Why would the duration matter, unless you think cars being impaled from underneath with 25 tons of force for any duration is normal? Who the hell taught you how to drive?
Yes, it's so dangerous I remember them demoing it in elementary school. Indoors. Without so much as warning the fire department. They filled some balloons with hydrogen and then lit them with a match. It was so horribly explosive, students had to stay at least 10 whole feet away. So dangerous, you'd miss the fireball it if you blinked.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
They're not saying he broke any laws, they're just saying what he did was inappropriate and not in line with what he's expected to do as an employee. There's no First Amendment issue here because the government is acting as an employer... it's not using it's powers as the government in firing him.
I make sure to include the local Dropbox, Box.net and Skydrive folders in my PC's nightly backups. If you're going to be backing up your computer anyway (as you should be), it's almost no extra effort to include those folders as well.
Any remotely sensitive files I keep in Dropbox, Box, or SkyDrive (I use all three) I encrypt as surely as if it were on a USB drive that I might accidentally drop somewhere. Even if it's just MS Office's built-in encryption or an encrypted zip archive, it's a hell of a lot better than nothing.
The government is acting as an employer in the decision to fire him. Any employer, public or private, should be allowed to fire an employee who is publicly criticizing it (with an exception for whistleblowing... which this wasn't). It's a giant conflict of interest, especially for a job with access to sensitive information. Punishment beyond firing him would be too far, of course, and then might run into First Amendment issues but just firing him seems like a reasonable response.
Here's a good rule of thumb: If you'd get fired for yelling it in the office, you'll get fired for doing it online in the office. If you'd get fired for yelling it on the street, you'll get fired for doing it online period.
Most companies would fire someone for going around telling people in the general public that their company sucks. If nothing else, it's a big ol' conflict of interests.
A few questions that would be interesting to know the answers to:
- Is the power consumption deficiency the same across all hardware or does it close the gap on certain pieces of hardware? - Is the consumption deficiency gap the same on tablets vs laptops vs PCs? - How much can Windows 8 be tweaked to save battery life (IE: disabled unneeded services)? - Does it manage power of certain pieces of hardware better than others (SSD vs HDD, AMD vs Intel)? - Do drivers make a difference in power consumption? - How many hamsters have heart attacks every time Windows 8 is benchmarked?
The Articles of Confederation have not been in use since 1789... so I think we can safely discard them in any discussion about modern states. One of my professors pointed out an interested change in linguistics after the Civil War. Prior to the war, "United States" was almost always a plural ("The United States are...") but after the war, it became a singular noun ("The United States is..."). The Civil War was basically the end of the question of state sovereignty in the US. It's also one of the reasons the Confederate States were a confederation (and not a federation)... confederate states are independently sovereign and can freely secede from the confederation, but in a federal government, they have shared sovereignty with the federal government at best.
The problem isn't a lack of hardware, it's largely issues with the software. So adding more hardware to fix a software problem is like putting a bigger engine in your car because you have a flat tire. It might let you power through it, but it doesn't fix the problem. Likewise, fixing the flat tire doesn't magically let your car run off an electric toothbrush... but it does let the car run off the engine it already has.
"Sovereign state" refers to a country/nation... I've never seen it used to mean one state of the United States. The United States as a whole is a sovereign state, the individual states are not. I couldn't find a Google search query that returned any results calling them sovereign states either. There are some definitions of sovereignty that sort of fits states rights, but none of them declare the 50 states absolutely sovereign (which is something the Civil War largely solved).
It's a little true, but with a lot of spin. They were warned (by the GSA iirc) months in advance that their estimates for site traffic were way, way, way too low. It wasn't any last minute surprise that 36 states are using the Federal website instead of running their own.
I nominate for worst analogy of the day. Zero of the fifty states are sovereign, nor has any state ever been (any state that was once a sovereign nation gave up that sovereignty upon acquiring statehood). There is a separation in powers between states and feds, but it is absolutely nothing like the UN and member nations. The UN cannot make and enforce laws in member nations, the Fed can make and enforce laws in states. You could argue that healthcare is the responsibility of states, not the Fed, but that's a completely different argument than the one you're apparently trying to make. It's more like a county government forcing each town within it to enforce new dog license laws.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're missing a number... 460 + 12 does not equal 476, unless M is some weird number I'm not familiar with.
In that case, I'm going to start calling it the Hyndinbourgh.
Why would the duration matter, unless you think cars being impaled from underneath with 25 tons of force for any duration is normal? Who the hell taught you how to drive?
Yes, it's so dangerous I remember them demoing it in elementary school. Indoors. Without so much as warning the fire department. They filled some balloons with hydrogen and then lit them with a match. It was so horribly explosive, students had to stay at least 10 whole feet away. So dangerous, you'd miss the fireball it if you blinked.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
They're not saying he broke any laws, they're just saying what he did was inappropriate and not in line with what he's expected to do as an employee. There's no First Amendment issue here because the government is acting as an employer... it's not using it's powers as the government in firing him.
Most people have stuff like pictures and documents that they prefer to survive a hard disk failure... if you don't, you're part of a very small group.
I wouldn't call the NSA's repository "free and easily accessible"... unless you know their root password? Sharesies?
I make sure to include the local Dropbox, Box.net and Skydrive folders in my PC's nightly backups. If you're going to be backing up your computer anyway (as you should be), it's almost no extra effort to include those folders as well.
I can sum up exactly why people do it in three words: fast, easy, convenient.
Once you start handling it yourself, all three of those are going to take a hit - and for non-technical people, it can be a pretty heavy hit.
Any remotely sensitive files I keep in Dropbox, Box, or SkyDrive (I use all three) I encrypt as surely as if it were on a USB drive that I might accidentally drop somewhere. Even if it's just MS Office's built-in encryption or an encrypted zip archive, it's a hell of a lot better than nothing.
The government is acting as an employer in the decision to fire him. Any employer, public or private, should be allowed to fire an employee who is publicly criticizing it (with an exception for whistleblowing... which this wasn't). It's a giant conflict of interest, especially for a job with access to sensitive information. Punishment beyond firing him would be too far, of course, and then might run into First Amendment issues but just firing him seems like a reasonable response.
Anonymity is just security through obscurity... it's nice when it works, but you really shouldn't count on it to do stupid shit.
Here's a good rule of thumb: If you'd get fired for yelling it in the office, you'll get fired for doing it online in the office. If you'd get fired for yelling it on the street, you'll get fired for doing it online period.
Most companies would fire someone for going around telling people in the general public that their company sucks. If nothing else, it's a big ol' conflict of interests.
Even in NY, not all guns need to be registered except for certain Freedom-free zones (like NYC)
This doesn't seem all that original... I've seen more than a few instances of pig farmers trapping the methane generated by pig farts.
I always thought the human battery idea was sort of like saying we use potatoes to power the LHC.
Warning: The State of Texas is known to the State of Californian to contain regular unleaded.
Would you be so kind as to quote where in the article those questions are answered? I looked through and didn't see.
A few questions that would be interesting to know the answers to:
- Is the power consumption deficiency the same across all hardware or does it close the gap on certain pieces of hardware?
- Is the consumption deficiency gap the same on tablets vs laptops vs PCs?
- How much can Windows 8 be tweaked to save battery life (IE: disabled unneeded services)?
- Does it manage power of certain pieces of hardware better than others (SSD vs HDD, AMD vs Intel)?
- Do drivers make a difference in power consumption?
- How many hamsters have heart attacks every time Windows 8 is benchmarked?
The Articles of Confederation have not been in use since 1789... so I think we can safely discard them in any discussion about modern states. One of my professors pointed out an interested change in linguistics after the Civil War. Prior to the war, "United States" was almost always a plural ("The United States are...") but after the war, it became a singular noun ("The United States is..."). The Civil War was basically the end of the question of state sovereignty in the US. It's also one of the reasons the Confederate States were a confederation (and not a federation)... confederate states are independently sovereign and can freely secede from the confederation, but in a federal government, they have shared sovereignty with the federal government at best.
The problem isn't a lack of hardware, it's largely issues with the software. So adding more hardware to fix a software problem is like putting a bigger engine in your car because you have a flat tire. It might let you power through it, but it doesn't fix the problem. Likewise, fixing the flat tire doesn't magically let your car run off an electric toothbrush... but it does let the car run off the engine it already has.
"Sovereign state" refers to a country/nation... I've never seen it used to mean one state of the United States. The United States as a whole is a sovereign state, the individual states are not. I couldn't find a Google search query that returned any results calling them sovereign states either. There are some definitions of sovereignty that sort of fits states rights, but none of them declare the 50 states absolutely sovereign (which is something the Civil War largely solved).
Odd, my insurance company covers birth control but not Viagra.
And don't forget that Viagra has uses beyond just sustaining erections... unless it helps your argument, then by all means forget it.
It's a little true, but with a lot of spin. They were warned (by the GSA iirc) months in advance that their estimates for site traffic were way, way, way too low. It wasn't any last minute surprise that 36 states are using the Federal website instead of running their own.
I nominate for worst analogy of the day.
Zero of the fifty states are sovereign, nor has any state ever been (any state that was once a sovereign nation gave up that sovereignty upon acquiring statehood). There is a separation in powers between states and feds, but it is absolutely nothing like the UN and member nations. The UN cannot make and enforce laws in member nations, the Fed can make and enforce laws in states. You could argue that healthcare is the responsibility of states, not the Fed, but that's a completely different argument than the one you're apparently trying to make. It's more like a county government forcing each town within it to enforce new dog license laws.