Not everything in a law has to be addressed in its short title.
"Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."
That's pretty clear. Emphasis mine. Congress knew damn well it was closing a gap in the destruction of evidence law and "any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States" is completely unambiguous.
That's my point. These justices have sold themselves as strict constructionists, but when it comes to a law they don't like, suddenly it's the other way around.
Here's the way I figure it. If the man survives, it's homicide. If the man suffers serious injuries (you, know, from being crushed by a giant snake), it's felony maiming (or whatever it's called in whatever non-jurisdiction they're planning to do this). If he survives without harm, it's reckless endangerment. If the snake is injured or dies, it's animal cruelty.
It's not vague, it's inclusive. They meant to criminalize the destruction of evidence in federal criminal investigations and that's what they did. Had they meant something different, they'd have chosen different words. The "strict constructionists" on the court are favoring the idea that the law doesn't mean exactly what it says, but some they're-going-to-define-it-for-us subset of what it says? This makes sense to you?
Nevermind the consequences if they limit the meaning -- it will be legal to destroy most kinds of evidence in a criminal investigation. It's all A-OK if it didn't contain financial records right? Right?
To me it's obvious it would ( -- this is the right verb ) be good for technology and innovation because you can't expect one demographic to have all the ideas worth pursuing.
That's the 'hidden variables' question, and currently there's no way to answer it.
However the 'spooky action at a distance' handwavery explanation of the Copenhagen interpretation is not an indispensible part of the Copenhagen interpretation. One can simply observe that when one of a pair of entangled particles is measured, the state of the entangled particle is logically constrained rather than teleported to its position. And the "measured" portion can be dispensed with as well if you understand that there is zero difference between being measured by experimental apparatus and interacting with another particle so as to change its quantum state. This removes the spooky aspect of privileging the Experimenter. The experimenter is no diifferent from any other nonempty set of fermions, aside from being more complicated than many.
The HR people aren't qualified to make such a judgment. If your organization is reasonably structured, the hiring managers are very qualified to judge the competence of the candidates and in the typical process, they make sure they are interviewed by several people with varying skill sets relevant to the position. Those people are qualified to judge some or all of the candidate's relevant skills.
That is, if you get to the real interviews at all. Most candidates are screened out by HR because they don't even meet the job description on paper. The hiring manager doesn't want to look at 100 resumes for a position, most of which are for people who don't have the skills they're looking for. She wants to look at 5 to ten, pick the most likely 3 and have them in for on-site interviews. That right there is the value that hiring managers see in HR people. They'd rather have a semi skilled person do a half assed job of screening the resumes so their choices are narrowed to something reasonable even if it means the best person for the job will get screened out. At the end of the hiring process, it doesn't MATTER if you've found the best person for the job. It only matters if you find SOME person who can do the job and can function well in your working environment. Typically, it's a sooner-the-better situation. Work that you need done is not getting done because there aren't enough people with the right skills to do it.
No, that's wrong. Four satellites are needed to get a unique position solution. The ground stations only broadcast correction data that can move your position solution by a few meters at most.
Like hiring sports teams in what sense? Like the NFL draft? Big companies get to pick who they want from each year's graduating class, with little if any choice on the part of the new-minted engineers, and most of the graduates don't ever get to use their skills professionally?
When we hire we look for specific skills that are relevant to our business. Maybe that's what you mean. We try to be careful about what's an absolute must (e.g. knows C++) and make the rest of the qualifications "preferred" or "desired." We rarely get an exact match between what we'd like to have and the candidate but that's OK. We hire people that can learn.
The music as it is written is an imprecise rendering of the composer's intent. He or she intends it to be played a certain way and can't fully describe it in musical notation. It's like the script of a play. How the artist plays the notes or says the words matters. The performer that plays it is supposed to discern the intent and represent it, but is (perhaps by intent but unavoidably anyway), evoking the style and expression that were in the composer's mind. It is possible for an expert performer to exceed what the composer intended and produce something better, or to fail to perceive the composer's intent and produce something not as good.
Ms. Midgette is telling you that in her opinion, the performer didn't do justice to the work.
That's a little bit more than fair use, and you didn't credit your source. So I guess it's copyright violation and plagiarism. That may have to be removed from this website, if the Washington Post objects to it.
The biggest users drive the infrastructure cost. The ISP isn't going to have to upgrade infrastructure because grandma sent her kids a 30K Christmas email. It needs to be upgraded because a user wants two hundred movies, or operate a game server that serves 200 users.
The obvious solution is you pay twice: once to the content provider that pays the copyright fees and sends you the content and once to the ISP that delivers the packets to your home. Volume-based billing absolutely makes sense. It makes no sense to the ISP to charge the same amount to a customer that uses 1000GB/month as one that uses 1GB/month. (Well, they'd love to charge everybody as if they were using 1000GB/month but they recognize that many users are unwilling to pay for that class of service.)
It sounds like they're intending to draw a distinction between nodes that principally receive data from those that principally transmit data.
If the node has a high ratio of bits received to bits transmitted, it's an "End User." If it has a high ratio of bits transmitted to bits received, it's an "edge provider."
ISPs are neither. They presumably have similar numbers of transmitted and received bits because they are mostly actiing as conduits between data sources and data sinks.
Slashdot Mirror
Not everything in a law has to be addressed in its short title.
"Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."
That's pretty clear. Emphasis mine. Congress knew damn well it was closing a gap in the destruction of evidence law and "any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States" is completely unambiguous.
That's my point. These justices have sold themselves as strict constructionists, but when it comes to a law they don't like, suddenly it's the other way around.
Freedom of the press, I mean.
This is not what it's for.
Here's the way I figure it. If the man survives, it's homicide. If the man suffers serious injuries (you, know, from being crushed by a giant snake), it's felony maiming (or whatever it's called in whatever non-jurisdiction they're planning to do this). If he survives without harm, it's reckless endangerment. If the snake is injured or dies, it's animal cruelty.
Nothing good.
It's not vague, it's inclusive. They meant to criminalize the destruction of evidence in federal criminal investigations and that's what they did. Had they meant something different, they'd have chosen different words. The "strict constructionists" on the court are favoring the idea that the law doesn't mean exactly what it says, but some they're-going-to-define-it-for-us subset of what it says? This makes sense to you?
Nevermind the consequences if they limit the meaning -- it will be legal to destroy most kinds of evidence in a criminal investigation. It's all A-OK if it didn't contain financial records right? Right?
I always imagined some of that was fewer people watching at night, so the gloves are off.
To me it's obvious it would ( -- this is the right verb ) be good for technology and innovation because you can't expect one demographic to have all the ideas worth pursuing.
Yeah, definitely. It must be because of something that wasn't measured and is impossible to measure.
Anyone in manufacturing knows more stupid shit happens on 3rd shift than any other. I guess this helps explain why.
It doesn't tell us what to do about it, unfortunately, other than avoid 2nd and 3rd shifts if you can.
That's the 'hidden variables' question, and currently there's no way to answer it.
However the 'spooky action at a distance' handwavery explanation of the Copenhagen interpretation is not an indispensible part of the Copenhagen interpretation. One can simply observe that when one of a pair of entangled particles is measured, the state of the entangled particle is logically constrained rather than teleported to its position. And the "measured" portion can be dispensed with as well if you understand that there is zero difference between being measured by experimental apparatus and interacting with another particle so as to change its quantum state. This removes the spooky aspect of privileging the Experimenter. The experimenter is no diifferent from any other nonempty set of fermions, aside from being more complicated than many.
The HR people aren't qualified to make such a judgment. If your organization is reasonably structured, the hiring managers are very qualified to judge the competence of the candidates and in the typical process, they make sure they are interviewed by several people with varying skill sets relevant to the position. Those people are qualified to judge some or all of the candidate's relevant skills.
That is, if you get to the real interviews at all. Most candidates are screened out by HR because they don't even meet the job description on paper. The hiring manager doesn't want to look at 100 resumes for a position, most of which are for people who don't have the skills they're looking for. She wants to look at 5 to ten, pick the most likely 3 and have them in for on-site interviews. That right there is the value that hiring managers see in HR people. They'd rather have a semi skilled person do a half assed job of screening the resumes so their choices are narrowed to something reasonable even if it means the best person for the job will get screened out. At the end of the hiring process, it doesn't MATTER if you've found the best person for the job. It only matters if you find SOME person who can do the job and can function well in your working environment. Typically, it's a sooner-the-better situation. Work that you need done is not getting done because there aren't enough people with the right skills to do it.
No, that's wrong. Four satellites are needed to get a unique position solution. The ground stations only broadcast correction data that can move your position solution by a few meters at most.
Like hiring sports teams in what sense? Like the NFL draft? Big companies get to pick who they want from each year's graduating class, with little if any choice on the part of the new-minted engineers, and most of the graduates don't ever get to use their skills professionally?
When we hire we look for specific skills that are relevant to our business. Maybe that's what you mean. We try to be careful about what's an absolute must (e.g. knows C++) and make the rest of the qualifications "preferred" or "desired." We rarely get an exact match between what we'd like to have and the candidate but that's OK. We hire people that can learn.
You are conflating price and cost.
The music as it is written is an imprecise rendering of the composer's intent. He or she intends it to be played a certain way and can't fully describe it in musical notation. It's like the script of a play. How the artist plays the notes or says the words matters. The performer that plays it is supposed to discern the intent and represent it, but is (perhaps by intent but unavoidably anyway), evoking the style and expression that were in the composer's mind. It is possible for an expert performer to exceed what the composer intended and produce something better, or to fail to perceive the composer's intent and produce something not as good.
Ms. Midgette is telling you that in her opinion, the performer didn't do justice to the work.
If they knew the police were just trying to impede the media, why did they go along? Heads should roll at multiple levels.
But Midgette's pretensious prose parrots Lazic's performance, presumably.
That's a little bit more than fair use, and you didn't credit your source. So I guess it's copyright violation and plagiarism. That may have to be removed from this website, if the Washington Post objects to it.
It won't work. We have a First Amendment here. Any law seeking to restrain the press from reporting news can't be enforced.
The biggest users drive the infrastructure cost. The ISP isn't going to have to upgrade infrastructure because grandma sent her kids a 30K Christmas email. It needs to be upgraded because a user wants two hundred movies, or operate a game server that serves 200 users.
Flat-rate pricing is worse.
Actually I think having bullet trains and having nuclear weapons are anticorrelated.
The obvious solution is you pay twice: once to the content provider that pays the copyright fees and sends you the content and once to the ISP that delivers the packets to your home. Volume-based billing absolutely makes sense. It makes no sense to the ISP to charge the same amount to a customer that uses 1000GB/month as one that uses 1GB/month. (Well, they'd love to charge everybody as if they were using 1000GB/month but they recognize that many users are unwilling to pay for that class of service.)
My point was more than that. You don't have to have done something wrong to have evidence used against you IN A CRIME YOU DIDN'T COMMIT.
It sounds like they're intending to draw a distinction between nodes that principally receive data from those that principally transmit data.
If the node has a high ratio of bits received to bits transmitted, it's an "End User." If it has a high ratio of bits transmitted to bits received, it's an "edge provider."
ISPs are neither. They presumably have similar numbers of transmitted and received bits because they are mostly actiing as conduits between data sources and data sinks.