I'm noty talking about moving though. I'm just talking about driving. Clearly, the states expect their licenses to be valid for at lest 30 days in other states. This doesn't apply to any othe type of license that I can think of.
Which probably explains the accelerating chipping away of states' rights. Despite the wishes of our founding fathers.
But really, should we care what the founding fathers wanted? They wrote the constitution the way they did, because it's what the states wanted. It should really be about what the people want. Sadly, it isn't about that either. It's all about what the federal government wants.
What happened at the end of Crytonomicon
on
Ask Neal Stephenson
·
· Score: 1
The end of the story just stopped abruptly and suddenly. Do I have some missing pages, or did you just decide to stop writing at an arbitrary point?
A state gets to decide what requirements there are for licensing of any kind within itself. This is why doctors don't have national medical licenses, and why you have to get a fishing permit for two states if you fish on both sides of the state border.
Well, yes, but do any states refuse drivers permission to drive there if they have a license for a different state (assuming the driver meets the state's other requirements for driving, of course)? It makes sense that if they're going to be effective in all states, there should be at least some sort of general agreement or ruling about minimum standards.
It over-rides much stronger laws at the state level,
But most of the state level ones are unconstitutional since they restrict interstate commerce or something.
CAN-SPAM isn't much of a solution, but it's certainly a start. We'll need a few more iterations until the laws are particularly effective, but lets see what the spammers actually do in response before adding extra layers to try to stop them.
With careful driving, I can get close to 60MPG (imperial) from my Peugeot 206[*], and that's got an engine 3 times the size and 4 seats. Must be able to beat that.
[*] I have no idea about exact figures because for some reason they didn't give me a fuel efficiency display.
Well, yes, but where do you get your ammunition from? I'd suggest beating them with some sort of club, or using some sort of bladed weapon instead. They're fully reusable. Think of the environment.
I usually fit half a week's shopping for one into a backpack. This includes 4 litres of milk, a couple of pounds of meat, assorted veg, and various jars of replacement spices and sauces. Bread is a bit too bulky though.
Admittedly, it does affect my shopping habits, (that's part of the reason I use it).
Much more likely to as well. A Smart will be able to be steered away from a lot of hazards, and if that doesn't work, will stop in no time at all, whereas an SUV will have a lot of kinetic energy to get rid of, and they do not steer at all well.
Exactly! It's not the job of an ISP to police its customers or try to decide whether a claim is legitimate or not. That's a very complicated question best left to the courts.
Well, to an extent. There's a certain amount of common sense, outside of the grey areas though. This is something that other bodies have pointed to as a flaw in the DMCA.
There are some works which are clearly under copyright, and it is quite unlikely that the website owner had permission to use them. For example, mp3s of top 10 songs, and recent full length movies.
There are some workswhich are clearly not under copyright, particularly well known public domain works. Under the DMCA, an ISP is under no obligation to remove these, but it is still usually safer to do so.
Then there are works of disputed ownership. If I create something, and put it on my site, then someone else can claim ownership. Under the DMCA, if they do not take immediate action to remove it, they would be liable for copyright infringement if it turns out that the work was infringing. Few ISPs are likely to be willing to take that risk.
Sure, why not? Just because its a good cause doesn't mean you can run it on computers you don't own if the person/entity that owns them doesn't want you to.
Isn't "the entity" the general public in this case though? It certainly didn't belong to this manager. He should have considered the benefits, costs, and risks associated with this. Taken into consideration, the risks and costs are small. So are the benefits for that matter. On the ther hand, the cost of firing someone is fairly high. You need to spend money to find a replacement, and suffer lower productivity while the new employee picks up the procedures. A reprimand would have been a lot more appropriate.
"Well, I was fired for using company equipment to find space aliens."
:)
Perhaps... just perhaps... It might be a better idea for him to say that he was fired for using a server's spare capacity to help another government department with a complex piece of data analysis.
Please prove to me that seti@home will never interfere with the other software on my production server.
But surely if there's no evidence that it will - and a lot of people have been running this software, so we should have a decent statistical sample - then sacking the guy is a little extreme.
However, all the spyware slowed down the computers to the point where their OS's (Win95/8) crash whenver you loaded a spreadsheet of any significant size, so the county bought ALL NEW computers.
Well, it does achieve the intended result. It removes all the crap from the systems. Okay, it would have been cheaper to simply reinstall from scratch, but there are benefits to having new computers - They can run more software, slow tasks can be executed more quickly, less likely to suffer from hardware failures, and they often have better monitors.
So instead of a loss in productivity, it was a small loss of money due to the activity of the processors.
No. If Bin Laden was candidate, I wouldn't like him in the debates either.
I would, for several reasons.
Firstly, it would allow him to get his message across in a decent reasonable way that does not result in the deaths of hundreds of people.
Secondly, he would be able to put his own view of the aims of Al-Quaeda across rather than the hyperbole (e.g. jelous of our freedom) that is usually spouted.
Thirdly, we'd know precisely where he is, so he could be arrested and charged as a terrosris.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm noty talking about moving though. I'm just talking about driving. Clearly, the states expect their licenses to be valid for at lest 30 days in other states. This doesn't apply to any othe type of license that I can think of.
I do enjoy carcassonne. Apparently there's a Windows PC version available in Germany.
But Microsoft licenced their OS. That wassignificant.
Which probably explains the accelerating chipping away of states' rights. Despite the wishes of our founding fathers.
But really, should we care what the founding fathers wanted? They wrote the constitution the way they did, because it's what the states wanted. It should really be about what the people want. Sadly, it isn't about that either. It's all about what the federal government wants.
The end of the story just stopped abruptly and suddenly. Do I have some missing pages, or did you just decide to stop writing at an arbitrary point?
Cox Cable and Comcast customers have had HD DVRs for weeks/months and run them without issue.
Could this be why Time Warner are rolling out Cable HDTV before it's fuly tested?
HDTV reminds me of the metric system, always a promise for a better future, but never grabbed hold of enough marketshare to make a diff.
All of Europe and Asia is a pretty decent market share.
The best tech doesn't always win (eg- VHS vs Beta,
Beta only offered 1 hour tapes when it was first released. VHS offered 2 hour tapes. Picture quality isn't everything.
ehm... wouldn't that be 22000 miles.
A state gets to decide what requirements there are for licensing of any kind within itself. This is why doctors don't have national medical licenses, and why you have to get a fishing permit for two states if you fish on both sides of the state border.
Well, yes, but do any states refuse drivers permission to drive there if they have a license for a different state (assuming the driver meets the state's other requirements for driving, of course)? It makes sense that if they're going to be effective in all states, there should be at least some sort of general agreement or ruling about minimum standards.
It makes some sort of sense that there should be some standard requirents for driving licenses. But how is this going to have any effect on terrorism?
It over-rides much stronger laws at the state level,
But most of the state level ones are unconstitutional since they restrict interstate commerce or something.
CAN-SPAM isn't much of a solution, but it's certainly a start. We'll need a few more iterations until the laws are particularly effective, but lets see what the spammers actually do in response before adding extra layers to try to stop them.
Bullshit. A passenger in this vehicle would not likely survive a collision with a Harley.
The crash tests say otherwise. What makes you think they are wrong?
With careful driving, I can get close to 60MPG (imperial) from my Peugeot 206[*], and that's got an engine 3 times the size and 4 seats. Must be able to beat that.
[*] I have no idea about exact figures because for some reason they didn't give me a fuel efficiency display.
Well, yes, but where do you get your ammunition from? I'd suggest beating them with some sort of club, or using some sort of bladed weapon instead. They're fully reusable. Think of the environment.
I usually fit half a week's shopping for one into a backpack. This includes 4 litres of milk, a couple of pounds of meat, assorted veg, and various jars of replacement spices and sauces. Bread is a bit too bulky though.
Admittedly, it does affect my shopping habits, (that's part of the reason I use it).
Fantastically - Leather seats and a decent stereo system makes it a pleasure to sit in.
Much more likely to as well. A Smart will be able to be steered away from a lot of hazards, and if that doesn't work, will stop in no time at all, whereas an SUV will have a lot of kinetic energy to get rid of, and they do not steer at all well.
Nope. Unbiased in this case means not controlled by government or corporate interests.
Exactly! It's not the job of an ISP to police its customers or try to decide whether a claim is legitimate or not. That's a very complicated question best left to the courts.
Well, to an extent. There's a certain amount of common sense, outside of the grey areas though. This is something that other bodies have pointed to as a flaw in the DMCA.
There are some works which are clearly under copyright, and it is quite unlikely that the website owner had permission to use them. For example, mp3s of top 10 songs, and recent full length movies.
There are some workswhich are clearly not under copyright, particularly well known public domain works. Under the DMCA, an ISP is under no obligation to remove these, but it is still usually safer to do so.
Then there are works of disputed ownership. If I create something, and put it on my site, then someone else can claim ownership. Under the DMCA, if they do not take immediate action to remove it, they would be liable for copyright infringement if it turns out that the work was infringing. Few ISPs are likely to be willing to take that risk.
Sure, why not? Just because its a good cause doesn't mean you can run it on computers you don't own if the person/entity that owns them doesn't want you to.
Isn't "the entity" the general public in this case though? It certainly didn't belong to this manager. He should have considered the benefits, costs, and risks associated with this. Taken into consideration, the risks and costs are small. So are the benefits for that matter. On the ther hand, the cost of firing someone is fairly high. You need to spend money to find a replacement, and suffer lower productivity while the new employee picks up the procedures. A reprimand would have been a lot more appropriate.
"Well, I was fired for using company equipment to find space aliens."
:)
Perhaps... just perhaps... It might be a better idea for him to say that he was fired for using a server's spare capacity to help another government department with a complex piece of data analysis.
Please prove to me that seti@home will never interfere with the other software on my production server.
But surely if there's no evidence that it will - and a lot of people have been running this software, so we should have a decent statistical sample - then sacking the guy is a little extreme.
However, all the spyware slowed down the computers to the point where their OS's (Win95/8) crash whenver you loaded a spreadsheet of any significant size, so the county bought ALL NEW computers.
Well, it does achieve the intended result. It removes all the crap from the systems. Okay, it would have been cheaper to simply reinstall from scratch, but there are benefits to having new computers - They can run more software, slow tasks can be executed more quickly, less likely to suffer from hardware failures, and they often have better monitors.
So instead of a loss in productivity, it was a small loss of money due to the activity of the processors.
I think this may depend on the PSU as well.
No. If Bin Laden was candidate, I wouldn't like him in the debates either.
I would, for several reasons.
Firstly, it would allow him to get his message across in a decent reasonable way that does not result in the deaths of hundreds of people.
Secondly, he would be able to put his own view of the aims of Al-Quaeda across rather than the hyperbole (e.g. jelous of our freedom) that is usually spouted.
Thirdly, we'd know precisely where he is, so he could be arrested and charged as a terrosris.
Why doesn't Badnarik, as a "libertarian", respect their property rights?
Because he believes in civil disobediance.