It probably wasn't a valid form of probable cause. The OP probably allowed it. You have to make it very clear that you do not consent to searches or they will search. And of course it's a bad idea to let them search, as it can only harm you; they may find something from the previous owner, or whatever, that looks suspicious. Now you have something to explain/worry about, whereas if you just said "I do not consent to searches," you'd both be on your way.
Manufacturers are not people, but people do run the manufacturing companies and as such those people (especially the owners of said companies) do have the right to do business as they please. If they make enough poor choices and end up alienating their market, they will likely go out of business. Meanwhile, another manufacturer will eventually come onto the scene to offer people what they want. Business cycles: they are a good thing. Requiring companies to provide {x} length warranty is ridiculous, as a business does tend to try to satisfy their customers; if they choose not to provide such a warranty freely, it is probably because it is not important enough to their end users.
Remember, when you pass legislation saying {x} type of product must have {y} or {z}, all you effectively do is increase the price of that product and when prices go up, demand goes down. In other words: you likely won't be as interested in the product if you have to spend another ${n} on it.:) My point is, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have the same product at the same price point and a longer warranty. Either the price must go up or the quality down in order to compensate for additional cost to the manufacturer.
And his SSD failed. What is your point, exactly?:) Seriously though, from the reading I've done on it, it takes a *ton* of read/writes to blow through a decent SSD's limits.
This is more or less what I do. I forget why I didn't use these specific flags in rsync (the whole process is handled by a Python script I wrote that does a few other things as well).
Likewise, except I keep incremental backups for anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months and as such, I do use --delete. I was rather shocked that Linus actually lost substantial data.
While I've never worked for the fed, I have worked for the State of Oregon. What a mess. The majority of workers *do* fit the stereotype. And they are lead often by exceedingly inept management. I imagine the fed is that and worse, considering the even greater bureaucracy. No, the lazy government worker is not over-generalized. This is not to say that every government worker is lazy (or that every government manager is inept), but in my mind it is an accurate generalization.
You're forgetting many other important factors. A few:
Your previous spot may now be filled by cars behind you
Even if your previous spot is not filled, slamming on one's breaks and then changing lanes in front of fast-moving traffic is generally considered dumb.
I don't disagree with your claims about corporations doing a lousy job. In fact, just a few posts down I mentioned how the limited liability nature of corporations is one of the real problems. However, this is not a matter of who we trust, but in fact a question of what means reaches the desired ends best. Governments are notoriously inefficient in most areas. They may in fact generally do a better job of cleaning up such messes than corporations, in which case I think that may be a viable option. I do not know the answer, I am just raising the question. One thing to remember, though, is the incentive that we create for corporations by cleaning up their messes for them. If we continue to remove the risk (or some of the risk) from the corporation, we should expect them to partake in increasingly risky behavior.
Well ideally, corporations should not exist at all. The trouble is that the corporations have very little true incentive to do "what's right" because of the limited liability nature of them. Furthermore, just because we have issues created by corporations does *not* mean that the solution is government. They are not opposites (and even if they were does not mean the opposite of a bad decision is a good decision). In fact, corporations cannot exist without government (it is government that defines a corporation and grants it its liability immunities).
The thing we need to ask ourselves is not a question of is more/less government the solution, but rather, is this a job that the government can do more effectively? With something such as crucial as this, we must make sure that the means chosen have a good (ideally, the best) likelihood of reaching the ends desired.
As others have stated, use a proper means of code sharing. It's pretty terrible reading any language when all indentation white space is stripped from it. This is not a problem unique to Python (or other languages with significant white space). Just because the code in question can pass a syntax check does not mean that it is not easily misrendered or mistransmitted.
I do a fair bit of programming in Python and curly-bracket languages (C, C++, JavaScript, PHP, etc.) and interestingly, a forgotten/misplaced curly bracket in any of those various curly-bracket languages seem to break my code vastly more often than indentation issues do. Your code should *always* be indented. Python whitespace should already be there in all of your code (minus an occasional tweak here and there). Why complain about having to write {} less frequently?
I won't vote for a "good politician". In fact, it's the willingness to compromise that's gotten us in this mess. Any time you compromise between what's good and what's evil, you move further from good towards evil. For example, it's always wrong to make legislation based on lobbying from large organizations (now, if they happen to be lobbying for something that is fundamentally right/good [needs definition], that is different because it's still the right thing to do and their lobbying is not what makes it so).
Let's take the sugar industry in the USA as a more specific example, which is notorious for gaining government regulation/price fixing in its favor. If one side is pushing for special treatment of large business via regulations and price fixing, that is wrong. In no way is it right to "compromise" and give them less satisfactory regulation and/or price fixing. The next time it comes for such a decision and you compromise again, you have once again moved further towards corruption. The only way to maintain a government that serves the people is to never compromise on principles. Now this is all meaningless since the average American is a blithering idiot, which still doesn't change what's right and good.
I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not. I guess I'll bite...
What happens when a very soft metal (lead bullet) contacts a very hard metal (steel target) at high speed (2500+ FPS)? The lead bullet splatters and the target is left (ideally) unharmed.
Now, repeat with a steel projectile. The projectile will fly through even very hard steel. Even if it doesn't pass all the way through, the jagged edges it will leave in the target will cause the target to no longer be safe to shoot at.
Disclaimer: The above assumes rifles but is also true for handguns. I realize the discussion is about shot, but one thing to keep in mind is 00 buck contains a bunch of.33 caliber BB's, each with enough momentum behind them to destroy handgun-grade steel targets. Not to mention, such high-caliber steel shot can damage your shot gun barrel.
The real problem, though, is that lead is used because it is effective and not prohibitively expensive (in fact, even ignoring cost, it may very well be the best all-around material available, but I am not sure). If you ban lead, alternatives will be used that are less effective and then hunters will be accused of inhumane practice by other special interest groups. It's sort of a lose/lose situation.
Tungsten is also very hard, which will destroy your barrel. It would have to be a Tungsten core surrounded in something like... lead. But now we're just talking about Armor Piercing rounds.
Of course the telco's want monopolies. The problem isn't that or even the threats of not doing business there, the problem is that the government grants monopolies. If that weren't true, there would be no reason for large corporations to lobby for them. You have to expect companies to do everything they can to stay in a position of market dominance: it would be foolish to expect them to not look after "their best interest." Blame the system, not those who operate in it.
I wish you were joking too. I actually hadn't thought of that as an underlying reason to bail out the auto industry. I thought they just wanted to steal more of my money; I see now they may have killed two birds with one stone.
The price of an item is set by the seller, not the producer (unless there is a contract in place which restricts what the seller can sell the product for). As it's already been pointed out, just because two numbers happen to be the same does not mean they represent the same thing. The "real price" of any given item is whatever price a buyer and seller both find as advantageous.
For instance, there is a very large ammunition shortage in the United States right now, due to a number of circumstances (primarily, the fear of increased gun legislation in light of the recent shootings). I have seen rounds selling on auction sites for 3-5x what they sold for before the shortage. As I have no immediate need for the rounds, it is not worth it to me to spend such high prices on ammo that will be cheap again soon. However, there are some out there who would rather shell out $50 for those bullets now rather than wait a few months for the prices to drop to $15-$20. Their reasons are their own, but the point is their willingness to buy the rounds means that the rounds are, in that instance, worth that amount.
Someone printing $9.95 on a book or a box of ammo does not magically mean that the price of that item is $9.95 everywhere at every point in time.
I may not agree with you on much, but I agree that I'd rather take my chances with Al Qaeda and the Taliban than with a police state.
If we just minded our own business and stopped meddling in other nations' stuff, we wouldn't have to worry about AQ and the Taliban. After all, they don't attack us because they are envious of "our freedoms". The best way to avoid conflict with terrorist groups is to not participate in the terrorism.
Slashdot Mirror
It probably wasn't a valid form of probable cause. The OP probably allowed it. You have to make it very clear that you do not consent to searches or they will search. And of course it's a bad idea to let them search, as it can only harm you; they may find something from the previous owner, or whatever, that looks suspicious. Now you have something to explain/worry about, whereas if you just said "I do not consent to searches," you'd both be on your way.
To be fair, it's something that no other OS has been able to touch, that I know of. 3 Debian.
Unless all of the memory is shared (or I am mistaken), a 32-bit device may not have access to even the full 4 GB of RAM.
Manufacturers are not people, but people do run the manufacturing companies and as such those people (especially the owners of said companies) do have the right to do business as they please. If they make enough poor choices and end up alienating their market, they will likely go out of business. Meanwhile, another manufacturer will eventually come onto the scene to offer people what they want. Business cycles: they are a good thing. Requiring companies to provide {x} length warranty is ridiculous, as a business does tend to try to satisfy their customers; if they choose not to provide such a warranty freely, it is probably because it is not important enough to their end users.
Remember, when you pass legislation saying {x} type of product must have {y} or {z}, all you effectively do is increase the price of that product and when prices go up, demand goes down. In other words: you likely won't be as interested in the product if you have to spend another ${n} on it. :) My point is, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have the same product at the same price point and a longer warranty. Either the price must go up or the quality down in order to compensate for additional cost to the manufacturer.
Perhaps you need to buy some more RAM? :)
And his SSD failed. What is your point, exactly? :) Seriously though, from the reading I've done on it, it takes a *ton* of read/writes to blow through a decent SSD's limits.
This is more or less what I do. I forget why I didn't use these specific flags in rsync (the whole process is handled by a Python script I wrote that does a few other things as well).
Likewise, except I keep incremental backups for anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months and as such, I do use --delete. I was rather shocked that Linus actually lost substantial data.
While I've never worked for the fed, I have worked for the State of Oregon. What a mess. The majority of workers *do* fit the stereotype. And they are lead often by exceedingly inept management. I imagine the fed is that and worse, considering the even greater bureaucracy. No, the lazy government worker is not over-generalized. This is not to say that every government worker is lazy (or that every government manager is inept), but in my mind it is an accurate generalization.
Can we please stop looking at things in a vacuum?
I don't disagree with your claims about corporations doing a lousy job. In fact, just a few posts down I mentioned how the limited liability nature of corporations is one of the real problems. However, this is not a matter of who we trust, but in fact a question of what means reaches the desired ends best. Governments are notoriously inefficient in most areas. They may in fact generally do a better job of cleaning up such messes than corporations, in which case I think that may be a viable option. I do not know the answer, I am just raising the question. One thing to remember, though, is the incentive that we create for corporations by cleaning up their messes for them. If we continue to remove the risk (or some of the risk) from the corporation, we should expect them to partake in increasingly risky behavior.
Well ideally, corporations should not exist at all. The trouble is that the corporations have very little true incentive to do "what's right" because of the limited liability nature of them. Furthermore, just because we have issues created by corporations does *not* mean that the solution is government. They are not opposites (and even if they were does not mean the opposite of a bad decision is a good decision). In fact, corporations cannot exist without government (it is government that defines a corporation and grants it its liability immunities).
The thing we need to ask ourselves is not a question of is more/less government the solution, but rather, is this a job that the government can do more effectively? With something such as crucial as this, we must make sure that the means chosen have a good (ideally, the best) likelihood of reaching the ends desired.
They are. :)
As others have stated, use a proper means of code sharing. It's pretty terrible reading any language when all indentation white space is stripped from it. This is not a problem unique to Python (or other languages with significant white space). Just because the code in question can pass a syntax check does not mean that it is not easily misrendered or mistransmitted.
I do a fair bit of programming in Python and curly-bracket languages (C, C++, JavaScript, PHP, etc.) and interestingly, a forgotten/misplaced curly bracket in any of those various curly-bracket languages seem to break my code vastly more often than indentation issues do. Your code should *always* be indented. Python whitespace should already be there in all of your code (minus an occasional tweak here and there). Why complain about having to write {} less frequently?
I won't vote for a "good politician". In fact, it's the willingness to compromise that's gotten us in this mess. Any time you compromise between what's good and what's evil, you move further from good towards evil. For example, it's always wrong to make legislation based on lobbying from large organizations (now, if they happen to be lobbying for something that is fundamentally right/good [needs definition], that is different because it's still the right thing to do and their lobbying is not what makes it so).
Let's take the sugar industry in the USA as a more specific example, which is notorious for gaining government regulation/price fixing in its favor. If one side is pushing for special treatment of large business via regulations and price fixing, that is wrong. In no way is it right to "compromise" and give them less satisfactory regulation and/or price fixing. The next time it comes for such a decision and you compromise again, you have once again moved further towards corruption. The only way to maintain a government that serves the people is to never compromise on principles. Now this is all meaningless since the average American is a blithering idiot, which still doesn't change what's right and good.
I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not. I guess I'll bite...
What happens when a very soft metal (lead bullet) contacts a very hard metal (steel target) at high speed (2500+ FPS)? The lead bullet splatters and the target is left (ideally) unharmed.
Now, repeat with a steel projectile. The projectile will fly through even very hard steel. Even if it doesn't pass all the way through, the jagged edges it will leave in the target will cause the target to no longer be safe to shoot at.
Disclaimer: The above assumes rifles but is also true for handguns. I realize the discussion is about shot, but one thing to keep in mind is 00 buck contains a bunch of .33 caliber BB's, each with enough momentum behind them to destroy handgun-grade steel targets. Not to mention, such high-caliber steel shot can damage your shot gun barrel.
The real problem, though, is that lead is used because it is effective and not prohibitively expensive (in fact, even ignoring cost, it may very well be the best all-around material available, but I am not sure). If you ban lead, alternatives will be used that are less effective and then hunters will be accused of inhumane practice by other special interest groups. It's sort of a lose/lose situation.
Tungsten is also very hard, which will destroy your barrel. It would have to be a Tungsten core surrounded in something like... lead. But now we're just talking about Armor Piercing rounds.
This clearly makes it even more important to wear one's toilet safety belt.
+1. Also to your signature.
Of course the telco's want monopolies. The problem isn't that or even the threats of not doing business there, the problem is that the government grants monopolies. If that weren't true, there would be no reason for large corporations to lobby for them. You have to expect companies to do everything they can to stay in a position of market dominance: it would be foolish to expect them to not look after "their best interest." Blame the system, not those who operate in it.
I wish you were joking too. I actually hadn't thought of that as an underlying reason to bail out the auto industry. I thought they just wanted to steal more of my money; I see now they may have killed two birds with one stone.
The price of an item is set by the seller, not the producer (unless there is a contract in place which restricts what the seller can sell the product for). As it's already been pointed out, just because two numbers happen to be the same does not mean they represent the same thing. The "real price" of any given item is whatever price a buyer and seller both find as advantageous.
For instance, there is a very large ammunition shortage in the United States right now, due to a number of circumstances (primarily, the fear of increased gun legislation in light of the recent shootings). I have seen rounds selling on auction sites for 3-5x what they sold for before the shortage. As I have no immediate need for the rounds, it is not worth it to me to spend such high prices on ammo that will be cheap again soon. However, there are some out there who would rather shell out $50 for those bullets now rather than wait a few months for the prices to drop to $15-$20. Their reasons are their own, but the point is their willingness to buy the rounds means that the rounds are, in that instance, worth that amount.
Someone printing $9.95 on a book or a box of ammo does not magically mean that the price of that item is $9.95 everywhere at every point in time.
I may not agree with you on much, but I agree that I'd rather take my chances with Al Qaeda and the Taliban than with a police state.
If we just minded our own business and stopped meddling in other nations' stuff, we wouldn't have to worry about AQ and the Taliban. After all, they don't attack us because they are envious of "our freedoms". The best way to avoid conflict with terrorist groups is to not participate in the terrorism.