Why in the world did you think ACORN et. al. would go to all the trouble of setting up multiple registrations if such did not result in additional votes?
ACORN agents send in fake registrations so they get paid more by ACORN. What could be simpler than that?
Why "web software"? A lot of it has nothing to do with HTML/HTTP. For example, with Amazon's EC2, you use the web to manage your virtual hosts, but you might not have any web servers running on the hosts. Perhaps your application uses FTP, ssh, or even NFS to transfer data.
Fortunately, most people have closer to 40 years from the time they enter the workforce to the time they retire. 40 years of saving 10k/year at 5% yields 1.2 million.
Are you sure you aren't thinking of E.Coli? That fits your description of being commonly found in the bovine intestinal system, and being the cause of a food poisoning outbreak in Seattle at Jack in the Box.
IMHO, the hardest part of collecting sales tax is not so much figuring out the right tax rate for each jurisdiction, as it is figuring out what is and is not taxable in each jurisdiction. Is food taxable in zip code A? If not, what specific types of food are tax exempt?
If I recall correctly, at one time there was a discussion between the states about creating a uniform set of rules for what was and was not taxable, as well as setting a single tax rate per state for out of state transactions. Some merchants had promised to start collecting taxes if these simplified rules had been put into effect.
I'll give you unenforceable and possibly immoral, but why is it constitutionally iffy for the state you live in to tax you?
Do you also point and laugh at your income tax forms?
The use tax isn't a tax on the merchant, it is a tax on you. The current dispute is over whether your state can ask a company in another state to collect sales tax from you and remit it to your state, not whether your state can collect use tax from you.
Also, some websites do not have dedicated IP addresses. I'm confused. I thought SSL certs were for domains, not for IP addresses. Is a certificate only valid for a certain IP range, as well as a certain domain?
I'd guess that the security department was concerned about eavesdropping rather than spoofing.
I'd say that sending an unencrypted email over a public IP network is less secure against snooping than sending a FAX over the public POTS network. Your FedEx approach is better yet. However, if you work in the same city as your security department, I'm not sure why you would choose FedEx over US mail.
The judge later reversed his decision, after receiving phone calls from the president, the secretary of the UN, the pope, and Elvis. "It's amazing how similar all them sound", said the surprised judge.
What I'm wondering about is when people are going to realize that static memory prevents the benefits of a reboot. Any thoughts? I think you may be a bit reality impaired.
There is nothing inherent to the memory itself that makes it "used" or "free". That is just an OS convention based around data structures used by the OS to track what various blocks of RAM are being used for.
When the OS reboots, it will rebuild its allocation tables and the CPU's page tables from scratch, without regard to whether the physical memory currently contains 0s, 1s, or some random combination thereof.
I never really understood why CRT monitors were so good at handling multiple resolutions. A shadow mask CRT has a native resolution just like an LCD, and even an aperture grill had a fixed horizontal resolution. The dot pitch of a modern LCD is close to what I remember it being for a good CRT. And yet it is undeniable that a CRT is much better at handling a range of resolutions. Why?
The description of this lamp on the Core77 site is completely unrealistic.
The last time I checked, gravity was 9.8 m/s^2, so allowing 23 kg to fall 1.4 m could theoretically generate 320 J, if we ignore losses in the electrical conversion. That's.088 Wh, or.022 W over the rated 4 hour runtime. A modern LED is 150 lumens/watt, so you should be able to generate 3.3 lumens for 4 hours.
LEDs are constantly improving, but even a perfect light source would only produce about 15 lumens from.022 W. I fail to see how the inventor plans to meet his goal of 600-800 lumens, unless he is secretly planning to increase gravity.
So once every 10 years, someone will introduce a bill quoting the entire text of the current CFR and extending it by 10 years. Of course, representatives and senators will amend it to remove laws they don't like or add new ones that they do like, but that is similar to what they do with individual bills today.
But at least the public will clearly understand the difference between repealing something and failing to renew it, right? And no politicians will claim one when they mean the other? After all, this is all being handled in a very mature and professional manner with the expiring tax cuts.
I can't really see the false alarm scenario as being a major problem, but suppose for a moment that it was. It seems to me that there are better ways to deal with it, although they may work better at a different level of government.
The state of NY could create a license for people who wish to sell their services as air quality monitors or equipment calibrators. This is in line with the licensing requirements for many other professions, where a person must demonstrate their competence. Perhaps the city could do this as well; I don't know if cities generally have professional licensing power. This won't stop people from buying devices, using them improperly for personal use, and raising a false alarm, but the people with certifications will probably be considered more credible.
Another option is to regulate the quality of the devices themselves. I'm not sure either the city or state have the authority to regulate that, but the feds could. In fact, I'd be concerned if there are not already some standards in effect, just like there are for smoke alarms. If I buy a geiger counter, I want to know that it will work properly.
In any case, regulating either of these things does not seem to me to be a special competence of the police. The police are sometimes expected to judge a person's character (e.g. with gun permits), but I've never heard of them being called upon to be arbiters of either technical standards or professional competence.
On a curved surface, the shortest path between two points is a curve. Of course, if you define a straight line as the shortest distance between two points, that curve is also a straight line. In fact, talking about "the shortest path" is a misnomer since there may be more than one path with minimum length, or to put it another way there may be more than one straight line between two points.
Galaxy A curves space, causing the "straight" lines between Galaxy B and the Earth to no longer be unique. There is a set of lines which have minimum length, and we perceive light along all of those paths. This set of paths happens to look like a ring.
So to explain why somebody would be paranoid about buying "Catcher in the Rye" from Amazon, Dun Malg provides a link to IMDB, which is owned by Amazon. Dun's tinfoil hat must be loose.
How can they be a monopoly if they are controlling only one planet? Science has shown that there are lots of planets on which none of those companies currently operate. For example, did you know that the RIAA has never sued anyone living on Venus? And that the CIA has never overthrown a government on Jupiter?
I don't know the speed of sound in the upper atmosphere, but at ground level it is about 340 m/s. Mach 15 would be 5100 m/s. To get there in 5 minutes would require 17 m/s^2, or just under 2G (almost exactly 2G if you add in gravity at a right angle to the flight path). That would be uncomfortable, but would hardly result in "human soup". If you're willing to wait 20 minutes to reach Mach 15, you'd only need 4.3 m/s^2. A good car can accelerate faster than that (for a few seconds).
I'm not sure what your point is. All security involves balancing risk and cost; spending too much on security is no better than spending too little on security. If I spend $10 to prevent $5 in losses, I'm being foolish.
In the context of the Olympics, you can have perfect Olympic security by simply not having any Olympics. Otherwise there is always a risk of either electronic or physical intrusions. Somebody has to evaluate the risks and the damage they could cause, evaluate to what extent a given security plan mitigates that risk, and decide if the expected damage reduction is worth the cost of the security.
For example, consider the possibility that somebody is able to hijack the Olympics home page, and it takes an hour to fix the problem. Such a defacement is clearly not "acceptable", but what is it worth? Would they pay $1 to prevent it? Almost certainly. Would they pay $1,000,000,000 to prevent it? Probably not.
3 GHz = 10 cm wavelength. Where I live, most of the flies are significantly shorter than 10 cm. If things are different where you live, remind me to stay away.
Those transnational conglomerates didn't make their fortunes by sitting in a room and saying "let's keep people pacified and preoccupied", they did it by sitting in a room and saying "let's figure out what news and entertainment people will take time to read or watch, thus attracting a valuable demographic and increasing our advertising rates". The way to be a profitable news outlet is to be a popular news outlet.
There are segments of the population that are very interested in economic issues, and as a result, there are media (including some owned by big transnational corporations) that report on these issues. For example, the Economist had a feature section on people who are hurt by free trade. This is a very pro-free-trade magazine, but they are willing to acknowledge the downsides.
The mass media also cover this kind of thing. I've seen articles in the business section of my local newspaper that mention the kind of wealth stats you bring up. They make great sound bites, which is what the mass media love.
No, I don't remember any time when the Internet was void of government. It was created by the government, then government interest waned for a while as commercial interests increased, but the government and government institutions (including public universities and their faculty) were still very much involved with it.
So what period of time are you thinking of when government money wasn't at least a significant minority of the support for the net? When government supported researchers weren't a significant part of the governing bodies of the net?
When you think of an idea, it is entirely yours and nobody else has any rights to it whatsoever.
If you choose to share that idea with somebody else, then you are either explicitly or implicitly assigning rights to that person. Perhaps you have an explicit contract with that person specifying what they can do with your idea. If so, then that contract is binding. Copyright law can be thought of as the default license agreement for content if you do not have an explicit contract with the consumer. You can unilaterally choose to waive some of your rights, and this is what the GPL does. You can't unilaterally take away the rights of the person receiving the content.
So by all means, make your own rules for your content. Just make sure that other people have agreed to those rules before you give them the content. If you choose to give your content out freely to the world, then you are implicitly agreeing to license it under the terms of copyright law, and that includes fair use.
The rules for what constitutes a contract have been significantly weakened in this day of clickthrough licenses, but even there in theory there was an interaction with the user; they chose to accept the contract by clicking "OK". I'm not aware of any court case validating a contract that exists merely by passively viewing a document.
Slashdot Mirror
Why in the world did you think ACORN et. al. would go to all the trouble of setting up multiple registrations if such did not result in additional votes?
ACORN agents send in fake registrations so they get paid more by ACORN. What could be simpler than that?
Why "web software"? A lot of it has nothing to do with HTML/HTTP. For example, with Amazon's EC2, you use the web to manage your virtual hosts, but you might not have any web servers running on the hosts. Perhaps your application uses FTP, ssh, or even NFS to transfer data.
Fortunately, most people have closer to 40 years from the time they enter the workforce to the time they retire. 40 years of saving 10k/year at 5% yields 1.2 million.
Are you sure you aren't thinking of E.Coli? That fits your description of being commonly found in the bovine intestinal system, and being the cause of a food poisoning outbreak in Seattle at Jack in the Box.
http://www.billmarler.com/key_case/jack-in-the-box-e-coli-outbreak/
IMHO, the hardest part of collecting sales tax is not so much figuring out the right tax rate for each jurisdiction, as it is figuring out what is and is not taxable in each jurisdiction. Is food taxable in zip code A? If not, what specific types of food are tax exempt?
If I recall correctly, at one time there was a discussion between the states about creating a uniform set of rules for what was and was not taxable, as well as setting a single tax rate per state for out of state transactions. Some merchants had promised to start collecting taxes if these simplified rules had been put into effect.
I'll give you unenforceable and possibly immoral, but why is it constitutionally iffy for the state you live in to tax you?
Do you also point and laugh at your income tax forms?
The use tax isn't a tax on the merchant, it is a tax on you. The current dispute is over whether your state can ask a company in another state to collect sales tax from you and remit it to your state, not whether your state can collect use tax from you.
I'd guess that the security department was concerned about eavesdropping rather than spoofing.
I'd say that sending an unencrypted email over a public IP network is less secure against snooping than sending a FAX over the public POTS network. Your FedEx approach is better yet. However, if you work in the same city as your security department, I'm not sure why you would choose FedEx over US mail.
The judge later reversed his decision, after receiving phone calls from the president, the secretary of the UN, the pope, and Elvis. "It's amazing how similar all them sound", said the surprised judge.
There is nothing inherent to the memory itself that makes it "used" or "free". That is just an OS convention based around data structures used by the OS to track what various blocks of RAM are being used for.
When the OS reboots, it will rebuild its allocation tables and the CPU's page tables from scratch, without regard to whether the physical memory currently contains 0s, 1s, or some random combination thereof.
I never really understood why CRT monitors were so good at handling multiple resolutions. A shadow mask CRT has a native resolution just like an LCD, and even an aperture grill had a fixed horizontal resolution. The dot pitch of a modern LCD is close to what I remember it being for a good CRT. And yet it is undeniable that a CRT is much better at handling a range of resolutions. Why?
The description of this lamp on the Core77 site is completely unrealistic.
.088 Wh, or .022 W over the rated 4 hour runtime. A modern LED is 150 lumens/watt, so you should be able to generate 3.3 lumens for 4 hours.
.022 W. I fail to see how the inventor plans to meet his goal of 600-800 lumens, unless he is secretly planning to increase gravity.
The last time I checked, gravity was 9.8 m/s^2, so allowing 23 kg to fall 1.4 m could theoretically generate 320 J, if we ignore losses in the electrical conversion. That's
LEDs are constantly improving, but even a perfect light source would only produce about 15 lumens from
So once every 10 years, someone will introduce a bill quoting the entire text of the current CFR and extending it by 10 years. Of course, representatives and senators will amend it to remove laws they don't like or add new ones that they do like, but that is similar to what they do with individual bills today.
But at least the public will clearly understand the difference between repealing something and failing to renew it, right? And no politicians will claim one when they mean the other? After all, this is all being handled in a very mature and professional manner with the expiring tax cuts.
I can't really see the false alarm scenario as being a major problem, but suppose for a moment that it was. It seems to me that there are better ways to deal with it, although they may work better at a different level of government.
The state of NY could create a license for people who wish to sell their services as air quality monitors or equipment calibrators. This is in line with the licensing requirements for many other professions, where a person must demonstrate their competence. Perhaps the city could do this as well; I don't know if cities generally have professional licensing power. This won't stop people from buying devices, using them improperly for personal use, and raising a false alarm, but the people with certifications will probably be considered more credible.
Another option is to regulate the quality of the devices themselves. I'm not sure either the city or state have the authority to regulate that, but the feds could. In fact, I'd be concerned if there are not already some standards in effect, just like there are for smoke alarms. If I buy a geiger counter, I want to know that it will work properly.
In any case, regulating either of these things does not seem to me to be a special competence of the police. The police are sometimes expected to judge a person's character (e.g. with gun permits), but I've never heard of them being called upon to be arbiters of either technical standards or professional competence.
On a curved surface, the shortest path between two points is a curve. Of course, if you define a straight line as the shortest distance between two points, that curve is also a straight line. In fact, talking about "the shortest path" is a misnomer since there may be more than one path with minimum length, or to put it another way there may be more than one straight line between two points.
Galaxy A curves space, causing the "straight" lines between Galaxy B and the Earth to no longer be unique. There is a set of lines which have minimum length, and we perceive light along all of those paths. This set of paths happens to look like a ring.
So to explain why somebody would be paranoid about buying "Catcher in the Rye" from Amazon, Dun Malg provides a link to IMDB, which is owned by Amazon. Dun's tinfoil hat must be loose.
How can they be a monopoly if they are controlling only one planet? Science has shown that there are lots of planets on which none of those companies currently operate. For example, did you know that the RIAA has never sued anyone living on Venus? And that the CIA has never overthrown a government on Jupiter?
Earth: love it or leave it
I don't know the speed of sound in the upper atmosphere, but at ground level it is about 340 m/s. Mach 15 would be 5100 m/s. To get there in 5 minutes would require 17 m/s^2, or just under 2G (almost exactly 2G if you add in gravity at a right angle to the flight path). That would be uncomfortable, but would hardly result in "human soup". If you're willing to wait 20 minutes to reach Mach 15, you'd only need 4.3 m/s^2. A good car can accelerate faster than that (for a few seconds).
How would you as an individual know that the serial # was clean? Are there websites that maintain lists of stolen laptops?
I'm not sure what your point is. All security involves balancing risk and cost; spending too much on security is no better than spending too little on security. If I spend $10 to prevent $5 in losses, I'm being foolish.
In the context of the Olympics, you can have perfect Olympic security by simply not having any Olympics. Otherwise there is always a risk of either electronic or physical intrusions. Somebody has to evaluate the risks and the damage they could cause, evaluate to what extent a given security plan mitigates that risk, and decide if the expected damage reduction is worth the cost of the security.
For example, consider the possibility that somebody is able to hijack the Olympics home page, and it takes an hour to fix the problem. Such a defacement is clearly not "acceptable", but what is it worth? Would they pay $1 to prevent it? Almost certainly. Would they pay $1,000,000,000 to prevent it? Probably not.
3 GHz = 10 cm wavelength. Where I live, most of the flies are significantly shorter than 10 cm. If things are different where you live, remind me to stay away.
Those transnational conglomerates didn't make their fortunes by sitting in a room and saying "let's keep people pacified and preoccupied", they did it by sitting in a room and saying "let's figure out what news and entertainment people will take time to read or watch, thus attracting a valuable demographic and increasing our advertising rates". The way to be a profitable news outlet is to be a popular news outlet.
There are segments of the population that are very interested in economic issues, and as a result, there are media (including some owned by big transnational corporations) that report on these issues. For example, the Economist had a feature section on people who are hurt by free trade. This is a very pro-free-trade magazine, but they are willing to acknowledge the downsides.
The mass media also cover this kind of thing. I've seen articles in the business section of my local newspaper that mention the kind of wealth stats you bring up. They make great sound bites, which is what the mass media love.
No, I don't remember any time when the Internet was void of government. It was created by the government, then government interest waned for a while as commercial interests increased, but the government and government institutions (including public universities and their faculty) were still very much involved with it.
So what period of time are you thinking of when government money wasn't at least a significant minority of the support for the net? When government supported researchers weren't a significant part of the governing bodies of the net?
Indeed, having fan boys call people up to ridicule them is unprofessional. Proper, enterprise ready companies just throw chairs.
When you think of an idea, it is entirely yours and nobody else has any rights to it whatsoever.
If you choose to share that idea with somebody else, then you are either explicitly or implicitly assigning rights to that person. Perhaps you have an explicit contract with that person specifying what they can do with your idea. If so, then that contract is binding. Copyright law can be thought of as the default license agreement for content if you do not have an explicit contract with the consumer. You can unilaterally choose to waive some of your rights, and this is what the GPL does. You can't unilaterally take away the rights of the person receiving the content.
So by all means, make your own rules for your content. Just make sure that other people have agreed to those rules before you give them the content. If you choose to give your content out freely to the world, then you are implicitly agreeing to license it under the terms of copyright law, and that includes fair use.
The rules for what constitutes a contract have been significantly weakened in this day of clickthrough licenses, but even there in theory there was an interaction with the user; they chose to accept the contract by clicking "OK". I'm not aware of any court case validating a contract that exists merely by passively viewing a document.