it's legal because it's right in the law as passed. Almost all laws have exceptions that say things like "except when done by law enforcement agents while working on a case." Speeding, kiddie porn, cell phones while driving, it's all over the place.
No kidding. If I was a governmental agency trying to act all secretive, I'd probably start with a comcast or fios account that leads to a storage unit or something. It would be mind bogglingly stupid to engage in surveillance that can be traced back to the IP block of the agency.
You are racist, because skin color is not a predictor of behavior. Even if 90% of green people were criminals, you are still sort of an asshole for prejudging the remaining 10% for the crimes of their neighbors.
If there was no race, there would still be bad neighborhoods.
There are some areas that have artificially high crime rates because they have a very low population (at least as far as the census goes) but a very high number of visitors. There is a zip code in Chicago that had (or still has) an assault rate of something like 25%. Not because it is a war zone, but because that's where a stadium is, and almost nobody lives in the area.
You're somewhat right about using task forces, but police are hesitant to do that because it puts them in danger. They are too worried about the slim chance some piece of shit is going to smack them on the head with a brick before they see it coming. Also, the police are often kept busy with responding to 911 calls to be able to do any proactive policing like that. When there are resources available for such things, they spend the time trying to catch drug dealers and prostitutes.
I don't know if that's true or not, but regardless, what difference does race make? How does that change the impact of the crime? Only racists care what color the perp is; the rest of us just care whether the numbers go up or down.
But there is so much ocean, that even a small percentage will net you tons and tons. And a nice nuclear plant with access to seawater running full-bore desalinating and pulling Li ions out of the spillage would probably not be all that expensive. Long term, anyway.
Economy of scale only works because it lowers overhead. A lot of costs are per-transaction, not per-piece. Having to open new factories raises overhead rather than lowering it.
It's a speed limit, not a requirement. They have just as much right to go slow as you do to speed. You don't have to like it, but if you believe in freedom, you have to accept it.
Maybe this isn't universal, but I was taught that you can't exceed the speed limit when you are passing. Everyone does, but it isn't legal. If you have to speed to make passing someone worthwhile, then you probably don't really need to pass them.
Nobody cares about this because Its relative speed that kills.
That's just a fancy way of trying to blame the slower driver for an accident. The energy contained in the system is what kills. Watch auto racing some time if you need proof. Accidents happen all the time that are caused by only the most minor of speed differences. And they would be fatal if the drivers weren't surrounded with flameproof bubblewrap inside a rollcage.
If one car is going 20 mph and the other is going 5 mph, a sideswipe is going to grind some paint and cause some discomfort. If one car is going 80 and the other is going 65, one of them is going in the ditch, at a minimum.
There is nothing wrong with crystal meth when it is clean and used at an appropriate dose. But street users use way too much of it and fry their brains out.
If I remember correctly, IQ tests are age-adjusted. On average, completely average people who score 100 at 18 should also score 100 at 38. So what they are saying is that pot smokers (allegedly) fall under the curve.
If I remember the history correctly, the shift happened a little more gradually. Originally, cell plans were just like landline plans. If you wanted to call long distance, you would have to subscribe to one of the long distance carriers. (AT&T, Sprint, MCI?) Then, as the long distance carriers created their own cellular companies, long distance began to get included as a loss-leader. Also, it made the billing easier. Why charge 10 cents or 30 cents a minute, depending, when you could just charge 20 cents for all the minutes? There was also roaming charges. You used to have to pay extra to use another cellular network. Then there were roaming-included plans, where it cost a little more a month to have free roaming. Then they consolidated that and just made everyone pay for free roaming. Basically. Then there was free mobile to mobile calling.
It all kind of happened at the same time, such that about 5 years ago, it just became easier/cheaper to NOT change your number.
In the US, the system was set up so that the phone number could tell the switching equipment where it needed to be routed, just like IP routing. 312 xxx yyyy? Send it to Chicago. The next three digits told the equipment which telephone exchange to send it to. The last 4 digits told the exchange which line to send it to. When mobile phones first came out, there weren't nearly as many area codes, and cellular + telephone companies were regional. If you bought a cell phone in Chicago, you would have to get a 312 number, because the exchange that handled cellular traffic was in the 312 area. Where else would it be? You call the number, a computer inside the exchange terminates the call from the landline network, and from there it figures out how to route the call along the cellular network.
Also, adding area codes meant that every long distance phone switch would have to be programmed to recognize the new prefix. Why should Bell Atlantic have to do anything just because CellularOne opened up a service in Chicago? Also, many people simply objected to the idea of cellular-only area codes because they felt it would create confusion and mistrust in the minds of callers. They weren't going to call a service person with an 847 area code, because they would think they were going to have to pay long distance rates for the call. And why would I, in Chicago, want to call a plumber who didn't even live in the same area code as me? (This has, of course, changed in the last 5-10 years, but cellular service has been around a lot longer than that and the decisions were made before people were comfortable with the idea. And before people had telephone service that didn't differentiate between local and long distance.)
The compromise made a sort of logical sense also. The system always was basically set up like this: the caller pays the freight to get the call to the local exchange, and the receiver pays to get the call from the exchange to their house. Instead of paying per minute or per call, however, receiving calls was just part of the local access charge. So when cellular came along, it seemed natural to make the owner of the cell phone pay the extra costs in getting that call to the end user. In fact, that's how it was originally billed. You weren't getting charged for the phone call, you were getting charged for air time. IE, use of the wireless network. If you didn't want to get charged, you didn't answer the phone.
Trustworthiness is not the same ideological or ethical. Even if you believe that Snowden was completely right in what he did, you cannot deny that he broke the trust of his employer.
In the first place, admins shouldn't have root access to information, only the operating system. There is no reason why an administrator needs to be able to see the contents of home directories, for example. Or the contents of the data in a database.
In the second place, almost nobody should have root access. Just the privileges they need to do their jobs. Even if an admin somehow needs access to see actual secret information, they should NOT have the ability to copy it to a thumb drive. There is no reason to ever allow thumb drives onto systems, except perhaps off line to deploy/reimage systems.
If you want a secure system, build it so that it doesn't require trust. If you need to go into a server room, someone else is watching you. If you need to see a user's data, you do it with the user looking over your shoulder. If you have policies and systems that require this kind of verification and cross checking, nobody needs to trust anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
it's legal because it's right in the law as passed. Almost all laws have exceptions that say things like "except when done by law enforcement agents while working on a case." Speeding, kiddie porn, cell phones while driving, it's all over the place.
There is no right to break the law.
No kidding. If I was a governmental agency trying to act all secretive, I'd probably start with a comcast or fios account that leads to a storage unit or something. It would be mind bogglingly stupid to engage in surveillance that can be traced back to the IP block of the agency.
The NSA isn't military.
That is my understanding as well. Black holes aren't magic, they are just really dense things.
Your first mistake was trusting any storage medium, or relying on the notion that you might get some warning when the drive fails.
Ghetto as a word is all about race- defacto or forced segregation based solely upon race. But it also has nothing to do with crime.
You are racist, because skin color is not a predictor of behavior. Even if 90% of green people were criminals, you are still sort of an asshole for prejudging the remaining 10% for the crimes of their neighbors.
If there was no race, there would still be bad neighborhoods.
There are some areas that have artificially high crime rates because they have a very low population (at least as far as the census goes) but a very high number of visitors. There is a zip code in Chicago that had (or still has) an assault rate of something like 25%. Not because it is a war zone, but because that's where a stadium is, and almost nobody lives in the area.
You're somewhat right about using task forces, but police are hesitant to do that because it puts them in danger. They are too worried about the slim chance some piece of shit is going to smack them on the head with a brick before they see it coming. Also, the police are often kept busy with responding to 911 calls to be able to do any proactive policing like that. When there are resources available for such things, they spend the time trying to catch drug dealers and prostitutes.
I don't know if that's true or not, but regardless, what difference does race make? How does that change the impact of the crime? Only racists care what color the perp is; the rest of us just care whether the numbers go up or down.
There is a difference between poverty-ridden and crime-ridden. People living in actual poverty aren't going to be walking around in $300 shoes.
I would think the large surface area of a bunch of little cells would be advantageous.
But there is so much ocean, that even a small percentage will net you tons and tons. And a nice nuclear plant with access to seawater running full-bore desalinating and pulling Li ions out of the spillage would probably not be all that expensive. Long term, anyway.
Economy of scale only works because it lowers overhead. A lot of costs are per-transaction, not per-piece. Having to open new factories raises overhead rather than lowering it.
It's a speed limit, not a requirement. They have just as much right to go slow as you do to speed. You don't have to like it, but if you believe in freedom, you have to accept it.
Maybe this isn't universal, but I was taught that you can't exceed the speed limit when you are passing. Everyone does, but it isn't legal. If you have to speed to make passing someone worthwhile, then you probably don't really need to pass them.
We also vastly underestimate the ability of our cars to accelerate. Our brains speed up in adrenalin situations, but our cars don't.
Nobody cares about this because Its relative speed that kills.
That's just a fancy way of trying to blame the slower driver for an accident. The energy contained in the system is what kills. Watch auto racing some time if you need proof. Accidents happen all the time that are caused by only the most minor of speed differences. And they would be fatal if the drivers weren't surrounded with flameproof bubblewrap inside a rollcage.
If one car is going 20 mph and the other is going 5 mph, a sideswipe is going to grind some paint and cause some discomfort. If one car is going 80 and the other is going 65, one of them is going in the ditch, at a minimum.
Because some people aren't going to go out and buy helmets just to ride a bike.
There is nothing wrong with crystal meth when it is clean and used at an appropriate dose. But street users use way too much of it and fry their brains out.
If I remember correctly, IQ tests are age-adjusted. On average, completely average people who score 100 at 18 should also score 100 at 38. So what they are saying is that pot smokers (allegedly) fall under the curve.
If I remember the history correctly, the shift happened a little more gradually. Originally, cell plans were just like landline plans. If you wanted to call long distance, you would have to subscribe to one of the long distance carriers. (AT&T, Sprint, MCI?) Then, as the long distance carriers created their own cellular companies, long distance began to get included as a loss-leader. Also, it made the billing easier. Why charge 10 cents or 30 cents a minute, depending, when you could just charge 20 cents for all the minutes? There was also roaming charges. You used to have to pay extra to use another cellular network. Then there were roaming-included plans, where it cost a little more a month to have free roaming. Then they consolidated that and just made everyone pay for free roaming. Basically. Then there was free mobile to mobile calling.
It all kind of happened at the same time, such that about 5 years ago, it just became easier/cheaper to NOT change your number.
In the US, the system was set up so that the phone number could tell the switching equipment where it needed to be routed, just like IP routing. 312 xxx yyyy? Send it to Chicago. The next three digits told the equipment which telephone exchange to send it to. The last 4 digits told the exchange which line to send it to. When mobile phones first came out, there weren't nearly as many area codes, and cellular + telephone companies were regional. If you bought a cell phone in Chicago, you would have to get a 312 number, because the exchange that handled cellular traffic was in the 312 area. Where else would it be? You call the number, a computer inside the exchange terminates the call from the landline network, and from there it figures out how to route the call along the cellular network.
Also, adding area codes meant that every long distance phone switch would have to be programmed to recognize the new prefix. Why should Bell Atlantic have to do anything just because CellularOne opened up a service in Chicago? Also, many people simply objected to the idea of cellular-only area codes because they felt it would create confusion and mistrust in the minds of callers. They weren't going to call a service person with an 847 area code, because they would think they were going to have to pay long distance rates for the call. And why would I, in Chicago, want to call a plumber who didn't even live in the same area code as me? (This has, of course, changed in the last 5-10 years, but cellular service has been around a lot longer than that and the decisions were made before people were comfortable with the idea. And before people had telephone service that didn't differentiate between local and long distance.)
The compromise made a sort of logical sense also. The system always was basically set up like this: the caller pays the freight to get the call to the local exchange, and the receiver pays to get the call from the exchange to their house. Instead of paying per minute or per call, however, receiving calls was just part of the local access charge. So when cellular came along, it seemed natural to make the owner of the cell phone pay the extra costs in getting that call to the end user. In fact, that's how it was originally billed. You weren't getting charged for the phone call, you were getting charged for air time. IE, use of the wireless network. If you didn't want to get charged, you didn't answer the phone.
Trustworthiness is not the same ideological or ethical. Even if you believe that Snowden was completely right in what he did, you cannot deny that he broke the trust of his employer.
In the first place, admins shouldn't have root access to information, only the operating system. There is no reason why an administrator needs to be able to see the contents of home directories, for example. Or the contents of the data in a database.
In the second place, almost nobody should have root access. Just the privileges they need to do their jobs. Even if an admin somehow needs access to see actual secret information, they should NOT have the ability to copy it to a thumb drive. There is no reason to ever allow thumb drives onto systems, except perhaps off line to deploy/reimage systems.
If you want a secure system, build it so that it doesn't require trust. If you need to go into a server room, someone else is watching you. If you need to see a user's data, you do it with the user looking over your shoulder. If you have policies and systems that require this kind of verification and cross checking, nobody needs to trust anyone.