wall arrangement. Timber framing usually means post & beam construction, which is also called post-frame construction. Large pieces of wood spaced a few feet (a couple meters) apart form the structure. In this thread, some seem to be using "timber" to simply mean wooden. Steel-reinforced concrete is a very strong method of construction. The Japanese buildings using this method did well in the recent earthquake. And we must remember, earthquakes aren't the only possible hazards. Nowadays, a larger building should also be able to withstand small bombs, high winds, and vehicle impacts. Another method of single-family dwelling construction is SIP (Structural Insulated Panel). The walls are made with SIPs, which are composed of thin plywood exteriors encasing thick polystyrene foam in-between. Sure, wood platform framing is economical and sufficient for small structures, like single-family dwellings, but it's not suitable for larger structures. And in terms of a single-family dwelling contest for ability of withstand to withstand an earthquake, a mobile home on beam (rather than discrete "jacks") supports wins.
Bah, I was replying to the person that said: :-( . Just sayin', walls built of sticks or straw are not real walls as the GGP claims.
Japanese houses, like American houses, are not built to last. But I understand that Japanese and Californians have good reason not to build solid walls.
I need to use more smileys
Steel and concrete construction is perfectly fine, but so is wood - and, assuming I'm in a small building, I prefer wood construction over steel or concrete.
A few years ago, my area had a worst-case windstorm. We had a brief boom in business - mostly dealing with houses and other buildings with cosmetic or tree damage. Despite the fact that windspeed exceeded the design value by 20%, there was minimal permanent damage. This is despite the fact that 90% of construction in my area - logging country - is wood, and that a large percentage of it is at least thirty years old.
As for the manufactured home, maybe. Depends on if it's properly braced - a lot of them aren't. And they're really not good when it comes to wind loads.
Actually, I suspect I'd feel less than secure there. While it sounds horribly overdesigned, that's more of a problem than you might think: Your octagon won't bend, it will shatter. That's why they design weak points in steel and concrete buildings: A bent beam can still hold up a floor, while a broken connection is useless. Sure, it'll take one hell of a jolt to do it, but once it's failed it's gone.
Worse than stick built? Yeah. Doesn't mean you can't get enough load resistance out of it to survive a quake. There's a paper on straw bale construction that I read that provides vertical & lateral failure information.
Yes. I've done steel stud construction design for a handful of homes. Insulated Concrete Forms are also popular for exterior walls - they're set up like Legos, and then concrete is poured in them. Still, the use of wood outweighs concrete or steel by far more than 9:1 for home construction.
As someone with 12 years of structural experience, currently studying for their Structural Engineering exam: You're full of it.
A "stick built" home - that is, one built with sawn lumber and plywood - is generally better than a steel or concrete structure. A properly designed wood structure is much harder to permanently damage during a seismic or wind event than a concrete structure, and is generally easier to repair than a steel structure. The problem comes in that our older homes and buildings are *not* designed properly.
Speaking personally - If I'm in an earthquake, I would rather be in a stick-built structure built in the last twenty years than in a Concrete building built within the last five.
This isn't to say that there is *no* damage - there is - it's just that it's primarily cosmetic.
Actually, I've heard people use almost that exact reasoning. "Why do I need to have an accessible fire exit? Disabled people don't come in here, and if they do the employees will just carry them out" and the like. Also, "Yes, I know the building doesn't have anchors or clips keeping pieces together, but it's survived since 1930. Why should I add them just because I'm putting an HVAC system on the roof?
Very true. I worked on the design for a winery last year; the maximum runoff of their grey water was something along the lines of 1/8 of the total water needed for irrigation - and that's with a fairly water-heavy system on site.
And theres the rub. Warrantless wiretapping is clearly out-of-bounds for any level of government. Even if congress passed a law allowing this, the president signed it, his executive branch enforced it, and the supreme court affirmed it (and PUBLIC legal defense against the government attempts is the first place the telcos should have gone with this).
Except that warrantless wiretapping *is* allowed - for short periods of time, after which they need a FISA warrant. And wiretapping/review of foreign correspondence is explicitly allowed. Which means that there was a potentially legal argument that the orders were legit. As for it being out-of-bounds for government, yes it is. But let's take the case to the NSA, not the civilian schlubs they got to do the work.
As far as I know, I haven't personally committed any gross violations of the law in the past year, let alone the past month. By gross violation, I mean something other than parking illegally or speeding. We geeks like to think that everyone does what we do, but the truth is that geeks tend to enjoy dancing back and forth along the line of acceptability - and that leads to frequent violations of the law.
Either that, or I'm far more abnormal than I thought.
Let's be honest here: "I was just following orders" *should* be a valid defense, when you're referring to civilians. Is it *right*? No. But my understanding is that the Telecoms were given apparently-legal instructions by a legitimate authority, obeyed them, and then someone pointed out "Wait, that's not exactly kosher, people..." Did they (the telecoms) screw up? Absolutely. But there was an assumption that the telecoms made that the people in legal authority would not overstep their bounds. It's the same assumption we as civilians make every day - and the reason why we as a society prefer come down like a ton of bricks on anyone we find that violates that trust. Not because the crime itself is necessarily horrible (though it frequently is), but because by committing the crime through their offices, they stain the honor and/or sanctity of those offices. This isn't even entirely a governmental thing; it also applies to Doctors, Engineers, Religious teachers, Lawyers, and any of a thousand other situations. If a person with apparently legitimate authority tells you to do something that doesn't seem ridiculously out-of-bounds for their authority and you do it, you damned well should be protected.
Probably not, no. It'd have to be 1-1/4" or so (3.3 cm), which is effectively impossible with joists. If there's a concrete floor reinforced with some form of steel *fiber* - as opposed to rebar - I could see that interfering. Or steel mesh on the walls. Heh. I designed a house a few years ago that had chicken wire in the walls. I wonder if they can get 900Mhz reception?
Thanks! Know an English translation?
Yup. Also, Engineers use a Java applet from USGS to determine seismic requirements for structures. If I could not have Java, I could not work.