IMHO, the Second Amendment is embodied and about exhausted by the existence of state branches of the National Guard. Guns are for pussies. Sure, if you'd like to pretend that the national guard was in place at the time the bill of rights was written. Trouble is, it came into formation about 130 years after the bill of rights was written.
Could you tell me, perhaps, why all the other Bill of Rights amendments- free speech, search and siezure, don't have to self incriminate, etc, speak of undisputed Individual Rights, but the framers just happened to let a State Power slip into a document listing individual rights? Moreover, if you read the entire document, the Bill Of Rights lists Inalienable rights given by our creator, i.e., rights that cannot possibly be revoked by an entitiy that didn't give them- the government. Throughout the constitution, the government, state or local, is assigned "powers" given by the people, whereas the people have "rights." Our Government, National, State, or Local, has no power that it hasn't been granted by the same citizens thereof.
Your "Guns are for pussies" statement is clearly flamebait; since when did trolls get mod points here? Regardless, here are a few quotes from some of the folks who were kinda important in writing the constitution: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater... confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764).
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787).
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46 and you seem to be a fan of gun control; i suggest you check out The Racist Roots of Gun Control
And don't even think about opening a MS Windows command line and typing ping www.petswarehouse.com -t!
Why, I wanted to make sure I man I respected and admired very much, Rob Novak, could still operate his business, so I decided I'd ping -t him. You people suck! his ping times have tripled! occasionally they shoot over a second!
Don't be mean now. (Yes, I use windows. so/. me. )
Whats the point of being able to build a 100GHz chip is useless if merely breathing on it will fry its circuitry.
Whats the point of building a circuit so fast that a signal can only go 3mm in a tick? (3.0*10^8 m/s)/100GHz
I know that signal speed is a substantial fraction of lightspeed, so that makes the problem worse- can you make a viable processor that small (3mm)? Wouldn't you have to design it so basically the chip doesn't wait for the previous cycle to finish?
I know 100GHz is just an off-the-cuff example, and I don't know much about processor design, so please enlighten me- it just seems like we're going to have to go completly different routes pretty soon.
turned off in the NASA sense doesn't mean completely turned off. The receivers might still be listening (if they built them welll enough, which is likely), becuase why would they make something that they had to go up and press a reset button for? If the devices are still functional, then it's simply a matter of telling them to come alive -a long distance reset button, if you will.
Nasa officials reportedly hope that it will impact the moon. Why? so they can use the seismec event of the impact to chart the interior of the moon. During the Apollo missions, NASA left three or so sensor suites on the moon- AES I think they were called- to monitor "moonquakes" and other things of scientific interest. They were turned off in the late 70's, but there's some hope that they can be reactivated for this event. If they are unable to reactivate the AES's, they can still do some measurements from here.
Sorry, I'd offer a link if I could, but I stumbled across the article somewhere on the internet.
As a tenant, I have certain rights. Primarily, the campus cannot waive my rights concerning search and seizure.
Almost true. I served as a Resident Assistant for two years, and in that time, our lawyers had cause to investigate this.
Basically, you have 4th amendment rights only as far as criminal prosecution is concerned. That means that our campus police, deputized by the town police, cannot search your room without a warrant.
However, being kicked out or otherwise sanctioned by the University is not a criminal procedure, only contractual actions. So that means a Resident Assistant or Hall Director could search your room, and the University could hold it against you in it's own internal sanction process.
That being said, U of New Hampshire's policy is to behave in a manner that offers 4th-amendment-like protections from all University staff, cause they don't want to be seen as the Gestopo.
On a side note, I personally found UT 2003 to be pretty stupid. Sure, the graphics are prettier, but the enemies are harder to see and hit, the weapons are nothing new, and the game characters are ugly- and all the same. Moreover, using prisoners in arena fighting? didn't they just do that in Quake 3? (Not like it was an original idea then).
Overall, I was dissapointed, and the consensus among my friends and I is that UT will outlive UT03.
New Hampshire State motto. One of the few states that remember that small government is better, and what the constitution is all about (though Vermont has us beat.)
You are a coward. Better to die a free man than live as a slave.
...copy protect cowboy neal, at least by natural methods.
Cut his balls off.
This would be analogous to a "digital" copy protection scheme, as if they cloned him, with the current state of biotech, they'd end up with an inferior, short-lived copy, AFTER 80 failed attempts to get anything to live in the first place.
Of course, his +5 Geekfield probably also has a side effect of repelling all nubile females, so you probably don't have to worry anyway. Though Cmd Taco overcame this limitation...
(No ill will truly meant towards Cowboy Neal, it was a joke that had to be made.)
Maybe they could just put up two really tall towers, one at each end, and do microwave transmission. Then, if something ever breaks due to the extreme environment, you'd know where to find the problem.
Now, just how tall would those towers have to be? Well, if the target station is at 75 degrees, then... 7926 miles (earth diameter)/2 - cos((90-75)/2)*(7926 miles)/2 = 34 miles.
hmmmm... maybe a cable is a better idea after all. Can someone check my math?
You wanna run in LA? Damn, good luck. From everything I've heard, the state is knee-deep in corruption at every level of government.
But on a more direct note, I've thought recently about running for office, too, when I reach the appropriate age. Only way to make a difference.
Also, I heard a story about how someone got elected on the cheap, in Pennsylvania I think. It turns out this kid didn't have a great deal of money, so he couldn't run your typical campaign. He did, however , have a great deal of time. Now of course, who you vote for at the polls is secret, and rightfully so. It is, however, a matter of record that you did vote. So this guy (I really wish I had a link) looked up all the voters in the county records who voted in every election for the past several years. He figured that these "super-voters" where very interested in politics, and probably very influencial among their family and friends. So he called up every one of these voters and spoke with them, and convinced a vast majority of them to vote for him. It turns out these people where very influential, and he won the election in a landslide against an incumbent, even though his media campaign was practically non-existant.
You're right, but it doesn't hurt to take reasonable precautions, and I happen to think arming pilots is reasonable.
The next logical target would be cargo planes, as they have 2 or 3 people on board at the most. They're probably also alot harder to hijack, as access is severely limited, and you'd have to do it on the ground.
I've heard rumors that there have been some people of the type that performed 9-11 probing and practicing on domestic flights, trying to provoke reactions from air marshalls, without doing anything that would get them arrested. But this is just hearsay, so I guess we'll have to see.
actually, IMHO, even explosives and projectile weapons (short of large capacity automatic weapons) would be enough to keep the passangers in line, cause if they think they're gonna die anyway, what is there to lose?
The real dangers, though, involve the complex systems that must be put in place before the first gun can ride along in the cockpit. There are major areas of risk. Yes, this was such a danger, that we all remember the stories about problems with armed pilots that happened before the FAA banned the practice in 1987 for political reasons.
Actually, come to think of it, I cant' seem to recall a single one. Can you?
Pilots carrying handguns on their planes used to be routine, and in fact, when carrying US mail, required by the federal government. When this person speaks of complex systems, he's obviously forgetting one over-riding principle: KISS. Keep it simple, stupid. When you give pilots guns, do what other federal agencies and the majority of police departments do- each pilot is responsible for their own firearm, and must have it in their possesion at all times. So yes, they carry it through the gates, and security checkpoints. They certainly don't hand them over at any time to the high school dropouts who clean the plane or run the security checkpoints. They would carry the gun on them, on their hips, or maybe some quick draw holster at their controls (only while their seated.) They should be required to take lessons in weapons retention, so that terrorists would have a harder time getting the weapons from them. Think about it carefully- when terrorists bust through the cockpit doors, they're going to be close, and their going to be nicely framed targets in a little doorway. Assuming the pilots are vaguely aware of whats happening in the cabin behind them, they're going to be prepared to annihlate one or multiple attackers.
Stun guns and other non-lethal methods often don't work well for single attackers, and are useless for multiple attackers.
Picture this scenario: Terrorists, armed with whatever, try to take over the plane. They are highly trained in improvised weapons and hand to hand combat and there are four of them (a la 9-11. Dealing with the single air marshall that mightbe there would be easy- have one guy start everything, and when the Air Marshall jumps up to take care of the first, the others get out of their seats and take care of him. Presumably, this would be alot of commotion, and the pilots would hear it from the flight attendants, through the doors, our through a cabin monitor of some sort.
Now once they have the cabin under control, they go for the cockpit. They bust through the cockpit door (even if it is reinforced, it won't take long) Here's where the scenario splits.
A. The first guy gets hit with a taser the pilots might have (or blocks it completely with a seat cushion shield.)The others then use whatever they have to kill or subdue the pilots, and take control of the plane. The air force sends up an F-15 and drops the airliner like a bad habit, Hopefully over a rural area. All onboard are lost, maybe some on the ground. National treasures are safe. B. The terrorists bust through the door. The pilots have the plane locked into autopilot so they can deal with the issue at hand. The shoot the first terrorist. The second. The third. Whats left of the fourth after the air marshall, whom the terrorists already killed, dealt with him. Maybe they're such poor shots they accidentally shoot one person on board, maybe two. The plane lands ASAP (this takes at least 15 minutes from cruising altitude.) Innocent Casualties: 1 or 2, tops. Terrorist casualties: 100% & mission failure. The air force saves a $70,000 Air to Air missle for a target drone.
The crypto-gram article discounts the fears of airliner integrity, so I'll be brief. Suffice it to say, if this airplane can land safely from 24 000 feet, a few bullet holes don't mean shit. Other concerns: We can't trust pilots with guns Most pilots are ex-military that carried guns all the time when flying for the Air Force. Besides, we trust them with a $40 Million dollar aircraft and 100-400 passangers; why not a gun? Someone innocent might die Better than losing the entire plane. Even if they try and fail, I sure as hell prefer a fighting chance with a solid advantage. The pilots should focus on landing the plane, or engaging in manuvers to through the terrorists off balance How can the pilots land the craft if they're dead? How can they land it if they're doing crazy manuvers? How can an air marshall do his/her job under crazy manuvers. Answer to all: They can't.
Pilots should be armed, end of story. The prospects look reasonably good for this becoming a reality through legislation, though the feds are bound to fuck it up by making it too complex and cumbersome. I think the same legislation also limits liabilities to airlines in case of accidental shootings in a crisis situation.
We've know they're out to kill us, and if they come here to do it, let's send them to Allah without us.
From what I understand, the UCC or EAN assigns each manufacturer a number (4-6 digits maybe?) at the start of the bar code, and then the rest of the space can be assigned to whatever products that manufacturer desires. There might be a check digit in there as well. This probably isn't exactly how it works, but thats the general idea.
From reading the article, it looks like every company is just going to 13 digits, some to 14 digits.
Wouldn't it be best to acquire software or devices that can be expanded much more should the need arise? For example, make all the hardware and software capable of handling barcodes arbitrarily long (or just up to 32, perhaps) so that when the UCC and EAN decide to make the next upgrade, it'll be as easy as setting a variable?
Are their technical limitations to doing such a thing? the scanners they talked about, at $1000 bucks a shot, could certainly have some kind of flash memory without increasing their cost more than a dollar or two.
For the same reason you got bored. I work as a junior engineer on a project at my university, and the pay is great and most of the work is challenging (for an undergrad job anyway)
Anyway, this summer i started doing odd jobs for people in the area nights & weekends. Mostly grunt work. And I like doing it, albeit fewer than 15 hours a week, simply because it doesn't require my mind, and I actually accomplish something visible. Sometimes I enjoy being alone to my thoughts, and my thoughts are rarely on my work anymore than needed- which isn't much.
It seems as though Sony's Pressplay service has been smacked with a clue bat. Not to say they have everything right, but "THE NEW VERSION, set to launch Thursday, will add to the flexibility of the subscription service by allowing unlimited song listening, as well as more compact-disc burning and permanent downloads that consumers can keep even after their subscriptions run out."
They're offering different levels of service depending on how much you pay (makes sense), but it looks like a step in the logical direction. Company Website
Maybe I'm young and naive, but it seems to me that the entire notion of "content" is offensive. Like the music or pr0n videos or what have you was simply items in a box, with no regard for what's inside. Though I suppose you could fairly call Britney Spheres, Backdoor Boys, and We'Stync to be nothing more than worthless coporate content, I cannot equally call the 405 short, Mudhens, Indigo Girls, or a great number of other independant, thoughtful works "content." It's their blood & sweat, not a packaged good.
The notion of content is what allows them to call copyright infringement "piracy", what makes them want to license every listening. The music/videos/whatever are cheap, taiwan-made products to be whored around as much as possible for the greatest profit.
What they're really exchanging is ideas, peoples feelings, and as Jefferson once said (paraphrasing) 'When I give an idea to you, I am not deprived of it's possesion, but we are both richer for it'
I'm not saying anything about the entire legality of it, or what I think of this paper (Gee, I didn't know academics were whoring themselves to the entertainment industry lately) but this talk of 'content' is cheapening to the work serious musicians, directors, and artists perform.
AT&T Broadband said UltraLink will serve power users, which it described as those who have "set up home networks, send or receive large files such as when downloading software, or enjoy other bandwidth-intensive applications."
This is a change from the usual tone of set up a home network and die. Of course, you are paying much more for the privilege. My question, then, is if they give you more IP addresses too.
Currently, me and my roomate use ATT, and we pay them another $10 a month for a second IP. Not sure if there's any bandwidth increase with that; probably not.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, if you'd like to pretend that the national guard was in place at the time the bill of rights was written. Trouble is, it came into formation about 130 years after the bill of rights was written.
Could you tell me, perhaps, why all the other Bill of Rights amendments- free speech, search and siezure, don't have to self incriminate, etc, speak of undisputed Individual Rights, but the framers just happened to let a State Power slip into a document listing individual rights? Moreover, if you read the entire document, the Bill Of Rights lists Inalienable rights given by our creator, i.e., rights that cannot possibly be revoked by an entitiy that didn't give them- the government. Throughout the constitution, the government, state or local, is assigned "powers" given by the people, whereas the people have "rights." Our Government, National, State, or Local, has no power that it hasn't been granted by the same citizens thereof.
Your "Guns are for pussies" statement is clearly flamebait; since when did trolls get mod points here? Regardless, here are a few quotes from some of the folks who were kinda important in writing the constitution:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787).
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
and you seem to be a fan of gun control; i suggest you check out The Racist Roots of Gun Control
And don't even think about opening a MS Windows command line and typing ping www.petswarehouse.com -t!
/. me. )
Why, I wanted to make sure I man I respected and admired very much, Rob Novak, could still operate his business, so I decided I'd ping -t him. You people suck! his ping times have tripled! occasionally they shoot over a second!
Don't be mean now. (Yes, I use windows. so
by an unknown author:
I believe a self-righteous liberal with a cause is alot more dangerous than a Playstation.
'Nuff Said.
Whats the point of being able to build a 100GHz chip is useless if merely breathing on it will fry its circuitry.
Whats the point of building a circuit so fast that a signal can only go 3mm in a tick? (3.0*10^8 m/s)/100GHz
I know that signal speed is a substantial fraction of lightspeed, so that makes the problem worse- can you make a viable processor that small (3mm)? Wouldn't you have to design it so basically the chip doesn't wait for the previous cycle to finish?
I know 100GHz is just an off-the-cuff example, and I don't know much about processor design, so please enlighten me- it just seems like we're going to have to go completly different routes pretty soon.
and no, I have not read the article.
turned off in the NASA sense doesn't mean completely turned off.
The receivers might still be listening (if they built them welll enough, which is likely), becuase why would they make something that they had to go up and press a reset button for? If the devices are still functional, then it's simply a matter of telling them to come alive -a long distance reset button, if you will.
Nasa officials reportedly hope that it will impact the moon.
Why? so they can use the seismec event of the impact to chart the interior of the moon. During the Apollo missions, NASA left three or so sensor suites on the moon- AES I think they were called- to monitor "moonquakes" and other things of scientific interest. They were turned off in the late 70's, but there's some hope that they can be reactivated for this event.
If they are unable to reactivate the AES's, they can still do some measurements from here.
Sorry, I'd offer a link if I could, but I stumbled across the article somewhere on the internet.
As a tenant, I have certain rights. Primarily, the campus cannot waive my rights concerning search and seizure.
Almost true. I served as a Resident Assistant for two years, and in that time, our lawyers had cause to investigate this.
Basically, you have 4th amendment rights only as far as criminal prosecution is concerned. That means that our campus police, deputized by the town police, cannot search your room without a warrant.
However, being kicked out or otherwise sanctioned by the University is not a criminal procedure, only contractual actions. So that means a Resident Assistant or Hall Director could search your room, and the University could hold it against you in it's own internal sanction process.
That being said, U of New Hampshire's policy is to behave in a manner that offers 4th-amendment-like protections from all University staff, cause they don't want to be seen as the Gestopo.
On a side note, I personally found UT 2003 to be pretty stupid. Sure, the graphics are prettier, but the enemies are harder to see and hit, the weapons are nothing new, and the game characters are ugly- and all the same. Moreover, using prisoners in arena fighting? didn't they just do that in Quake 3? (Not like it was an original idea then).
Overall, I was dissapointed, and the consensus among my friends and I is that UT will outlive UT03.
Sure, I could have wrote more. But I had no desire to repeat what others have written in this same thread, so I offered a familiar platitude.
New Hampshire State motto.
One of the few states that remember that small government is better, and what the constitution is all about (though Vermont has us beat.)
You are a coward. Better to die a free man than live as a slave.
Then again, who can really complain about a 40' tall Natalie Portman?
I could. What fun is it when the notion of "probing" Portman with your "lightsaber" really involves a wetsuit and a flashlight?
...copy protect cowboy neal, at least by natural methods.
Cut his balls off.
This would be analogous to a "digital" copy protection scheme, as if they cloned him, with the current state of biotech, they'd end up with an inferior, short-lived copy, AFTER 80 failed attempts to get anything to live in the first place.
Of course, his +5 Geekfield probably also has a side effect of repelling all nubile females, so you probably don't have to worry anyway. Though Cmd Taco overcame this limitation...
(No ill will truly meant towards Cowboy Neal, it was a joke that had to be made.)
Maybe they could just put up two really tall towers, one at each end, and do microwave transmission.
Then, if something ever breaks due to the extreme environment, you'd know where to find the problem.
Now, just how tall would those towers have to be?
Well, if the target station is at 75 degrees, then...
7926 miles (earth diameter)/2 - cos((90-75)/2)*(7926 miles)/2 = 34 miles.
hmmmm... maybe a cable is a better idea after all. Can someone check my math?
You wanna run in LA? Damn, good luck. From everything I've heard, the state is knee-deep in corruption at every level of government.
But on a more direct note, I've thought recently about running for office, too, when I reach the appropriate age. Only way to make a difference.
Also, I heard a story about how someone got elected on the cheap, in Pennsylvania I think. It turns out this kid didn't have a great deal of money, so he couldn't run your typical campaign. He did, however , have a great deal of time.
Now of course, who you vote for at the polls is secret, and rightfully so. It is, however, a matter of record that you did vote. So this guy (I really wish I had a link) looked up all the voters in the county records who voted in every election for the past several years. He figured that these "super-voters" where very interested in politics, and probably very influencial among their family and friends. So he called up every one of these voters and spoke with them, and convinced a vast majority of them to vote for him. It turns out these people where very influential, and he won the election in a landslide against an incumbent, even though his media campaign was practically non-existant.
The next logical target would be cargo planes, as they have 2 or 3 people on board at the most. They're probably also alot harder to hijack, as access is severely limited, and you'd have to do it on the ground.
I've heard rumors that there have been some people of the type that performed 9-11 probing and practicing on domestic flights, trying to provoke reactions from air marshalls, without doing anything that would get them arrested. But this is just hearsay, so I guess we'll have to see.
actually, IMHO, even explosives and projectile weapons (short of large capacity automatic weapons) would be enough to keep the passangers in line, cause if they think they're gonna die anyway, what is there to lose?
Yes, this was such a danger, that we all remember the stories about problems with armed pilots that happened before the FAA banned the practice in 1987 for political reasons.
Actually, come to think of it, I cant' seem to recall a single one. Can you?
Pilots carrying handguns on their planes used to be routine, and in fact, when carrying US mail, required by the federal government.
When this person speaks of complex systems, he's obviously forgetting one over-riding principle: KISS. Keep it simple, stupid.
When you give pilots guns, do what other federal agencies and the majority of police departments do- each pilot is responsible for their own firearm, and must have it in their possesion at all times. So yes, they carry it through the gates, and security checkpoints. They certainly don't hand them over at any time to the high school dropouts who clean the plane or run the security checkpoints. They would carry the gun on them, on their hips, or maybe some quick draw holster at their controls (only while their seated.) They should be required to take lessons in weapons retention, so that terrorists would have a harder time getting the weapons from them.
Think about it carefully- when terrorists bust through the cockpit doors, they're going to be close, and their going to be nicely framed targets in a little doorway. Assuming the pilots are vaguely aware of whats happening in the cabin behind them, they're going to be prepared to annihlate one or multiple attackers.
Stun guns and other non-lethal methods often don't work well for single attackers, and are useless for multiple attackers.
Picture this scenario: Terrorists, armed with whatever, try to take over the plane. They are highly trained in improvised weapons and hand to hand combat and there are four of them (a la 9-11. Dealing with the single air marshall that mightbe there would be easy- have one guy start everything, and when the Air Marshall jumps up to take care of the first, the others get out of their seats and take care of him. Presumably, this would be alot of commotion, and the pilots would hear it from the flight attendants, through the doors, our through a cabin monitor of some sort.
Now once they have the cabin under control, they go for the cockpit. They bust through the cockpit door (even if it is reinforced, it won't take long) Here's where the scenario splits.
A. The first guy gets hit with a taser the pilots might have (or blocks it completely with a seat cushion shield.)The others then use whatever they have to kill or subdue the pilots, and take control of the plane. The air force sends up an F-15 and drops the airliner like a bad habit, Hopefully over a rural area. All onboard are lost, maybe some on the ground. National treasures are safe.
B. The terrorists bust through the door. The pilots have the plane locked into autopilot so they can deal with the issue at hand. The shoot the first terrorist. The second. The third. Whats left of the fourth after the air marshall, whom the terrorists already killed, dealt with him. Maybe they're such poor shots they accidentally shoot one person on board, maybe two. The plane lands ASAP (this takes at least 15 minutes from cruising altitude.) Innocent Casualties: 1 or 2, tops. Terrorist casualties: 100% & mission failure. The air force saves a $70,000 Air to Air missle for a target drone.
The crypto-gram article discounts the fears of airliner integrity, so I'll be brief. Suffice it to say, if this airplane can land safely from 24 000 feet, a few bullet holes don't mean shit.
Other concerns:
We can't trust pilots with guns
Most pilots are ex-military that carried guns all the time when flying for the Air Force. Besides, we trust them with a $40 Million dollar aircraft and 100-400 passangers; why not a gun?
Someone innocent might die
Better than losing the entire plane. Even if they try and fail, I sure as hell prefer a fighting chance with a solid advantage.
The pilots should focus on landing the plane, or engaging in manuvers to through the terrorists off balance
How can the pilots land the craft if they're dead? How can they land it if they're doing crazy manuvers? How can an air marshall do his/her job under crazy manuvers. Answer to all: They can't.
Pilots should be armed, end of story. The prospects look reasonably good for this becoming a reality through legislation, though the feds are bound to fuck it up by making it too complex and cumbersome. I think the same legislation also limits liabilities to airlines in case of accidental shootings in a crisis situation.
We've know they're out to kill us, and if they come here to do it, let's send them to Allah without us.
From what I understand, the UCC or EAN assigns each manufacturer a number (4-6 digits maybe?) at the start of the bar code, and then the rest of the space can be assigned to whatever products that manufacturer desires. There might be a check digit in there as well.
This probably isn't exactly how it works, but thats the general idea.
Wouldn't it be best to acquire software or devices that can be expanded much more should the need arise? For example, make all the hardware and software capable of handling barcodes arbitrarily long (or just up to 32, perhaps) so that when the UCC and EAN decide to make the next upgrade, it'll be as easy as setting a variable?
Are their technical limitations to doing such a thing? the scanners they talked about, at $1000 bucks a shot, could certainly have some kind of flash memory without increasing their cost more than a dollar or two.
Just my thoughts, anyway.
For the same reason you got bored. I work as a junior engineer on a project at my university, and the pay is great and most of the work is challenging (for an undergrad job anyway)
Anyway, this summer i started doing odd jobs for people in the area nights & weekends. Mostly grunt work. And I like doing it, albeit fewer than 15 hours a week, simply because it doesn't require my mind, and I actually accomplish something visible. Sometimes I enjoy being alone to my thoughts, and my thoughts are rarely on my work anymore than needed- which isn't much.
my $.02
Is anyone actually buying it? Has it been defeated yet? Though that might require substantial modification to the hardware involved....
I'm in NH, and if you're selling stuff at that price point, i just might come by.
Where are your stores located? I'm in the Seacoast Area (Durham).
Not to say they have everything right, but "THE NEW VERSION, set to launch Thursday, will add to the flexibility of the subscription service by allowing unlimited song listening, as well as more compact-disc burning and permanent downloads that consumers can keep even after their subscriptions run out."
They're offering different levels of service depending on how much you pay (makes sense), but it looks like a step in the logical direction.
Company Website
Maybe I'm young and naive, but it seems to me that the entire notion of "content" is offensive. Like the music or pr0n videos or what have you was simply items in a box, with no regard for what's inside.
Though I suppose you could fairly call Britney Spheres, Backdoor Boys, and We'Stync to be nothing more than worthless coporate content, I cannot equally call the 405 short, Mudhens, Indigo Girls, or a great number of other independant, thoughtful works "content."
It's their blood & sweat, not a packaged good.
The notion of content is what allows them to call copyright infringement "piracy", what makes them want to license every listening. The music/videos/whatever are cheap, taiwan-made products to be whored around as much as possible for the greatest profit.
What they're really exchanging is ideas, peoples feelings, and as Jefferson once said (paraphrasing) 'When I give an idea to you, I am not deprived of it's possesion, but we are both richer for it'
I'm not saying anything about the entire legality of it, or what I think of this paper (Gee, I didn't know academics were whoring themselves to the entertainment industry lately) but this talk of 'content' is cheapening to the work serious musicians, directors, and artists perform.
Just venting. thank you for yer time.
AT&T Broadband said UltraLink will serve power users, which it described as those who have "set up home networks, send or receive large files such as when downloading software, or enjoy other bandwidth-intensive applications."
This is a change from the usual tone of set up a home network and die. Of course, you are paying much more for the privilege. My question, then, is if they give you more IP addresses too.
Currently, me and my roomate use ATT, and we pay them another $10 a month for a second IP. Not sure if there's any bandwidth increase with that; probably not.
And the version included a cabin sound recorder to capture the last few seconds of activity before impact.
Usually people said, "Oh shit!" some, occasionally you'd hear snoring, but they did find a disturbing trend.
On large 4x4's in the deep south, the last thing said was "Ya'll hold my beer and watch this."