Full citizenship comes into effect for natural persons. The limitations on the government and specific rights enumerated in the constitution apply to all people, not just citizens. Foreigners can and do own property within the US and the government must (is supposed to) respect their right to be secure in their persons.
Abortion hangs on the question of whether personhood (or some lesser rights or protections) should be extended to fetuses, and nothing in our constitution or historical legal frame work offers any cut-and-dry answer to that question.
I think it is time for people to start mailing complaints that certain government officials have violated their copyright, and let the ISPs follow these draconian rules.
If I were in charge of an ISP in the UK, I would immediately block the Kontiki P2P system, as there is no way for me to know whether that traffic is legitimate BBC shows or pirated material, same with other ports used for P2P - IE everything but a few whitelisted ports. I would also block all encrypted traffic on those remaining ports as there is no way for me to tell if it is illegal or not. But keep the blogs and news sites up so everyone can read about the reaction to this bill.
I think multicast would work well for non-live downloads as well, especially in conjunction with P2P. If the BBC server had a continuous running Multicast stream, then the iPlayer could start downloading at wherever it was in the stream, and then only use P2P to pick up the few stray packets that it missed (due to the fact that there are no resends in a multicast session).
To deal with different speed connections, they could have multiple streams each running at some lowest-common-denominator speed, and staggered in time. That way someone on a 500kbps line would connect to only a single stream, but someone on a 3Mbsp connection, would connect to 6 of them. And of course, they could dynamically increase and decrease the number of streams for a particular show depending on relative demand.
The total bandwidth used by BBC wouldn't be much more than they would be using by seeding a torrent, the amount of congestion in the last mile would be much less than occurs with P2P, and the overall network bandwidth would be greatly reduced compared to individual downloads.
Of course this doesn't work well with video-on-demand, but then again neither does P2P because both give chunks of the file out of order. However, if most of the downloads were automatic due to people subscribing to certain feeds, it would work great.
I know about where you live, but around here businesses have no problem finding people to work as wait-staff or in call centers. The reason that they are understaffed is because the management likes it that way - they want to pay the fewest number of people they can.
It's not hard to come up with programs that need a lot of processing power to run. Most of the stuff currently being run on supercomputers are (relatively) small programs, but with huge data sets that are easily parallelized. Pretty much any kind of simulation falls into this category: climate, genetics, biology/pharmaceutical, plasma physics, particle physics, nuclear physics.
You don't need a "smart" program to utilize a fast computer - in fact, they are most useful in situations where the smartest people in the world can't figure out algorithms to do things any faster, and there is no alternative but massive grunt-force calculation.
THIS was the whole point. Well I don't know if there was any sensitive equipment on the bird, so I can't say if it was the whole point, but it was a big reason.
We've done contrived tests of the missile defense technology before, but here was an opportunity to shoot down a real, faster moving, unpredictably moving target. It wasn't moving unpredictably, and it's trajectory was just as well known as any of the tests - this wasn't any less "contrived" then the planned flight tests (well if you don't count the early proof of concept tests). Had they waited much longer it might have been. The speed was a new factor for sure. But even if it wasn't any more difficult of a task to hit it then the tests, the simple fact that it wasn't a "test" has an important psychological effect on people (both for those making the US budget and those making the weapons we want to shoot down). The real reason is that BMD folks are always chomping at the bit for chances to test their stuff but it costs millions of dollars to build and launch a missile with all the instrumented payload, and they only get to do so many.
This one was half-price and twice as impressive to others. Not an opportunity to pass up.
In most cases where there are unjust laws, simply following that law causes you harm, and that is enough to give you standing to bring a case to court. It takes money to sue the government, but that is what the ACLU is for.
This case is unique in that it is challenging government actions performed in secret - you can't prove they are doing them, just that they gave themselves the power to do so, and secondly that the government has declared that if you can prove what they are doing, it is illegal to talk about it.
I understand and appreciate the Supreme Court's desire to only hear cases with standing in most situation, but this it's refusal to hear this case swings the door wide open to allow the Executive branch to operate without any regard to Constitution in the areas where Constitutional review is most needed.
The joke was referring to a bug that was new to Excel 2007, where the number 65,535 was interpreted as 100,000 (the parent apparently remembered it the other way around). Excel 2007 added quite a few bad calculation bugs - heres an article about some of them.
I would expect for them to know about as much about computers and law as the founder of CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet. And look at the email that someone posted above - Web Sheriff is using an AOL email address for their official legal correspondence. That is professionalism there.
The creation of the ethanol subsidies are understandable because they benefit the strong corn lobby, and offer no real threat to the established oil companies. But who is going to be lobbying to make these crystals mandatory? And how on earth are they going to convince a congress that is far more likely to listen to the energy companies, especially when the energy companies are right? The environmentalists don't have anywhere near that power, even with Democrats.
If these crystals take a lot of energy to produce then they will take a lot of money to produce. Suppose a coal plant spends M dollars to produce E amounts of energy and C amounts of carbon dioxide. If this crystal uses more than E energy to soak up C amount of carbon dioxide, then installing it in their coal plant will give them a net negative income (for the portion of carbon that is being soaked up). While you can play games with producing the crystals when/where energy is cheap, and then using them when it is expensive, it would take a tremendously large carbon tax before even that became economically sensible.
Same with biofuels - as long as the government doesn't get too carried away with politically-motivated subsidies (*cough* corn ethanol *cough*), then you don't have to worry about any biofuel being net energy negative, because it would then also be net revenue negative. Heck, even corn ethanol isn't energy negative, just not nearly as energy positive as other fuels.
In the article the researchers expressed hope that this would be an inexpensive process which equates to low energy. We all know how often that claim doesn't pan out, but if it does then this could be a good thing. I'm more interested in how it compares to algae.
So now that AMPS is shutting down does this mean that slashdot will have to upgrade its cellphone icon to GSM? I mean it's nice to have a device that can double as a weapon, but you'll still have your Model M.
Up till 3 months ago, every phone I owned was Tri-Mode (AMPS, 800 CDMA, 1900 CDMA). It used digital service in town, but in very rural areas, and when you go camping, you are far more likely to pick up an analog signal than anything else. So I made sure to get a tri-mode phone to carry with me for emergencies. I finally switched to GSM when I got tired of paying $45 for Verizon service when I only use about 100 minutes a month. At that point I knew they were going to be shutting down the analog service within the year anyway, so there wasn't much reason for me to stay.
If you make it mandatory then who is going to enforce it and who is going to decide what is pornographic? It opens the doors for all sorts of government censorship problems that are best avoided.
If it isn't mandatory then porn sites are not going to stop using their com, net, and org sites just because xxx exists. Even if some "responsible" companies would be willing to do so, others will immediately buy up those old names, and reap all the traffic from people who haven't updated their links, or mistype the domain. So you still have the exact same problem that you have now with filtering the porn in the non-xxx sites.
The only people that would benefit from creating a new xxx TLD, would be the registrars, who now get even multiple times for each new domain registered. The same holds for nearly all of the new TLDs with the possible exception of the proposed language-based and region-based TLDs.
I would just like to take this time to rub in the fact I never once had to see that transparent menu. At first I just thought that it might only be slightly transparent, and that the beta users were just exaggerating the problem, so I tried it with a checked background, and sure enough it was completely solid. The reflective doc was there in all it's shinyness, but no pixel were leaking through my menu bar. I don't if it was a PPC/Intel thing or if Apple just deemed my video card too pathetic to get the see-through goodness, by my Leopard install has had an opaque menu since the day I installed it.
So, neener-neener:P
Re:NAH, NAH, NAH, NAH, I can't hear you.
on
Has Ron Paul Quit?
·
· Score: 1
have both have Uhm, yeah get rid of that second 'have'. I blame the Wild Turkey.
Thanks for that link. To be honest, I don't know that I'll get around to reading it due to my other school and work obligations, and the fact that security isn't my strong point (ability or interest wise), but stuff like this is what makes slashdot worth the noise.
Re:NAH, NAH, NAH, NAH, I can't hear you.
on
Has Ron Paul Quit?
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, Clinton and Obama are pretty close. Since the Democratic primary here was during super Tuesday, and one only has to register to vote one month before an election, I've been wondering if I could have gotten away with voting in both primaries. I don't know who I'm going to vote for if it ends up being Clinton vs McCain. I don't abhor either, but they have both have compromised on things I consider very important. Why couldn't they have made it easy and chosen Obama vs Giuliani:)
My perfect candidate would have Obama's foreign policy, Romney's economic policy, McCain's policy on social programs, and Ron Paul's devotion to individual freedoms.
NAH, NAH, NAH, NAH, I can't hear you.
on
Has Ron Paul Quit?
·
· Score: 1
I don't get to vote till June, you insensitive clod!
Man, first time I've ever declared a party affiliation, and the primaries are already decided six months before half the country has even cast a ballot. My vote isn't even good as a symbolic gesture now that no one is paying attention anymore. grumble, grumble.
The spec already recommends this and all the major browsers do it. The software that is causing the problem are generic XML/SGML processing packages which were designed to be able to deal with documents with any random DTD, not just the main HTML/XHTML ones from W3C. They are the folks that are downloading each DTD every single time and not caching it, contrary to the standard. Sometimes caching is a configuration option which defaults to off and administrators never turn it on.
That is supposed to be there according to the standard. And all the major browsers cached that that file after loading it (at most) once, and then never read it again. So no, slashdot is not causing a problem. The problem is all the other HTML processing software besides browsers that do not cache their DTD files, not the files for containing it.
If you want to complain, it should be the fact that slashdot is serving a strict.dtd when it doesn't validate against it.
It is a well known fact that the M's are the drones of the bite-size candy world. The F's or Queen Bites are kept in heavily guarded rooms nested deep within the Mars,Inc facilities. A good queen is worth thousands of dollars and are carefully protected. They are carefully breed and cared for, with lineages meticulously documented for as far back as a hundred generations.
The GP was clearly just a mere dilettante of bite-breeding and would never be let near a Queen Bite. However, his efforts in the breeding of M's show that even they have a place in this fascinating pursuit.
Slashdot Mirror
Full citizenship comes into effect for natural persons. The limitations on the government and specific rights enumerated in the constitution apply to all people, not just citizens. Foreigners can and do own property within the US and the government must (is supposed to) respect their right to be secure in their persons.
Abortion hangs on the question of whether personhood (or some lesser rights or protections) should be extended to fetuses, and nothing in our constitution or historical legal frame work offers any cut-and-dry answer to that question.
I think it is time for people to start mailing complaints that certain government officials have violated their copyright, and let the ISPs follow these draconian rules.
If I were in charge of an ISP in the UK, I would immediately block the Kontiki P2P system, as there is no way for me to know whether that traffic is legitimate BBC shows or pirated material, same with other ports used for P2P - IE everything but a few whitelisted ports. I would also block all encrypted traffic on those remaining ports as there is no way for me to tell if it is illegal or not. But keep the blogs and news sites up so everyone can read about the reaction to this bill.
I think multicast would work well for non-live downloads as well, especially in conjunction with P2P. If the BBC server had a continuous running Multicast stream, then the iPlayer could start downloading at wherever it was in the stream, and then only use P2P to pick up the few stray packets that it missed (due to the fact that there are no resends in a multicast session).
To deal with different speed connections, they could have multiple streams each running at some lowest-common-denominator speed, and staggered in time. That way someone on a 500kbps line would connect to only a single stream, but someone on a 3Mbsp connection, would connect to 6 of them. And of course, they could dynamically increase and decrease the number of streams for a particular show depending on relative demand.
The total bandwidth used by BBC wouldn't be much more than they would be using by seeding a torrent, the amount of congestion in the last mile would be much less than occurs with P2P, and the overall network bandwidth would be greatly reduced compared to individual downloads.
Of course this doesn't work well with video-on-demand, but then again neither does P2P because both give chunks of the file out of order. However, if most of the downloads were automatic due to people subscribing to certain feeds, it would work great.
I know about where you live, but around here businesses have no problem finding people to work as wait-staff or in call centers. The reason that they are understaffed is because the management likes it that way - they want to pay the fewest number of people they can.
It's not hard to come up with programs that need a lot of processing power to run. Most of the stuff currently being run on supercomputers are (relatively) small programs, but with huge data sets that are easily parallelized. Pretty much any kind of simulation falls into this category: climate, genetics, biology/pharmaceutical, plasma physics, particle physics, nuclear physics.
You don't need a "smart" program to utilize a fast computer - in fact, they are most useful in situations where the smartest people in the world can't figure out algorithms to do things any faster, and there is no alternative but massive grunt-force calculation.
This one was half-price and twice as impressive to others. Not an opportunity to pass up.
In most cases where there are unjust laws, simply following that law causes you harm, and that is enough to give you standing to bring a case to court. It takes money to sue the government, but that is what the ACLU is for.
This case is unique in that it is challenging government actions performed in secret - you can't prove they are doing them, just that they gave themselves the power to do so, and secondly that the government has declared that if you can prove what they are doing, it is illegal to talk about it.
I understand and appreciate the Supreme Court's desire to only hear cases with standing in most situation, but this it's refusal to hear this case swings the door wide open to allow the Executive branch to operate without any regard to Constitution in the areas where Constitutional review is most needed.
The joke was referring to a bug that was new to Excel 2007, where the number 65,535 was interpreted as 100,000 (the parent apparently remembered it the other way around). Excel 2007 added quite a few bad calculation bugs - heres an article about some of them.
I would expect for them to know about as much about computers and law as the founder of CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet. And look at the email that someone posted above - Web Sheriff is using an AOL email address for their official legal correspondence. That is professionalism there.
The creation of the ethanol subsidies are understandable because they benefit the strong corn lobby, and offer no real threat to the established oil companies. But who is going to be lobbying to make these crystals mandatory? And how on earth are they going to convince a congress that is far more likely to listen to the energy companies, especially when the energy companies are right? The environmentalists don't have anywhere near that power, even with Democrats.
If these crystals take a lot of energy to produce then they will take a lot of money to produce. Suppose a coal plant spends M dollars to produce E amounts of energy and C amounts of carbon dioxide. If this crystal uses more than E energy to soak up C amount of carbon dioxide, then installing it in their coal plant will give them a net negative income (for the portion of carbon that is being soaked up). While you can play games with producing the crystals when/where energy is cheap, and then using them when it is expensive, it would take a tremendously large carbon tax before even that became economically sensible.
Same with biofuels - as long as the government doesn't get too carried away with politically-motivated subsidies (*cough* corn ethanol *cough*), then you don't have to worry about any biofuel being net energy negative, because it would then also be net revenue negative. Heck, even corn ethanol isn't energy negative, just not nearly as energy positive as other fuels.
In the article the researchers expressed hope that this would be an inexpensive process which equates to low energy. We all know how often that claim doesn't pan out, but if it does then this could be a good thing. I'm more interested in how it compares to algae.
So now that AMPS is shutting down does this mean that slashdot will have to upgrade its cellphone icon to GSM? I mean it's nice to have a device that can double as a weapon, but you'll still have your Model M.
Up till 3 months ago, every phone I owned was Tri-Mode (AMPS, 800 CDMA, 1900 CDMA). It used digital service in town, but in very rural areas, and when you go camping, you are far more likely to pick up an analog signal than anything else. So I made sure to get a tri-mode phone to carry with me for emergencies. I finally switched to GSM when I got tired of paying $45 for Verizon service when I only use about 100 minutes a month. At that point I knew they were going to be shutting down the analog service within the year anyway, so there wasn't much reason for me to stay.
If you make it mandatory then who is going to enforce it and who is going to decide what is pornographic? It opens the doors for all sorts of government censorship problems that are best avoided.
If it isn't mandatory then porn sites are not going to stop using their com, net, and org sites just because xxx exists. Even if some "responsible" companies would be willing to do so, others will immediately buy up those old names, and reap all the traffic from people who haven't updated their links, or mistype the domain. So you still have the exact same problem that you have now with filtering the porn in the non-xxx sites.
The only people that would benefit from creating a new xxx TLD, would be the registrars, who now get even multiple times for each new domain registered. The same holds for nearly all of the new TLDs with the possible exception of the proposed language-based and region-based TLDs.
So does that involve excess stock being quietly disposed of in an Alamagordo, NM landfill?
And Hillary is pico user - ugh.
I would just like to take this time to rub in the fact I never once had to see that transparent menu. At first I just thought that it might only be slightly transparent, and that the beta users were just exaggerating the problem, so I tried it with a checked background, and sure enough it was completely solid. The reflective doc was there in all it's shinyness, but no pixel were leaking through my menu bar. I don't if it was a PPC/Intel thing or if Apple just deemed my video card too pathetic to get the see-through goodness, by my Leopard install has had an opaque menu since the day I installed it.
:P
So, neener-neener
Thanks for that link. To be honest, I don't know that I'll get around to reading it due to my other school and work obligations, and the fact that security isn't my strong point (ability or interest wise), but stuff like this is what makes slashdot worth the noise.
Yeah, Clinton and Obama are pretty close. Since the Democratic primary here was during super Tuesday, and one only has to register to vote one month before an election, I've been wondering if I could have gotten away with voting in both primaries. I don't know who I'm going to vote for if it ends up being Clinton vs McCain. I don't abhor either, but they have both have compromised on things I consider very important. Why couldn't they have made it easy and chosen Obama vs Giuliani :)
My perfect candidate would have Obama's foreign policy, Romney's economic policy, McCain's policy on social programs, and Ron Paul's devotion to individual freedoms.
I don't get to vote till June, you insensitive clod!
Man, first time I've ever declared a party affiliation, and the primaries are already decided six months before half the country has even cast a ballot. My vote isn't even good as a symbolic gesture now that no one is paying attention anymore. grumble, grumble.
The spec already recommends this and all the major browsers do it. The software that is causing the problem are generic XML/SGML processing packages which were designed to be able to deal with documents with any random DTD, not just the main HTML/XHTML ones from W3C. They are the folks that are downloading each DTD every single time and not caching it, contrary to the standard. Sometimes caching is a configuration option which defaults to off and administrators never turn it on.
That is supposed to be there according to the standard. And all the major browsers cached that that file after loading it (at most) once, and then never read it again. So no, slashdot is not causing a problem. The problem is all the other HTML processing software besides browsers that do not cache their DTD files, not the files for containing it.
If you want to complain, it should be the fact that slashdot is serving a strict.dtd when it doesn't validate against it.
It is a well known fact that the M's are the drones of the bite-size candy world. The F's or Queen Bites are kept in heavily guarded rooms nested deep within the Mars,Inc facilities. A good queen is worth thousands of dollars and are carefully protected. They are carefully breed and cared for, with lineages meticulously documented for as far back as a hundred generations.
The GP was clearly just a mere dilettante of bite-breeding and would never be let near a Queen Bite. However, his efforts in the breeding of M's show that even they have a place in this fascinating pursuit.