(Red and Green are opposite colors and if you see the lights out of your direct vision, they can seem the same color.)
Why would it be out of your direct vision? Lights are at such a small minute of arc out of your normal sight line, if you can't tell what color it is, you cannot operate a vehicle safely.
186.170 Display of registration plates, insignia- No rim, frame, or other covering around the plate shall in any way obscure or cover any lettering or decal on the plate
Depends on the jurisdiction. In TX there is a legally defined format the sign must have or it isn't enforceable. They can have a sign that says "No guns please." and if you carry, the worst that can happen is they can kick you off the property.
> However, compared to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic trinity, they are responsible for much less evil and far fewer deaths. Between those three religions you have tens of millions slaughtered in pointless wars over minor differences in doctrine
They've also been around over 40 times longer then Scientology. It's a baby religion, but look what it's been able to do in its first 60 years.
Most significantly, the widespread adoption of software-defined radio hardware could undermine the FCC's control over the electromagnetic spectrum itself.
No, no it wont. The FCC will bring down the banhammer. If you cause issues, they *will* be knocking on your door.
Right now, the FCC largely focuses on limiting the transmission frequencies of radio hardware. But this regulatory approach is likely to work poorly for software-defined radio devices that aren't confined to any specific frequency.
Yes, yes it will. You cause issues, FCC gets complaints, it sends in the goon squad to shut you down.
Pricing is per instance-hour consumed for each instance, from the time an instance is launched until it is terminated. Each partial instance-hour consumed will be billed as a full hour.
Me: Are you a bot? It: . I'm real Me: No you're not. It: Really? Oh, you always say banalities in the way like you present a sensation! By the way, what's your occupation? I mean - could you tell me about your work?
The difference this time is that the concept has its own bill, while its previous incarnation was an amendment to an existing bill about reforming FCC procedures.
That's one of the few guaranteed ways of killing something, attach it to the FCC.
Six weeks ago, my home was broken into while my fiance and I were at work. [...] a safe (complete with several years worth of taxes, my birth certificate, and old copies of my driver's license)
Locking things up in a safe is completely pointless if they can pick it up and take it with them. All you've done is give them an easy way to quickly steal all of your important things.
You know, really depressing thing I've found is that there appears to be no proof of this allegation. The accusation enough seems to have been sufficient to stop anyone from even trying to prove it.
Because there isn't anything to prove, it's basic physics. But to appease shills like you, they did do that test.
It looks to me that Google is doing exactly what their p3p policy says they will do.
No, it's doing the exact opposite. P3P is a list of things you *WILL USE* the cookie data for, not what you *WILL NOT* do. Per the spec, if it's not a valid tag it gets ignore, remove all the invalid stuff and google is effectively sending P3P="", or in other words, they wont use it for anything.
He said the services, which browsers are supposed to query before trusting a credential for an SSL-protected address, don't make end users safer because Chrome and most other browsers establish the connection even when the services aren't able to ensure a certificate hasn't been tampered with.
So he admits Chrome is broken, so he doesn't fix it and blames the CA's . . makes sense.
Chrome will instead rely on its automatic update mechanism to maintain a list of certificates that have been revoked for security reasons. Langley called on certificate authorities to provide a list of revoked certificates that Google bots can automatically fetch.
So basically he wants CRLs? I thought he didn't want CRLs?
Paget’s firm has been working on a more sophisticated fix: a credit-card-shaped protection device known as GuardBunny that sits in a wallet alongside payment cards and blocks any would-be RFID fraudster.
It's news because s/he's spewing FUD to make a buck.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a link to the actual post.
Barry Goldwater would beg to differ. Dont attribute neoconservatives to the entire spectrum of conservatism.
*sigh* I swear I read that 5 times and it said KY :(
Sounds like you shouldn't be driving then.
Why would it be out of your direct vision? Lights are at such a small minute of arc out of your normal sight line, if you can't tell what color it is, you cannot operate a vehicle safely.
Dont read your own laws then?
186.170 00449 RIM OR FRAME OBSCURING LETTERING OR DECAL ON PLATE VIOLATION
Depends on the jurisdiction. In TX there is a legally defined format the sign must have or it isn't enforceable. They can have a sign that says "No guns please." and if you carry, the worst that can happen is they can kick you off the property.
> However, compared to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic trinity, they are responsible for much less evil and far fewer deaths. Between those three religions you have tens of millions slaughtered in pointless wars over minor differences in doctrine
They've also been around over 40 times longer then Scientology. It's a baby religion, but look what it's been able to do in its first 60 years.
No, no it wont. The FCC will bring down the banhammer. If you cause issues, they *will* be knocking on your door.
Yes, yes it will. You cause issues, FCC gets complaints, it sends in the goon squad to shut you down.
Well, lets go look
Man, that was hard.
My convo:
Me: Are you a bot?
It: . I'm real
Me: No you're not.
It: Really? Oh, you always say banalities in the way like you present a sensation! By the way, what's your occupation? I mean - could you tell me about your work?
Totally a 13 year old.
NewEgg long ago stopped being the go-to site for tech stuff and went full on commercial.
So it's a rebranded xbmc?
They likely couldn't afford the cost of the server licenses.
That's one of the few guaranteed ways of killing something, attach it to the FCC.
When their reply was basically "If we dont let them send bomb threats, we're undermining free speech and the Internet"
Locking things up in a safe is completely pointless if they can pick it up and take it with them. All you've done is give them an easy way to quickly steal all of your important things.
A backblaze box. 1PB for about $55k.
Because there isn't anything to prove, it's basic physics. But to appease shills like you, they did do that test.
HTTP/1.1 proxying is currently available in the development version so if needed you can use that.
It looks to me that Google is doing exactly what their p3p policy says they will do.
No, it's doing the exact opposite. P3P is a list of things you *WILL USE* the cookie data for, not what you *WILL NOT* do. Per the spec, if it's not a valid tag it gets ignore, remove all the invalid stuff and google is effectively sending P3P="", or in other words, they wont use it for anything.
Because blaming CAs is easier then blaming your own product.
So he admits Chrome is broken, so he doesn't fix it and blames the CA's . . makes sense.
So basically he wants CRLs? I thought he didn't want CRLs?
Um, no? This is ten times faster then verizon's fastest offering* which isn't even available everywhere, so yes, it is news.
*Yes I know 1 Gigabit isn't 10x greater then 150 megabit.
Because that information is on the stripe.
It's news because s/he's spewing FUD to make a buck.