I'm not speaking from personal experience here, but I've read of FBI confiscation of hard drives before. Apparently, the "we're seizing all your servers' hard drives" tactic isn't new.
They try to get the disks back in a timely fashion, when they're through with their analysis. It's completely different than, say, having your car impounded as you're arrested selling suitcases full of coke. They're taking the drives not because they were used in the commission of a crime (necessarily), but because they want evidence off of them, possibly just incidental.
No word on legal obligations, but I can say, based on what I've read (again, no personal experience here), the FBI does make a reasonable attempt to not inconvenience you *too* horribly if they have to take your disks.
I may well have misunderstood, but it sounded to me as if only the hard drives were seized.
True, various logger stuff could have been installed. (Although that would be on the harddrive, if in software.) But that's a risk you run whenever you have a dedicated server, or even if you colocate your gear where someone else has physical access.
PayPal, which must deal handle millions of dollars a day, just goes down entirely. My real problem, though, is that they are not a real bank. (At least last time I checked) they are not FDIC Insured or anything. They could just never come back, and there's really not much anyone could do.
Not that I expect them to run off with my money. But in situations such as, say, the whole site going down, I like to know my money's in something that's insured.
I'm not well-versed on HIV or AIDS. But I have a simple, stupid question.
To fight off the flu, you essentially give someone the flu, you just only give them a small amount. (And it's usually "dead," so that it can't infect them.) The body 'learns' to defend against it, so that if the 'full strength' flu hits, you can prevent it. This is a basic fact of how most preventative immunizations work.
Why doesn't this work for HIV/AIDS? Wouldn't someone receiving a tiny bit of the AIDS virus become immune to AIDS? I'm assuming that someone much smarter than myself has attempted this, and that it doesn't work. I'm just curious as to why. (And, as I said, I don't pretend to know much about HIV, AIDS, or medicine in general.)
This absolutely could be the case. And yet I'm sure it isn't.
Businesses will do anything to make a buck. Companies routinely overlook blatant safety hazards that put their customers' lives on the line.
But I think if someone had cured AIDS, they'd go forth with it, if nothing else so they could claim they cured AIDS. I think if a big pharmaceutical came out tomorrow with a (credible) claim at having cured AIDS, their stock would go through the roof.
I don't necessarily forsee this as the "true" future, but a few comments here got me thinking in this direction, and, well, it's an interesting "What if" thing to think about.
A lot of work has been done in the field of "engineering" human life. We now create babies in a laboratory, in test tubes. Many plants are genetically altered.
Suppose the "cure for AIDS" wasn't a pill, but just something you could give to your children, who would be "grown" in a lab, based on a mother and father's DNA, to be AIDS-immune.
How many people would even be willing to do this? And, assuming a sufficient quantity did, would the AIDS-immune minority (presumably) eventually dominate, by Darwin's Theory? Would this vulnerable to AIDS eventually just all die off, leaving only genetically-altered humans?
This is nothing more than wild conjecture; a work of fiction, really. But it's because of comments here that I started wondering. And it doesn't seem entirely implausible, really.
The flip side of course being the perils of falling into the Nazi idealism of creating a master race from a genetic template considered desirable.
I don't think it's really the same thing. (BTW, don't take this as an attack of anything, especially as I got the impression you were just throwing the idea out there to be fair.) I don't think a "master race" is ever a good idea, but I don't think this even comes close.
First off, what I think most people find most objectionable isn't that Hitler thought some people were better than others: I think millions of people today still believe some races of people are superior to other races. What made it go from discrimination to one of the worst attrocities ever was when he started killing the exterior races.
I don't view the potential to find a cure for AIDS as creating a master race. I think it's the same as eliminating smallpox, or having flu shots: you're just preventing death.
Isn't it possible -- almost likely -- that once he goes back at his total filth of a radio show, he's going to completely offend someone? (That's his modus operandi, really, so of course he will.)
I'm still confused by the story, but I guess a friend's friend had Howard Stern make some comment towards her, which she construed as being sexualyl harassing. Nothing really became of it, but she was given a bunch of free concert tickets.
I've never found him funny, so I don't listen. But I actually find it surprising that, in today's society, he's not being hit with lawsuits every day. Or is he, and we're just not hearing about them?
I'm no lawyer, nor have I even RTFA, but I think this is likely to give unfettered freedom of speech. Over broadcast radio, you can't send anything obscene/profane/indecent. This is why Stern lands himself in trouble, this is why there are "Radio Edits" of songs with profanity.
However, cable TV is a different story, because cable TV is not a 'broadcast' medium the same way radio is; you must subscribe to (or illegally steal) cable television, you cannot simply tune around the airwaves and encounter profanity. (Oh the horrors!)
Again, it seems to me that Sirius, a subscription-based satellite radio service, would be classified the same way, thus permitting Stern to say whatever he pleases.
Whether his show is any good, or whether it's just pure filth that's not even funny, is still up to you.:)
I grasp the redundancy you're commenting on, but the irritating overuse of "alleged" is usually necessary to fend off libel/slander suits. (I'd have tried to find another word for the second occurance of "alleged," though.)
Otherwise, anyone found not guilty could turn around and sue them for slander.
If this was anything but the police, it'd be a really good, really funny idea.
I would *not* mess with the police. Not because I think they'll come shoot you or anything crazy, but because their job is kind of important. True, it's not the emergency number you're giving out. But you're still tying up one of their dispatchers, who could otherwise be handling a real emergency, not handling calls for you.
Give out the number for Domino's or something, and it's a good idea. If it was something like SCO's number, even better. But please don't endanger my safety by wasting police dispatchers' time handling the calls you don't want.
"Unfortunately, having pilots wear colored laser safety glasses would be impractical as that would make it impossible to interpret the colored symbols on paper maps and cockpit displays."
Furthermoor, wearing colored laser-safety glasses would make the pilots look ridiculous.
Most DSLRs have smaller sensors, hence the "FOV Crop." For example, Canon's 'lower-end' DSLRs have a 1.6x "FOV Crop," effectively multiplying the focal length by 1.6 -- because the sensor is smaller than the 35mm standard.
That said, this is NOT the first camera to have a 35mm sensor; I *think* Canon's 1Ds (successor to this model) took that honor.
I don't know what American libel laws are like, but here in Britain, what was said about the Register's journalistic practices would, if unprovable, cause SunnComm some trouble...
I'm American, not British, but I've read of several British libel cases. It seems to me (being neither a lawyer nor British, mind you) that Britain places the burden of proof on the defendant: "Prove that what you said was true, or you're guilty." On the other hand, in America, they have to prove that what you said was untrue for you to get convicted.
I like this question. On first glance, this seemed like a ridiculous question, one not fit to pass on.
But I think it would be really interesting to see what they say if they're each asked to say one good thing about the other. It could really set the tone.
I can't honestly say I've done a very objective analysis, but I'm a New Hampshire analysis, and I'd considering New Hampshire to be a somewhat conservative state.
Sure, we're the "Live Free or Die" state, and there's plenty of liberals. But I've always thought we were a bit conservative. It's states like California and Massachusetts that are 'pioneers' in liberalism.
What ever happened to the Coral P2P cache? The site makes it look like it's still up and running. It doesn't seem to be working for any links I try, however.
Are others seeing the same thing? I'm guessing they are, because no one's included Coral mirrors of the sites, and they're feeling awfully slow.
First he wrote "it's" and asked what it was. A fairly decent amount of the class told him correctly. "Good," he replied, and wrote "its" on the board. Most everyone, this time, chimed in.
Then he wrote "its'," and asked, "And what's this one?" Everyone looked at each other, before someone finally chipped in. "Possive plural?"
He scribbled it out and told us, "This is shit. It doesn't exist."
It's amazing how easily people can become confused by the simplest of things.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not speaking from personal experience here, but I've read of FBI confiscation of hard drives before. Apparently, the "we're seizing all your servers' hard drives" tactic isn't new.
They try to get the disks back in a timely fashion, when they're through with their analysis. It's completely different than, say, having your car impounded as you're arrested selling suitcases full of coke. They're taking the drives not because they were used in the commission of a crime (necessarily), but because they want evidence off of them, possibly just incidental.
No word on legal obligations, but I can say, based on what I've read (again, no personal experience here), the FBI does make a reasonable attempt to not inconvenience you *too* horribly if they have to take your disks.
I may well have misunderstood, but it sounded to me as if only the hard drives were seized.
True, various logger stuff could have been installed. (Although that would be on the harddrive, if in software.) But that's a risk you run whenever you have a dedicated server, or even if you colocate your gear where someone else has physical access.
Is anyone else profoundly bothered by this?
PayPal, which must deal handle millions of dollars a day, just goes down entirely. My real problem, though, is that they are not a real bank. (At least last time I checked) they are not FDIC Insured or anything. They could just never come back, and there's really not much anyone could do.
Not that I expect them to run off with my money. But in situations such as, say, the whole site going down, I like to know my money's in something that's insured.
investigations such as international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering.
Which of the three does publishing news stories fall under?
I'm not well-versed on HIV or AIDS. But I have a simple, stupid question.
To fight off the flu, you essentially give someone the flu, you just only give them a small amount. (And it's usually "dead," so that it can't infect them.) The body 'learns' to defend against it, so that if the 'full strength' flu hits, you can prevent it. This is a basic fact of how most preventative immunizations work.
Why doesn't this work for HIV/AIDS? Wouldn't someone receiving a tiny bit of the AIDS virus become immune to AIDS? I'm assuming that someone much smarter than myself has attempted this, and that it doesn't work. I'm just curious as to why. (And, as I said, I don't pretend to know much about HIV, AIDS, or medicine in general.)
This absolutely could be the case. And yet I'm sure it isn't.
Businesses will do anything to make a buck. Companies routinely overlook blatant safety hazards that put their customers' lives on the line.
But I think if someone had cured AIDS, they'd go forth with it, if nothing else so they could claim they cured AIDS. I think if a big pharmaceutical came out tomorrow with a (credible) claim at having cured AIDS, their stock would go through the roof.
I don't necessarily forsee this as the "true" future, but a few comments here got me thinking in this direction, and, well, it's an interesting "What if" thing to think about.
A lot of work has been done in the field of "engineering" human life. We now create babies in a laboratory, in test tubes. Many plants are genetically altered.
Suppose the "cure for AIDS" wasn't a pill, but just something you could give to your children, who would be "grown" in a lab, based on a mother and father's DNA, to be AIDS-immune.
How many people would even be willing to do this? And, assuming a sufficient quantity did, would the AIDS-immune minority (presumably) eventually dominate, by Darwin's Theory? Would this vulnerable to AIDS eventually just all die off, leaving only genetically-altered humans?
This is nothing more than wild conjecture; a work of fiction, really. But it's because of comments here that I started wondering. And it doesn't seem entirely implausible, really.
The flip side of course being the perils of falling into the Nazi idealism of creating a master race from a genetic template considered desirable.
I don't think it's really the same thing. (BTW, don't take this as an attack of anything, especially as I got the impression you were just throwing the idea out there to be fair.) I don't think a "master race" is ever a good idea, but I don't think this even comes close.
First off, what I think most people find most objectionable isn't that Hitler thought some people were better than others: I think millions of people today still believe some races of people are superior to other races. What made it go from discrimination to one of the worst attrocities ever was when he started killing the exterior races.
I don't view the potential to find a cure for AIDS as creating a master race. I think it's the same as eliminating smallpox, or having flu shots: you're just preventing death.
First off, I'm not proposing this, merely asking.
Isn't it possible -- almost likely -- that once he goes back at his total filth of a radio show, he's going to completely offend someone? (That's his modus operandi, really, so of course he will.)
I'm still confused by the story, but I guess a friend's friend had Howard Stern make some comment towards her, which she construed as being sexualyl harassing. Nothing really became of it, but she was given a bunch of free concert tickets.
I've never found him funny, so I don't listen. But I actually find it surprising that, in today's society, he's not being hit with lawsuits every day. Or is he, and we're just not hearing about them?
I'm no lawyer, nor have I even RTFA, but I think this is likely to give unfettered freedom of speech. Over broadcast radio, you can't send anything obscene/profane/indecent. This is why Stern lands himself in trouble, this is why there are "Radio Edits" of songs with profanity.
:)
However, cable TV is a different story, because cable TV is not a 'broadcast' medium the same way radio is; you must subscribe to (or illegally steal) cable television, you cannot simply tune around the airwaves and encounter profanity. (Oh the horrors!)
Again, it seems to me that Sirius, a subscription-based satellite radio service, would be classified the same way, thus permitting Stern to say whatever he pleases.
Whether his show is any good, or whether it's just pure filth that's not even funny, is still up to you.
I grasp the redundancy you're commenting on, but the irritating overuse of "alleged" is usually necessary to fend off libel/slander suits. (I'd have tried to find another word for the second occurance of "alleged," though.)
Otherwise, anyone found not guilty could turn around and sue them for slander.
If this was anything but the police, it'd be a really good, really funny idea.
I would *not* mess with the police. Not because I think they'll come shoot you or anything crazy, but because their job is kind of important. True, it's not the emergency number you're giving out. But you're still tying up one of their dispatchers, who could otherwise be handling a real emergency, not handling calls for you.
Give out the number for Domino's or something, and it's a good idea. If it was something like SCO's number, even better. But please don't endanger my safety by wasting police dispatchers' time handling the calls you don't want.
The background on that site hurts my eyes more than the images on that guy's site.
They shouldn't have announced this today. Their stock is down today, apparently as a result of an analyst meeting.
;)
Release the bad news, then drop the good news a day or two later.
"Unfortunately, having pilots wear colored laser safety glasses would be impractical as that would make it impossible to interpret the colored symbols on paper maps and cockpit displays."
Furthermoor, wearing colored laser-safety glasses would make the pilots look ridiculous.
Where's your sense of fashion?
Actually, no.
Most DSLRs have smaller sensors, hence the "FOV Crop." For example, Canon's 'lower-end' DSLRs have a 1.6x "FOV Crop," effectively multiplying the focal length by 1.6 -- because the sensor is smaller than the 35mm standard.
That said, this is NOT the first camera to have a 35mm sensor; I *think* Canon's 1Ds (successor to this model) took that honor.
I don't know what American libel laws are like, but here in Britain, what was said about the Register's journalistic practices would, if unprovable, cause SunnComm some trouble...
I'm American, not British, but I've read of several British libel cases. It seems to me (being neither a lawyer nor British, mind you) that Britain places the burden of proof on the defendant: "Prove that what you said was true, or you're guilty." On the other hand, in America, they have to prove that what you said was untrue for you to get convicted.
I like this question. On first glance, this seemed like a ridiculous question, one not fit to pass on.
But I think it would be really interesting to see what they say if they're each asked to say one good thing about the other. It could really set the tone.
3. Observers observe widespread corruption, lead to massive investigation into the election process.
4. ???
If you're going to make a definitive list of ways something can go, try to make it definitive.
Does anyone else have a problem with schools giving VeriSign a list of their students?
Parents should sue when their kid winds up there...
I can't honestly say I've done a very objective analysis, but I'm a New Hampshire analysis, and I'd considering New Hampshire to be a somewhat conservative state.
Sure, we're the "Live Free or Die" state, and there's plenty of liberals. But I've always thought we were a bit conservative. It's states like California and Massachusetts that are 'pioneers' in liberalism.
You can't get elected without experience, and you can't get experience without getting elected ...
This is like saying that you don't get any experience until you're in, say, Linus's shoes. It's not all that true.
You have to work your way up to power. Start off in local government, then work your way up to state government.
Don't expect to become the CEO if you haven't even tried to get an entry-level job at the company.
I saw a bunch of these in the Harvard Square T station. I have to admit that it aroused my curiousity.
I didn't stop to think on it too much, though. I figured it was by Register.com or someone, about hard-to-access domain names.
What ever happened to the Coral P2P cache? The site makes it look like it's still up and running. It doesn't seem to be working for any links I try, however.
Are others seeing the same thing? I'm guessing they are, because no one's included Coral mirrors of the sites, and they're feeling awfully slow.
My English teacher went over this today:
First he wrote "it's" and asked what it was. A fairly decent amount of the class told him correctly. "Good," he replied, and wrote "its" on the board. Most everyone, this time, chimed in.
Then he wrote "its'," and asked, "And what's this one?" Everyone looked at each other, before someone finally chipped in. "Possive plural?"
He scribbled it out and told us, "This is shit. It doesn't exist."
It's amazing how easily people can become confused by the simplest of things.