The network could do it (it's part of the GSM spec, as you note), but the phones didn't have the software. My Blackberry has been getting these alerts for 6-12 months now. SMS would be a horrible idea, because they are not prioritized traffic on the network, and not broadcastable. You'd have to have a machine generating SMS messages for every phone number, which would take days to get through and probably take down the network.
For two reasons: one, things built purely or mostly compressive become massive very quickly. Think pyramids and pre-skyscraper era buildings. Two, because the world isn't stable. Driveways and roads don't crack because they get over compressed, they crack because the ground under them shifts and what was a nice solid base turns into a highly brittle plank spanning some void underneath. Blam. Nature has transformed your nice solid thing into a crumbly mess. Bonus third reason: you can't have spans without tensile strength. Beams don't fail because their edges crush out, they fail because their middles crack open. That's why old buildings were mostly columns. There is almost no use for structures that require that much overhead.
Also, stainless steel depends on a passivation (sp?) layer of some kind of oxide that forms when the metal is exposed to oxygen. It won't get that if it is encased in concrete.
Depends on how you define quality. I believe it can have better frequency response, limited only by the mass of the recording and playback styluses. (When I've hooked up a turntable to a computer and looked at the frequencies, I can see frequencies above 20khz. Whether they are useful or necessary is a different story.) But everything else is worse.
MP3 is nice in that it really only specifies what a file must look like in order to be played back. The algorithms use to encode the data can vary; it is what decides what information gets removed. I don't know what the current state of the art is, but I'd bet you can very close to lossless at a similar file size to FLAC. Not that you'd bother given that FLAC exists, but the point is that MP3 isn't necessarily inherently bad.
The right of free association is not the right to be free FROM association. Think whatever you want, hang out with whomever you want. But if you are going to run a business, there is a higher expectation.
Yep. I want my computers to be appliances, not timesinks and hobbies. I have a linux fileserver because it works better for my needs. I have Windows desktops because they work better for what I need. On the rare occasion I need to do something a little more nitty-gritty and/or computer sciencey, I'll log into the linux machine and do it there. Sometimes, piping stuff back and forth and knocking up a script is just easier there. But for 100% of my daily usage, Windows is easier.
I was speaking more from the government's perspective. And/or the entire pool of investors. Yes, high risk must work out somewhat more profitably in the end, but not by very much. Otherwise more people would try to get in on the action and raise the price / dilute the reward.
Maybe he should train some devs to take over some of the stuff he's doing. If Linus's genius is the only thing that keeps Linux on track, he's doing it wrong. Delegate or Linux will not survive long term.
If it's riskier, then in aggregate, the profit will even out. Higher risk means the rewards ultimately balance out the losses. Especially since you can deduct losses against gains. There are lots of reasons why cap gains tax is lower, but risk isn't one of them. I personally don't think cap gains rates should be lower, because income is income. Different rates means that we aren't taxing income, we are taxing work.
Who gets to define living wage? That's the problem. Libertarianism says that the best people to determine a price are the buyers and sellers of a product or service.
If you look at the history of modern libertarianism, you'll note that a lot of the early proponents were rich people who had their shit taken away by a revolutionary government. If a government has the power to take some of your stuff, it has the power to take all of it.
They have the hard drive; they have control of the evidence. It is up to the prosecution to sufficiently explain how the evidence connects up to the crime charged. The relevant text is
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
Giving up a password or being forced to enter the password is indeed being a witness against oneself. The only way to introduce evidence is through the testimony of some witness. The police can say testify that they found this hard drive looking hunk of metal in your house, and then some expert can get on the stand and proclaim that the drive functions that that it contains random seeming data. But to decrypt it, you would have to get on the stand, be sworn in as a witness, and asked to enter the password. It is no different than being called to the stand and asked to explain to the judge how you held the knife when you stabbed your wife.
Suppose you stored some incriminating evidence on a piece of paper, written in a language only you know. Could you be forced to translate it? My view would be no. Not even because of the 5th amendment, but because that kind of evidence would be horribly suspect. Someone who testifies on their own behalf is irretrievably biased for (or against, if they are crazy) themselves.
Agree. It *should* be really hard to lock up the guilty, because it ought to be horrifying to all decent people to imagine that there are innocents locked up. Or worse, put to death. At the same time, it *should* be really easy to lock up the guilty, because we should have strong evidence that proves it.
If some guilty people fall through the cracks, that's the price to be paid for having a just society. There is no justice when the innocent are punished.
If you aren't a suspect, ie, where answering would not incriminate yourself, the fifth amendment doesn't apply. You still don't have to talk, unless and until you are subpoenaed by a court, and at that point you must answer the question.
Of course, a rational person would tell the officer they were at the movie, but to keep it under his hat so his wife doesn't get mad. Like most people, police officers understand reasonable explanations and get suspicious when people's explanations don't make sense.
I think the "let me remind you, you are under oath" thing is a TV trope. The reality is "anything you can be used against you." We have the right to not answer questions, we don't have the right to lie. Lying to law enforcement is akin to assisting someone in the commission of a crime. Even if it is yourself.
Yes. The author of this piece is a moron. It is EXACTLY the right to not be forced to testify. Without that specific right being carved out, defendents would be in the same spot as other witnesses: compelled to answer truthfully under penalty of jail. Without this right, one could be punished for pleading not guilty. Without this right, the state does not have to prove its case.
"Admit you are a witch or we will throw you in jail!"
What happens if I admit I'm a witch?
"We will throw you in jail!"
Anyone who doesn't understand the point of the 5th amendment, well, I just don't understand...
Except you can't really successfully portscan the 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 internal addresses on the smallest possible IPv6 network, a/64. NAT doesn't create security, just the illusion of it.
Slashdot Mirror
The network could do it (it's part of the GSM spec, as you note), but the phones didn't have the software. My Blackberry has been getting these alerts for 6-12 months now. SMS would be a horrible idea, because they are not prioritized traffic on the network, and not broadcastable. You'd have to have a machine generating SMS messages for every phone number, which would take days to get through and probably take down the network.
For two reasons: one, things built purely or mostly compressive become massive very quickly. Think pyramids and pre-skyscraper era buildings. Two, because the world isn't stable. Driveways and roads don't crack because they get over compressed, they crack because the ground under them shifts and what was a nice solid base turns into a highly brittle plank spanning some void underneath. Blam. Nature has transformed your nice solid thing into a crumbly mess. Bonus third reason: you can't have spans without tensile strength. Beams don't fail because their edges crush out, they fail because their middles crack open. That's why old buildings were mostly columns. There is almost no use for structures that require that much overhead.
Things that seem waterproof on a 20 year scale often aren't quite so waterproof on a 200 year scale.
Also, stainless steel depends on a passivation (sp?) layer of some kind of oxide that forms when the metal is exposed to oxygen. It won't get that if it is encased in concrete.
A funny thing happens when you google younger fill and roman cities.
Or to put in in perspective, it's so far apart like the Civil War from us today.
I fear the same attitudes that caused the civil war are coming back to a head again today. It may yet be the end of the empire.
Depends on how you define quality. I believe it can have better frequency response, limited only by the mass of the recording and playback styluses. (When I've hooked up a turntable to a computer and looked at the frequencies, I can see frequencies above 20khz. Whether they are useful or necessary is a different story.) But everything else is worse.
MP3 is nice in that it really only specifies what a file must look like in order to be played back. The algorithms use to encode the data can vary; it is what decides what information gets removed. I don't know what the current state of the art is, but I'd bet you can very close to lossless at a similar file size to FLAC. Not that you'd bother given that FLAC exists, but the point is that MP3 isn't necessarily inherently bad.
What other format should someone use? It is mathematically provably lossless. There is literally no reason not to use it.
The right of free association is not the right to be free FROM association. Think whatever you want, hang out with whomever you want. But if you are going to run a business, there is a higher expectation.
FMLA caps out at three months.
Yep. I want my computers to be appliances, not timesinks and hobbies. I have a linux fileserver because it works better for my needs. I have Windows desktops because they work better for what I need. On the rare occasion I need to do something a little more nitty-gritty and/or computer sciencey, I'll log into the linux machine and do it there. Sometimes, piping stuff back and forth and knocking up a script is just easier there. But for 100% of my daily usage, Windows is easier.
I was speaking more from the government's perspective. And/or the entire pool of investors. Yes, high risk must work out somewhat more profitably in the end, but not by very much. Otherwise more people would try to get in on the action and raise the price / dilute the reward.
Maybe he should train some devs to take over some of the stuff he's doing. If Linus's genius is the only thing that keeps Linux on track, he's doing it wrong. Delegate or Linux will not survive long term.
If it's riskier, then in aggregate, the profit will even out. Higher risk means the rewards ultimately balance out the losses. Especially since you can deduct losses against gains. There are lots of reasons why cap gains tax is lower, but risk isn't one of them. I personally don't think cap gains rates should be lower, because income is income. Different rates means that we aren't taxing income, we are taxing work.
Who gets to define living wage? That's the problem. Libertarianism says that the best people to determine a price are the buyers and sellers of a product or service.
If you look at the history of modern libertarianism, you'll note that a lot of the early proponents were rich people who had their shit taken away by a revolutionary government. If a government has the power to take some of your stuff, it has the power to take all of it.
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
Giving up a password or being forced to enter the password is indeed being a witness against oneself. The only way to introduce evidence is through the testimony of some witness. The police can say testify that they found this hard drive looking hunk of metal in your house, and then some expert can get on the stand and proclaim that the drive functions that that it contains random seeming data. But to decrypt it, you would have to get on the stand, be sworn in as a witness, and asked to enter the password. It is no different than being called to the stand and asked to explain to the judge how you held the knife when you stabbed your wife.
Suppose you stored some incriminating evidence on a piece of paper, written in a language only you know. Could you be forced to translate it? My view would be no. Not even because of the 5th amendment, but because that kind of evidence would be horribly suspect. Someone who testifies on their own behalf is irretrievably biased for (or against, if they are crazy) themselves.
Agree. It *should* be really hard to lock up the guilty, because it ought to be horrifying to all decent people to imagine that there are innocents locked up. Or worse, put to death. At the same time, it *should* be really easy to lock up the guilty, because we should have strong evidence that proves it.
If some guilty people fall through the cracks, that's the price to be paid for having a just society. There is no justice when the innocent are punished.
If you aren't a suspect, ie, where answering would not incriminate yourself, the fifth amendment doesn't apply. You still don't have to talk, unless and until you are subpoenaed by a court, and at that point you must answer the question.
Of course, a rational person would tell the officer they were at the movie, but to keep it under his hat so his wife doesn't get mad. Like most people, police officers understand reasonable explanations and get suspicious when people's explanations don't make sense.
I think the "let me remind you, you are under oath" thing is a TV trope. The reality is "anything you can be used against you." We have the right to not answer questions, we don't have the right to lie. Lying to law enforcement is akin to assisting someone in the commission of a crime. Even if it is yourself.
Yes. The author of this piece is a moron. It is EXACTLY the right to not be forced to testify. Without that specific right being carved out, defendents would be in the same spot as other witnesses: compelled to answer truthfully under penalty of jail. Without this right, one could be punished for pleading not guilty. Without this right, the state does not have to prove its case.
"Admit you are a witch or we will throw you in jail!"
What happens if I admit I'm a witch?
"We will throw you in jail!"
Anyone who doesn't understand the point of the 5th amendment, well, I just don't understand...
Dual stack servers are starting to show up out there. When I ping6ed a bunch of webservers, they all replied.
Except you can't really successfully portscan the 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 internal addresses on the smallest possible IPv6 network, a /64. NAT doesn't create security, just the illusion of it.