There has to be a dividing line. Otherwise every time I throw away a gum wrapper it's potentially "disposing of evidence".
I always considered that once you've been informed that you are part of an investigation, you're on the "don't dispose" side of that line, but that there was supposed to be some some of constitutional protection against self-incrimination that would be in effect otherwise.
Then again, I suffer from the delusion that we live in a sane country.
We can outfit people's homes and offices with a special disposal slot. When you want to destroy a document, just push it in and it's incinerated per government regulations.
I have to train my replacement because they're laying me off. I'd tell them to kiss my fucking ass.
This is the 21st Century USA. Most people are living so close to the edge already that they NEED that money they'd get while training their replacement, just like they'll GLADLY sign the no-badmouthing contract to get the severance pay.
For a long period of time, batteries seemed to be pretty clean. In the past few years, however, I've seen a lot of leaky batteries. Not so much C and D cells, but AA's and disc batteries - some of which have leaked in the original packaging.
In fact, it's been fairly common for me to discover that a device that was still functioning was also corroding the battery compartment.
This is part of Federal banking regulations. It's primarily intended to detect money-laundering activities, particularly support for terrorist organizations and/or drug operations.
It's not merely a $10K limit on a one-shot transaction. It's equally illegal to fail to report transactions that have been split up into smaller chunks in the attempt to avoid being seen as going over the $10K limit.
Hastert's problem is that in today's USA, you are generally accepted as guilty until proven innocent - thanks in no small part to his own efforts over the years - and he wasn't sufficiently forthcoming about proving himself innocent.
He'd be in just as much trouble had he been trading baseball cards and not reporting it.
Yep, they'll try. Some people will try anything. But the game's different now. You had a virtual guarantee of success up until 9/11 plane #3. After that, the slightest error and you're more likely to go down in history as the loser guy who got stomped.
A lot of "screen lockers" do that job really poorly.
What happens is that when the system gets a wake-up call, the video is turned on FIRST, displaying whatever secrets were on-screen before sleep, and THEN a "lock screen" gets written over it.
I've seen this on more systems and devices than I can count.
A lot of the longer songs also had "chopped" versions that were used for radio play. Especially if they had long drum solos or the like.
Although Attention Deficit Disorder is pretty much the order of the day these days, even back in simpler times, pop radio favored short songs over longer ones. If a particular number didn't amuse the listener, then keeping them short ensured that the listener would be less likely to switch to a different station, since the chances of something more agreeable coming along shortly were relatively high. Conversely, if your station is broadcasting the "Ring of the Nibelungs", then you'd darn well better be interested in the Nibelungslied, since you're in it for the long haul.
One thing that has disappeared over the last few decades is album-oriented play and its close relative, the late-night "album hour". That's where longer words such as the Dark Side of the Moon, Bob Dylan's extended ballads and Inna Gada Da Vida were most likely to be heard.
Again, just because a stopped clock can be indicating the correct time, that doesn't mean that it can be relied on to indicate the correct time. You cannot "bootstrap" credibility from an un-credible source just because the un-credible source sometimes repeats the truth. That is just as true whether you assert symbolically (mathematically) or in words. The mathematics, after all, is merely a codification of the words to permit seeing the problem more concisely.
An un-credible source may emit both true and false stories, but because it's un-credible, you cannot draw any conclusion as to the truth or falsehood of any invividual story. For that, you must disregard the un-credible source and go find credible ones.
But, we all knew exactly what the Wall Street Journal would become once Rupert got his greasy little hands on it 10 years ago. Just another tabloid rag.
It did and it didn't. On the one hand, it added a "New York Post" aspect that's not worth the screen space it pollutes.
On the other hand, it spews out a lot of general political nonsense in its editorial pages. But then, that largely predates Rupert's takeouver. And besides, if it wasn't for editorial pages, where would the wackos of the world get a chance to speak? Outside of talk radio, anyway.
On the gripping hand, the WSJ does seem to be reasonably sane when it comes to purely financial matters. David Wechsel's appearances on NPR always seemed to me to be relatively free of the sort of wishful thinking that ideological thinking colors interviews and reports with.
You are referring to the mathematical logic concept known as "implication". Just because P implies Q doesn't mean that Q cannot be true event if P is false, only that Q MUST be true if P is false.
Therefore just because Q is true, that doesn't make P a credible indicator. When Q is true, it is true regardless of P's truth or falsehood and therefore lends no credibility to P.
You're trying to turn it around and imply that just because a non-credible source occasionally reported the truth that you can therefore automatically accept that source's assertions are always true or that that particular assertion has somehow become credible all by itself.
You cannot "bootstrap" the credibility of a source off a one-off sample. Just because a stopped clock shows the correct time doesn't mean that it can be depended to do so anytime you look at it.
It rates up there with "the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" - they've already proven their ability to be an enemy.
I'm skeptical about that assertion. Windows doesn't have d-bus either. A d-bus interface doesn't jibe with "write once/run anywhere", so I'm doubtful that the standard JVM would have such a thing in it. We had enough trouble convincing Sun that if there were OS's that didn't support environment variables that the degenerate case of an apparently empty environment was compatible.
Maybe it's better now, but not that long ago I recall many an update announcement for Java where the update specifically stated as not being available on Apple.
Crap programmers are cheap and plentiful and until customers demand the same levels of reliability from software that we routinely expect from hardware, crap software is what we're going to get and the software vendors are going to laugh at us all the way to the bank.
You can program crap in any language, of course, but better Java than a late-binding scripting language. At least in Java a certain percentage of the bugs get winnowed out at compile time. Which is why scripting languages are the "in" thing. If you don't have to fix errors at compile time, you get "done" quicker and you're "more productive".
Slashdot Mirror
'The most terrifying words you can hear' Ronald Reagan
The president whose government brought in guilty-until-proven-innocent drug testing and citizenship checks to the workplace.
There has to be a dividing line. Otherwise every time I throw away a gum wrapper it's potentially "disposing of evidence".
I always considered that once you've been informed that you are part of an investigation, you're on the "don't dispose" side of that line, but that there was supposed to be some some of constitutional protection against self-incrimination that would be in effect otherwise.
Then again, I suffer from the delusion that we live in a sane country.
We can outfit people's homes and offices with a special disposal slot. When you want to destroy a document, just push it in and it's incinerated per government regulations.
We can call them "memory holes".
Of all the issues important to the American voter; income, taxes, security, Chafee decides to waste several lungfuls of hot air on the metric system.
I think blatant stupidity like this should automatically disqualify one from being president, but sadly we let them continue in their quest.
Considering what his competitors are wasting hot air on...
I have to train my replacement because they're laying me off. I'd tell them to kiss my fucking ass.
This is the 21st Century USA. Most people are living so close to the edge already that they NEED that money they'd get while training their replacement, just like they'll GLADLY sign the no-badmouthing contract to get the severance pay.
Actually, that has been my experience.
For a long period of time, batteries seemed to be pretty clean. In the past few years, however, I've seen a lot of leaky batteries. Not so much C and D cells, but AA's and disc batteries - some of which have leaked in the original packaging.
In fact, it's been fairly common for me to discover that a device that was still functioning was also corroding the battery compartment.
Hey, those are cash crops in Florida!
This is part of Federal banking regulations. It's primarily intended to detect money-laundering activities, particularly support for terrorist organizations and/or drug operations.
It's not merely a $10K limit on a one-shot transaction. It's equally illegal to fail to report transactions that have been split up into smaller chunks in the attempt to avoid being seen as going over the $10K limit.
Hastert's problem is that in today's USA, you are generally accepted as guilty until proven innocent - thanks in no small part to his own efforts over the years - and he wasn't sufficiently forthcoming about proving himself innocent.
He'd be in just as much trouble had he been trading baseball cards and not reporting it.
Nonsense has a power all its own.
If you love the DHS and their success rate, maybe you'd be interested in my bear repealing rock?
That's ridiculous. Rocks can't vote.
But can they award lucrative no-bid government contracts?
It's already happened, multiple times. Shoe bomber. Underwear bomber.
Yep, they'll try. Some people will try anything. But the game's different now. You had a virtual guarantee of success up until 9/11 plane #3. After that, the slightest error and you're more likely to go down in history as the loser guy who got stomped.
A lot of "screen lockers" do that job really poorly.
What happens is that when the system gets a wake-up call, the video is turned on FIRST, displaying whatever secrets were on-screen before sleep, and THEN a "lock screen" gets written over it.
I've seen this on more systems and devices than I can count.
dalliance
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"Short-term dalliances" tend not to nearly bankrupt a company.
Oh, I don't know about that. Some marriages have been wrecked by short-term dalliances.
Ask Tiger Woods.
Who's next?
Sorry, that information has been blocked.
Release to market with minimum feature set, Microsoft would be proud.
Only if it also includes easily-exploitable security holes.
A lot of the longer songs also had "chopped" versions that were used for radio play. Especially if they had long drum solos or the like.
Although Attention Deficit Disorder is pretty much the order of the day these days, even back in simpler times, pop radio favored short songs over longer ones. If a particular number didn't amuse the listener, then keeping them short ensured that the listener would be less likely to switch to a different station, since the chances of something more agreeable coming along shortly were relatively high. Conversely, if your station is broadcasting the "Ring of the Nibelungs", then you'd darn well better be interested in the Nibelungslied, since you're in it for the long haul.
One thing that has disappeared over the last few decades is album-oriented play and its close relative, the late-night "album hour". That's where longer words such as the Dark Side of the Moon, Bob Dylan's extended ballads and Inna Gada Da Vida were most likely to be heard.
Again, just because a stopped clock can be indicating the correct time, that doesn't mean that it can be relied on to indicate the correct time. You cannot "bootstrap" credibility from an un-credible source just because the un-credible source sometimes repeats the truth. That is just as true whether you assert symbolically (mathematically) or in words. The mathematics, after all, is merely a codification of the words to permit seeing the problem more concisely.
An un-credible source may emit both true and false stories, but because it's un-credible, you cannot draw any conclusion as to the truth or falsehood of any invividual story. For that, you must disregard the un-credible source and go find credible ones.
To do otherwise is the opposite of wisdom.
But, we all knew exactly what the Wall Street Journal would become once Rupert got his greasy little hands on it 10 years ago. Just another tabloid rag.
It did and it didn't. On the one hand, it added a "New York Post" aspect that's not worth the screen space it pollutes.
On the other hand, it spews out a lot of general political nonsense in its editorial pages. But then, that largely predates Rupert's takeouver. And besides, if it wasn't for editorial pages, where would the wackos of the world get a chance to speak? Outside of talk radio, anyway.
On the gripping hand, the WSJ does seem to be reasonably sane when it comes to purely financial matters. David Wechsel's appearances on NPR always seemed to me to be relatively free of the sort of wishful thinking that ideological thinking colors interviews and reports with.
You are referring to the mathematical logic concept known as "implication". Just because P implies Q doesn't mean that Q cannot be true event if P is false, only that Q MUST be true if P is false.
Therefore just because Q is true, that doesn't make P a credible indicator. When Q is true, it is true regardless of P's truth or falsehood and therefore lends no credibility to P.
You're trying to turn it around and imply that just because a non-credible source occasionally reported the truth that you can therefore automatically accept that source's assertions are always true or that that particular assertion has somehow become credible all by itself.
You cannot "bootstrap" the credibility of a source off a one-off sample. Just because a stopped clock shows the correct time doesn't mean that it can be depended to do so anytime you look at it.
It rates up there with "the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" - they've already proven their ability to be an enemy.
I'm skeptical about that assertion. Windows doesn't have d-bus either. A d-bus interface doesn't jibe with "write once/run anywhere", so I'm doubtful that the standard JVM would have such a thing in it. We had enough trouble convincing Sun that if there were OS's that didn't support environment variables that the degenerate case of an apparently empty environment was compatible.
They stopped functioning long ago. It's damage control I'm more worried about now.
Maybe it's better now, but not that long ago I recall many an update announcement for Java where the update specifically stated as not being available on Apple.
Actually, Maven is the exact opposite of "let's download random code".
One of Maven's primary virtues is that it allows you to pull specific versions of the various products to produce a consistent result.
Unless, of course, some idiot substitutes "grab anything" for version numbers in the POM.
Crap programmers are cheap and plentiful and until customers demand the same levels of reliability from software that we routinely expect from hardware, crap software is what we're going to get and the software vendors are going to laugh at us all the way to the bank.
You can program crap in any language, of course, but better Java than a late-binding scripting language. At least in Java a certain percentage of the bugs get winnowed out at compile time. Which is why scripting languages are the "in" thing. If you don't have to fix errors at compile time, you get "done" quicker and you're "more productive".