It can be a requirement for professional actors. Michael Keaton was born Michael Douglas, but SAG wouldn't let him use his birth name. There are lots of other examples; in an industry where your name recognition is critical and credits are key, your registered name with the 4As often varies from your birth name.
DBA just means "doing business as", and the requirements vary. Or the lack thereof -- sometimes it's merely a de facto thing rather than needing registration in some states.
I do wonder if I could use JabberWokky -- I'm registered to vote and get regular mail under the name (it's a real world nickname from theater... even my wife calls me it). I do some non-profit work under the name, and have performed on stage with the name.
Seriously -- I am not only paying for it, but I've set dozens of clients up with it, both free and paid. This is not a good situation. Luckily for us, they pretty much have to support it by the time schools let in for the fall. Otherwise, they just borked themselves.
What's interesting is that modern sports combat based on western martial arts -- meaning sword and shield, full metal armor, but using modern materials -- has shifted over to using things like 6061-T6 aluminum to keep things light. Also Underarmor sweat wicking clothing (seriously). For instance, the SCA, which is interested in individuals or groups meeting in competitive combat rather than a specific battle from a particular time or place. A good deal of effort is put into finding lightweight armor that still protects your bones.
Now comes the twist: It's actually thicker and more durable, because nobody likes to hammer out their armor each week after (or during) fighter practice. So it actually lasts much much longer under a barrage of blows, but is still roughly the same weight. Apparently it's a reasonable weight to fight in, and what you can now take out with modern materials, people are adding back for durability.
Check out http://www.zoombang.com/ for really out there modern armor designed for medieval non-edged combat.
obSemiOffTopic: Deep bruises are just part of the sport -- my wife is very careful to point out early in doctor visits that she's involved in full contact martial arts. Especially as she's 5 foot and petite and I'm 6'3" and huge; we already had one nurse freak out and send me out to have a talk with her about reporting domestic violence. She now carries photos on her phone of herself in armor, holding her helm and grinning happily, just to fend off people who get the wrong idea.
Actually, it is (along with Eris, Makemake, Ceres, Quaoar and many others, mostly with technical identifiers) properly termed a dwarf planet. Not a planet, a dwarf planet. So the article is actually quite correct.
I've found that using VNC on an iPad coupled with x11vnc is almost good enough for a second monitor, and is perfectly fine for things like monitoring tail -f, Twitter or iGoogle and the like. The delay is way too much for something like editing text, but that's what you have the other monitor for. The resolution is a bit too low as well (although x11vnc nicely scales the screen and text is readable), but that's part of the "almost good enough".
Honestly, I'd rather have a small laptop with a really high resolution screen and a tablet with a case that allows it to stand up next to my laptop. Thus, I can use the laptop in the airplane or on the sofa (or the tablet, if they get a bit better), and the pop the tablet next to the laptop in a conference, hotel room or cafe. The various Android tablets may already fit the bill. If there's an X server for them[1] then I'd say it may well actually be good enough for regular use.
Of course, at my office I have a nice 24" Samsung. If only Nouveau could see the mini display port on the 13" MBP 7,1, I'd be perfectly happy (I'm stuck with the Nvidia driver, which has some annoying peculiarities and no advantages if you don't care about 3D).
1 - If you're confused, keep in mind that X servers provide a screen, while the programs that draw on it are clients. For some reason it's a common mistake to get this backwards, probably because the web terminology is roughly the other way around.
Quite correct. I do not expect to be searched. I am not searched on the sidewalk without probable cause. Crimes are committed on the sidewalk, many resulting in deaths. I am not searched in my car without probable cause. Crimes are committed on the roads, many resulting in deaths. I am not searched when I sit at home without probable cause. Crimes are committed in private residences, many resulting in deaths.
I am a United States citizen, and I do not expect to be forced to submit to a government mandated invasive search -- by touch or electronic -- without cause while using non-government services. I am not entering a courthouse, jail, military base or other government run and secured facility. Thus, absent a compelling reason that is specific to the individual, I do not expect them to be able to establish an institutional search of myself or any other citizen while travelling through public space and using commercial services.
You've touched on the core issue: One does not expect to be searched -- absent specific, individual cause -- at permanent (and expanding) checkpoints in a country that espouses liberty and the rights of the individual. Law enforcement can not look in the trunk of my car without cause; they can't look in my backpack without cause. The TSA should not be able to inspect my wife's underwear without cause either. I don't expect them to be able to. That they do so is the problem in sum, not an issue of the expectations of the people of the country.
Wow. In protest of people making jackass assumptions and generalizations about somebody who they barely know and who won't ever hear their complaining, you're making jackass assumptions and generalizations directly to a mass of rather diverse people.
There will be dumb jokes (there's one in the summary already) and even some bitterness; this is an IT heavy crowd. But if you really don't like it, there's no reason to contribute to the hostility. Unless you're simply looking to feel good about being a martyr for the underdog... in which case, you're simply engaged in emotional self-aggrandizement and a pitiable plea for abuse to maintain your self-image. In the end, your comment is not about Gates, nor (unless you are very socially deaf) is it intended to actually change minds. It is as hostile as the hostility you are claiming to loathe.
A strange comment, either a troll or a person lacking perspective.
Being jailed for contempt doesn't last forever in the real world. Once it's clear it's not going to be forced, that's the end of being jailed. I'm not sure where you got "seize all your assets", as I've never heard of that happening, even in cases where the witness gets chained because they lunged at the judge (you see some odd things working at a courthouse). Not related to contempt charges for lack of testimony, at any rate.
That said, the whole question here is if you can be forced to give up your password. If not (if it's like a safe combination or the location of a storage unit), then there is no "crime of failing to give up your password". No judge can compel you to give it up. If they can't access it, they can't have it. Plain and simple. The question here is if a password falls under something that can be compelled, like a warrant to be able to walk into your bedroom and search because somebody said they saw you hide something in there (i.e., with cause), or if it's something more akin to compelling somebody to tell you where you put something, which the court can't do.
Internet email. Commercial activity was not allowed (and by and large didn't happen, Grateful Dead tape barter notwithstanding) on the net before the early 90s. That whole misquote about Al Gore inventing the internet? He was taking credit (and has some right to) for the commercialization of the net. Prior to that, it was funded with various research grants and other funding sources that disallowed commercial activity.
You're might be thinking about a private email service like BIX, Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy or delphi, which all attached to the net at various times in the fairly early 90s, after the restrictions were lifted. Prior to that, they had their own internal mail system, which may well have had spam issues. Canter and Siegel was 1994, if I recall, which was usenet, but was a major event because it came soon after commercial activity was authorized on the net. I'm not sure what the spam curve looked like over the 90s, but internet email (and ARPA, TELENET, Tymnet and other networks that coalesced into the net) had basically zero spam for the first 20 years or so.
There is the "snow in Bahamas" effect. People in Pittsburgh don't freak out and gawk at snow in January. However, I was well over 30 before I ever saw it snow in real life. My wife had never seen it either. We moved to Pennsylvania and both of us just watched it all day in wonder as it came down. It was amazing and impossible to comprehend at a base level. We decided not to drive until observing other people (having no idea what level of ice was safe).
By the end of winter, it was still neat, but we were both much more practical about it, having learned how to drive, shovel it, where and when to strew salt, etc. Before a plane hit the Pentagon and two collapsed buildings in the biggest city, nobody in a century had mounted a notable and successful attack on US military or civilians in any state of the union (although one territory was quite notably hit by the Empire of Japan's Navy a bit less than a century back).
I'm content with it being a rare event in the US, even if it makes it tough to get everybody to react appropriately. You're casually tossing out dates for recent events; the US -- so far -- only has two major dates for attacks in the last hundred years, and one was in 1941, poised to fade from living memory in the next couple decades.
May you and yours have no dates of memory other than happy ones. May our children (or children's children) not know about such activities except through history books. But while dealing with it, yes, those who deal with it on a regular basis will (hopefully!) be better able to handle it.
Geocaching is a populist hobby or game. There are no absolute rules; a given website (and there are many out there with different rules listed) has no more control over people geocaching on their own than a website listing rules about how to play with a cat using a laser pointer can control somebody amusing themselves in their living room.
Let me preempt the most obvious reply: There is a patent covering the latter, of course...
Moreover, this is about inventing, which is different than being either a scientist or an engineer. It doesn't matter how it works, if you know why it works, or even if you know the specific limits. It just matters that it does work.
Afterwards, the engineers can descend upon it and find the limits (and probably improve them), the scientists can descend and figure out why it works (and thus apply it to other aspects of life). The inventor only cares that it does the task he or she sees that needs to be addressed.
If you haven't read it, read Ike's exit speech (where he famously coined "military industrial complex") and consider the points he makes about the danger of only trusting sources with large funding, who become dependent upon government and corporate funds -- and thus government and corporate decision making processes.
It seems if I get the actual story correct that it is the same terms (that you not call it under the name of the original author's project if you make changes to it) that were the reason a bunch of people and groups (like debian) rejected ion3 and argued with the author until he washed his hands of the whole thing and quit open source?
Sure, the code is open. The project identity is another thing entirely. Some of the larger groups (KDE, for instance) have run into this and split the project identity and actual codebase (or for KDE, codebases) into distinct categories. What is Android? It's code, sure, but I (and apparently Google) would say it is also an expectation of certain conventions and available tools.
I understand your point, but those alert systems are for a wide variety of issues. Say there's a really bad chemical spill in an area where students typically walk through... are you implying that the administrators should shoot the spill to trigger the alarm?
Although, some of the ice at Penn State (which sent out notices using their system when the weather closed down the school) might best be dealt with using a steady application of gunfire.
She's worked for the Travel Channel. It wouldn't surprise me if she's done some magazine articles. At the very least, her statement in the ad jibes with her career. I wonder if Joseph Kolinski has sold real estate.
Honestly, if they were actors, being paid as actors to portray characters, wouldn't they be using character names? This kind of sounds like they may have picked a minor side job they do when they can't find acting work and used that as their career. Otherwise, why use their real names if they are playing wholly fictitious characters? It's not exactly like they would balk at playing a part using a character name.
Re:So much for plan B...
on
Nokia Sells Qt
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Well, Nokia still owns Qt... Digia is only handling the commercial software licensing and professional services for Qt. Basically, Digia are licensed to sell the product, but Nokia still owns and develops it in-house.
I like to think that if enough kids start doing this type of thing, the hysteria will be reduced:
Probably not the best mechanism, given that some of the assertions are actually true. But as I said in my other reply... the cause for the reaction is certainly hysteria. But that doesn't mean that these particular people involved today weren't doing things that have major ramifications at the current time.
Stashing cocaine on people randomly (another form of accusing the innocent) to protest the drug laws is an interesting idea[1]. It's also going to wind up sending at least some of the people to jail. I agree with the goal, but rampant accusations of the innocent is not the best mechanism for chance.
1 - I chose this example because, if you're protesting drug laws, unlike pedophilia where there would be actual abuse cases being lost, you probably don't think anybody who is either breaking the current laws or not is guilty of anything. Basically, even with eliminating the "real cases get ignored" aspect, you're still screwing over innocent people.
Oh, I agree completely. But saying "the problem is that there are major ramifications" isn't invalidating my point that there *are* major ramifications for such charges.
Personally, I think there should be much more discretion given to individual law enforcement officers in assessing the situation, with the voting public giving a swift boot to the rear of any Sheriff or Police Chief (or their appointer) who looks the other way in cases of bad decisions by his officers. We don't need less discrimination -- we need wiser discrimination.
Slashdot Mirror
It can be a requirement for professional actors. Michael Keaton was born Michael Douglas, but SAG wouldn't let him use his birth name. There are lots of other examples; in an industry where your name recognition is critical and credits are key, your registered name with the 4As often varies from your birth name.
DBA just means "doing business as", and the requirements vary. Or the lack thereof -- sometimes it's merely a de facto thing rather than needing registration in some states.
I do wonder if I could use JabberWokky -- I'm registered to vote and get regular mail under the name (it's a real world nickname from theater... even my wife calls me it). I do some non-profit work under the name, and have performed on stage with the name.
Amen, grasshoppa!
Seriously -- I am not only paying for it, but I've set dozens of clients up with it, both free and paid. This is not a good situation. Luckily for us, they pretty much have to support it by the time schools let in for the fall. Otherwise, they just borked themselves.
True. However, the rebuttal was pointing out that the context didn't apply.
What's interesting is that modern sports combat based on western martial arts -- meaning sword and shield, full metal armor, but using modern materials -- has shifted over to using things like 6061-T6 aluminum to keep things light. Also Underarmor sweat wicking clothing (seriously). For instance, the SCA, which is interested in individuals or groups meeting in competitive combat rather than a specific battle from a particular time or place. A good deal of effort is put into finding lightweight armor that still protects your bones.
Now comes the twist: It's actually thicker and more durable, because nobody likes to hammer out their armor each week after (or during) fighter practice. So it actually lasts much much longer under a barrage of blows, but is still roughly the same weight. Apparently it's a reasonable weight to fight in, and what you can now take out with modern materials, people are adding back for durability.
Check out http://www.zoombang.com/ for really out there modern armor designed for medieval non-edged combat.
obSemiOffTopic: Deep bruises are just part of the sport -- my wife is very careful to point out early in doctor visits that she's involved in full contact martial arts. Especially as she's 5 foot and petite and I'm 6'3" and huge; we already had one nurse freak out and send me out to have a talk with her about reporting domestic violence. She now carries photos on her phone of herself in armor, holding her helm and grinning happily, just to fend off people who get the wrong idea.
Actually, it is (along with Eris, Makemake, Ceres, Quaoar and many others, mostly with technical identifiers) properly termed a dwarf planet. Not a planet, a dwarf planet. So the article is actually quite correct.
I've found that using VNC on an iPad coupled with x11vnc is almost good enough for a second monitor, and is perfectly fine for things like monitoring tail -f, Twitter or iGoogle and the like. The delay is way too much for something like editing text, but that's what you have the other monitor for. The resolution is a bit too low as well (although x11vnc nicely scales the screen and text is readable), but that's part of the "almost good enough".
Honestly, I'd rather have a small laptop with a really high resolution screen and a tablet with a case that allows it to stand up next to my laptop. Thus, I can use the laptop in the airplane or on the sofa (or the tablet, if they get a bit better), and the pop the tablet next to the laptop in a conference, hotel room or cafe. The various Android tablets may already fit the bill. If there's an X server for them[1] then I'd say it may well actually be good enough for regular use.
Of course, at my office I have a nice 24" Samsung. If only Nouveau could see the mini display port on the 13" MBP 7,1, I'd be perfectly happy (I'm stuck with the Nvidia driver, which has some annoying peculiarities and no advantages if you don't care about 3D).
1 - If you're confused, keep in mind that X servers provide a screen, while the programs that draw on it are clients. For some reason it's a common mistake to get this backwards, probably because the web terminology is roughly the other way around.
sjgames.com seems to still be up, so the Feds seem to have at least improved their aim somewhat.
I believe you mean that Civilization is a game, whereas civilization would be a toy.
Quite correct. I do not expect to be searched. I am not searched on the sidewalk without probable cause. Crimes are committed on the sidewalk, many resulting in deaths. I am not searched in my car without probable cause. Crimes are committed on the roads, many resulting in deaths. I am not searched when I sit at home without probable cause. Crimes are committed in private residences, many resulting in deaths.
I am a United States citizen, and I do not expect to be forced to submit to a government mandated invasive search -- by touch or electronic -- without cause while using non-government services. I am not entering a courthouse, jail, military base or other government run and secured facility. Thus, absent a compelling reason that is specific to the individual, I do not expect them to be able to establish an institutional search of myself or any other citizen while travelling through public space and using commercial services.
You've touched on the core issue: One does not expect to be searched -- absent specific, individual cause -- at permanent (and expanding) checkpoints in a country that espouses liberty and the rights of the individual. Law enforcement can not look in the trunk of my car without cause; they can't look in my backpack without cause. The TSA should not be able to inspect my wife's underwear without cause either. I don't expect them to be able to. That they do so is the problem in sum, not an issue of the expectations of the people of the country.
Wow. In protest of people making jackass assumptions and generalizations about somebody who they barely know and who won't ever hear their complaining, you're making jackass assumptions and generalizations directly to a mass of rather diverse people.
There will be dumb jokes (there's one in the summary already) and even some bitterness; this is an IT heavy crowd. But if you really don't like it, there's no reason to contribute to the hostility. Unless you're simply looking to feel good about being a martyr for the underdog... in which case, you're simply engaged in emotional self-aggrandizement and a pitiable plea for abuse to maintain your self-image. In the end, your comment is not about Gates, nor (unless you are very socially deaf) is it intended to actually change minds. It is as hostile as the hostility you are claiming to loathe.
A strange comment, either a troll or a person lacking perspective.
PADDs are proper computers- they can run arbitrary code.
You meant to say "PADDs are proper computers- they can run fictional code", I presume?
Being jailed for contempt doesn't last forever in the real world. Once it's clear it's not going to be forced, that's the end of being jailed. I'm not sure where you got "seize all your assets", as I've never heard of that happening, even in cases where the witness gets chained because they lunged at the judge (you see some odd things working at a courthouse). Not related to contempt charges for lack of testimony, at any rate.
That said, the whole question here is if you can be forced to give up your password. If not (if it's like a safe combination or the location of a storage unit), then there is no "crime of failing to give up your password". No judge can compel you to give it up. If they can't access it, they can't have it. Plain and simple. The question here is if a password falls under something that can be compelled, like a warrant to be able to walk into your bedroom and search because somebody said they saw you hide something in there (i.e., with cause), or if it's something more akin to compelling somebody to tell you where you put something, which the court can't do.
Or, as a better fit, from the novel "The Kraken Wakes" by John Wyndham. Great book.
Internet email. Commercial activity was not allowed (and by and large didn't happen, Grateful Dead tape barter notwithstanding) on the net before the early 90s. That whole misquote about Al Gore inventing the internet? He was taking credit (and has some right to) for the commercialization of the net. Prior to that, it was funded with various research grants and other funding sources that disallowed commercial activity.
You're might be thinking about a private email service like BIX, Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy or delphi, which all attached to the net at various times in the fairly early 90s, after the restrictions were lifted. Prior to that, they had their own internal mail system, which may well have had spam issues. Canter and Siegel was 1994, if I recall, which was usenet, but was a major event because it came soon after commercial activity was authorized on the net. I'm not sure what the spam curve looked like over the 90s, but internet email (and ARPA, TELENET, Tymnet and other networks that coalesced into the net) had basically zero spam for the first 20 years or so.
Why yes, I *do* have a long grey beard...
There is the "snow in Bahamas" effect. People in Pittsburgh don't freak out and gawk at snow in January. However, I was well over 30 before I ever saw it snow in real life. My wife had never seen it either. We moved to Pennsylvania and both of us just watched it all day in wonder as it came down. It was amazing and impossible to comprehend at a base level. We decided not to drive until observing other people (having no idea what level of ice was safe).
By the end of winter, it was still neat, but we were both much more practical about it, having learned how to drive, shovel it, where and when to strew salt, etc. Before a plane hit the Pentagon and two collapsed buildings in the biggest city, nobody in a century had mounted a notable and successful attack on US military or civilians in any state of the union (although one territory was quite notably hit by the Empire of Japan's Navy a bit less than a century back).
I'm content with it being a rare event in the US, even if it makes it tough to get everybody to react appropriately. You're casually tossing out dates for recent events; the US -- so far -- only has two major dates for attacks in the last hundred years, and one was in 1941, poised to fade from living memory in the next couple decades.
May you and yours have no dates of memory other than happy ones. May our children (or children's children) not know about such activities except through history books. But while dealing with it, yes, those who deal with it on a regular basis will (hopefully!) be better able to handle it.
Geocaching is a populist hobby or game. There are no absolute rules; a given website (and there are many out there with different rules listed) has no more control over people geocaching on their own than a website listing rules about how to play with a cat using a laser pointer can control somebody amusing themselves in their living room.
Let me preempt the most obvious reply: There is a patent covering the latter, of course...
Moreover, this is about inventing, which is different than being either a scientist or an engineer. It doesn't matter how it works, if you know why it works, or even if you know the specific limits. It just matters that it does work.
Afterwards, the engineers can descend upon it and find the limits (and probably improve them), the scientists can descend and figure out why it works (and thus apply it to other aspects of life). The inventor only cares that it does the task he or she sees that needs to be addressed.
If you haven't read it, read Ike's exit speech (where he famously coined "military industrial complex") and consider the points he makes about the danger of only trusting sources with large funding, who become dependent upon government and corporate funds -- and thus government and corporate decision making processes.
It seems if I get the actual story correct that it is the same terms (that you not call it under the name of the original author's project if you make changes to it) that were the reason a bunch of people and groups (like debian) rejected ion3 and argued with the author until he washed his hands of the whole thing and quit open source?
Sure, the code is open. The project identity is another thing entirely. Some of the larger groups (KDE, for instance) have run into this and split the project identity and actual codebase (or for KDE, codebases) into distinct categories. What is Android? It's code, sure, but I (and apparently Google) would say it is also an expectation of certain conventions and available tools.
Who? People are probably suffering radiation exposure in Austria at about the same rate as they ever have.
I understand your point, but those alert systems are for a wide variety of issues. Say there's a really bad chemical spill in an area where students typically walk through... are you implying that the administrators should shoot the spill to trigger the alarm?
Although, some of the ice at Penn State (which sent out notices using their system when the weather closed down the school) might best be dealt with using a steady application of gunfire.
She's worked for the Travel Channel. It wouldn't surprise me if she's done some magazine articles. At the very least, her statement in the ad jibes with her career. I wonder if Joseph Kolinski has sold real estate.
Honestly, if they were actors, being paid as actors to portray characters, wouldn't they be using character names? This kind of sounds like they may have picked a minor side job they do when they can't find acting work and used that as their career. Otherwise, why use their real names if they are playing wholly fictitious characters? It's not exactly like they would balk at playing a part using a character name.
Well, Nokia still owns Qt... Digia is only handling the commercial software licensing and professional services for Qt. Basically, Digia are licensed to sell the product, but Nokia still owns and develops it in-house.
Not exactly going "all in".
I like to think that if enough kids start doing this type of thing, the hysteria will be reduced:
Probably not the best mechanism, given that some of the assertions are actually true. But as I said in my other reply... the cause for the reaction is certainly hysteria. But that doesn't mean that these particular people involved today weren't doing things that have major ramifications at the current time.
Stashing cocaine on people randomly (another form of accusing the innocent) to protest the drug laws is an interesting idea[1]. It's also going to wind up sending at least some of the people to jail. I agree with the goal, but rampant accusations of the innocent is not the best mechanism for chance.
1 - I chose this example because, if you're protesting drug laws, unlike pedophilia where there would be actual abuse cases being lost, you probably don't think anybody who is either breaking the current laws or not is guilty of anything. Basically, even with eliminating the "real cases get ignored" aspect, you're still screwing over innocent people.
Oh, I agree completely. But saying "the problem is that there are major ramifications" isn't invalidating my point that there *are* major ramifications for such charges.
Personally, I think there should be much more discretion given to individual law enforcement officers in assessing the situation, with the voting public giving a swift boot to the rear of any Sheriff or Police Chief (or their appointer) who looks the other way in cases of bad decisions by his officers. We don't need less discrimination -- we need wiser discrimination.