The difference is that in Iraq, the people there are fighting against the foreigners.
In a civil war, the people that live there are fighting the people that run the place. The military the latter uses to fight is composed entirely of the former! A civil war in the US would certainly be tragic and bloody, but it would be the resistance versus a part of the military, not the entire military. Some of those former military would likely bring aid with them.
The last time I did a reinstall was about two months ago. At the time, the driver in the repo would work, but there was no software/keyboard control over the brightness of the LCD. I installed the beta driver directly from NVIDIA, and that fixed it. The current release version might fix that, but I haven't checked.
I had the same trouble with my Thinkpad T61p. Get the alternate install disc and use that to install. Then you have to get the latest beta driver off the NVIDIA site, and install it by hand. Text mode will be your friend for this. I found the easiest way was to get sshd up and running and do it remotely. Hope this helps!
It could very well still work out in Microsoft's favor. If they manage to wipe out competition in a market, or use illicit means to get dominance through tie-ins, etc, it puts the company in a very favorable position in that market. This is why so many countries have anti-trust and competition laws.
In other words, taking a loss eventually generates profit by decreased costs. MS doesn't have to spend as much to keep up the business because they essentially pay the EU (with the fine/asset seizure), and erase the competition.
The only thing such an anti-competitive company as MS is going to listen to is something that threatens to put them out of business. Unfortunately for everyone, MS has demonstrated repeatedly over the last 15 years that they will not follow the law as long as it remains profitable to ignore it. Maybe seizing a few important patents/copyrights and putting them in the public domain would change their tune a little, as monetary fines obviously do not.
I don't really care one way or the other about the company making my software. I'm concerned with price, performance, reliability, etc. I avoided the "Vista Capable" marketing fraud by not being concerned with Vista capability at all. It had already been evaluated and set aside as not suiting my organizational needs. As it turns out, this was a great idea, since Vista still has show-stopper issues, as far as I'm concerned, *and* I didn't get duped into buy less-than-capable hardware for the platform.
A pilots license grants you certain category allowances by the FAA. Depending on the class of your certification and your ratings, you can pilot a range of aircraft under a variety of conditions. A basic private pilots certification does not let you pilot a 747, in the same way that a typical drivers license doesn't let you drive a 35,000lb commercial truck down a public way. It is rather clear what you are certified to pilot, though. You probably only have certification and rating to fly recreational aircraft of a specific class, and might have instrumentation rating.
Vista Home is still Vista, but it is not clear what that means. MS advertising says Vista is the newest and best of all Windows ever, and includes this list of supposedly unbelievable and life-changing new features. Vista Home just doesn't come with any of them, a fact which they have conveniently decided not to mention. Vista Capable means only that the computer can run the absolute core of Vista, which is undefined. It means that I can go buy a copy of Vista, or use my upgrade certificate, and it won't work right if I don't already know more than Microsoft tells me about the "Vista Capable" program.
While caveat emptor is still the only sane way of doing business, and isn't necessarily nice, you still can't deliberately mislead or lie. Try to find what this "core experience" of Windows Vista actually is. I have never been able to find a single reference to a definitive list. Every single mention anywhere I have seen is purposefully and noticeably vague. In other words, you can't actually find out what "Vista Capable" means, because Microsoft doesn't tell you.
That difference, the bit where they don't clarify their vague wording, is a key difference between your pilots certification and the "Vista Capable" program. I can go look up all sorts of interesting things in the FAR Code, and find out exactly what someone can and cannot do involving aircraft, based on their certification. I *can't* go look up exactly what "Vista Capable" means, and what I can and cannot do as a result.
For what it's worth, this has never been an issue before Vista. Something would say "Designed for Windows XP", or for 2000, or 98, and no matter what licensing and such you had, it would work. They would tell you that you can't watch TV without a tuner, that you can't get on the Internet without an Internet connection, and that you needed a 3D video card for 3D graphics. It was all very obvious and well defined. Windows still worked, though, regardless, as long as you met the minimum requirements printed on the box. This is just not the case with Vista, and between their advertisers and marketing people, they have managed to complicate things to such an extent that they are lying and misleading, and they can't even tell.
The point is that "Vista Capable" doesn't say "Vista Capable for a subset of the features of Vista", the implication is that if I buy a copy of Vista, it will work. This has very clearly not been the case. If you have a system labeled "Vista Capable" and go to the store, and buy six out of seven versions of Vista, it may not work properly.
Also, there *is* quite a bit of difference between Home Basic and Home Premium. This is to say that Home Basic is completely missing nearly every advertised function and feature of the platform. Home Basic doesn't have Aero, all the mobility support for laptops, SideShow, scheduled backups, fax support, DVD Maker, Movie Maker, Media Center, and a bunch of other things. Vista is advertised as supporting all of those things, with no mention of version distinction outside of tiny small print.
Even if you to their web site, and browser the Vista pages, it is misleading. There a pages dedicated to footnotes, exceptions to system requirements, an A-V list of poorly documented version differences, etc. I still haven't found a page that describes what the "Core Experiences of Windows Vista", which they continually mention, even are.
In other words, Microsoft seems to knowingly mislead consumers. They were aware of the differences, and did not adequately inform purchasers of it. They certainly appear to be misleading through deceptive labeling and advertising.
Take a look at the 16th and 17th amendments. First, they gave the Federal an unlimited source of money. Then they removed State representation in the Federal. The result of these actions was the removal of most of the role of the State.
The issues of slavery was very strongly debated at the Constitutional Convention. While few wanted to outright ban the practice, there were many that wanted to eliminate the slave trade, as a matter of human rights. The idea of selling yourself into slavery, and similar, seemed relatively okay with them. Slavery was recognized, even then, as an issue that could lead to destabilization of the Union.
There isn't anything preventing income taxes on the State level. I don't like income taxes, myself, but the individual states, as the intended provider of the majority of services and protections within the United States, is the government unit that really needed some method of heavier taxation. Unfortunately for *all* of us, the 16th and 17th amendments made this largely untrue.
We didn't even have the Navy in the beginning of the country. We did have what is today the Coast Guard, and then later commissioned a full-time military Navy. The Constitution makes specific allowances for the Army and Navy. We probably couldn't pay for your current military spending, but we also currently spend quite a silly amount of money. It is one of the primary purposes of the Federal, though. Still, we managed to do this for about 137 years before the income tax was ratified.
Constitutionally, the individuals States are supposed to be operating themselves within the Union. They are provided protection from invasion, and potentially help with domestic violence. The General Welfare clause would allow the Federal to provide assistance to a State in such a situation as you're describing. It would take action by Congress, which, under the original wording, would mean that one State would be petitioning the other States for aid, through Congress, by means of the State representation in the Senate.
This is a 100% incorrect analogy. You don't rent anything having to do with data from your ISP... you are purchasing connectivity for a period of time. Your ISP is arranging for you to have a physical line that they can use to deliver that service to you. The ISP owes you the service that you agreed to pay for, and, in this case, Comcast is not providing that service as agreed.
As a Comcast customer, you are not currently receiving unlimited Internet access, in any way of defining the term. They aren't letting you connect to whatever you want, so they aren't providing unlimited access to Internet sites. You can't transfer arbitrarily large amounts of data, since they have their secret transfer limit. You aren't getting unlimited speed, since they limit you to certain maximum transfer rates.
Also, you can't put the no-monitor rider into a contract, either. Federal law stipulates certain things, and wiretaps are one of them. That contract term would be void due to a contradictory law.
Most of the Sprint EVDO cards have an external antenna connector. It might help out a whole lot for him to try a well placed external... I'm using one of the Pantech PX-500 PCMCIA cards, which aren't even that great. The only reason that I've seen a disconnect is because of signal strength, so far.
What do you call five cruisers waiting to harass a line of traffic? How about a cruiser that eschews useful service and parks underneath an overpass for hours every day? I've even seen LEOs on interstates that were so stupid as to sit on the side of the road with two other cruisers, *get out of their vehicle* and point at people to try to pull them over, using the other two to pursue the people who ignored or never noticed those idiots.
Interstate speeds vary from 50 to no limit, in my experience. I'm in the Northeast, and most of them are 65 in this region, except near cities, where they change to 50.
They *should* be 75mph, but then they wouldn't write as many tickets.
So far, the majority of unsafe or unexpected driving hazards can be directly attributed to police. People get scared, and pay attention to the cruiser instead of the road. You get traffic slamming on their brakes and slowing to (speed limit)-5 to avoid harassment. People divert their attention to watch for cruisers and unmarked cars. Radar detectors get purchased and serve to add another distraction to drivers. Hell, the only real close call to a collision that I've had on an interstate was a cop just blindly pulling into 65mph left-lane traffic from a stop behind an overpass just because he wanted to turn around.
The *original* purpose of speed limits was safety. During the 1970s it was for fuel economy, though that really isn't an issue for most modern cars. I get within 0.5mpg of the same gas economy at 75mph as I get at 65mph in my car; at 75mph I am more efficient than at 55mph, just because of gearing. The limits are what they are because of bad policy.
Nope, Federal law says you have to pay tobacco excise to the state you *use* the tobacco in. If you buy in KY and use in FL, you owe FL money. Feds even require retailers that ship tobacco to report it to the destination state.
This is true, however, there is one very large difference between Google and everything that you listed. While Google build the apps, similar to case of your car, house, etc, they are also operating and maintaining the product. The car manufacturer doesn't *run* your car, or maintain it. If it break, you go somewhere and pay a different third party to fix it, or you fix it yourself. In Google's case, they have your car, and keep it running, and they come around and drive you places when you want them to.
The problem I mentioned was where the *police* did not make an attempt to figure out what was going on before publicly pointing a machine gun at someone, arresting them, leveling spurious charges to cover their poor conduct, etc.
I wouldn't call her apparent conduct "smarmy" either. If you're in a busy store and ask an employee where something is, you stop paying attention when they have led you there. That isn't suspicious unless you're looking for an excuse to find it.
In the current climate of this country, wearing the shirt into an airport was a bad idea.
While you are a member of the public, you don't speak for the public as a whole. It's fine to think this was in your interests, even though I think it wasn't. I'd have no problem with the police having checked this incident out to make sure there wasn't a problem. Unfortunately, that isn't really what they did.
Perhaps she'd been wearing it the entire day and didn't even think about it any more. #4 can be trivially explained by anyone that's around most engineering school techies: query was answered, moving on, no longer paying attention.
#2,3,5 can be explained by another idiotic response by the already embarrassing law enforcement actions of the Boston area.
Perhaps if they had held off on the thugs with MP-5s, and tried a direct question, then they wouldn't have had panic, a needless arrest, and mocked-up charges to punish some kid and ruin her life before she's even out of college. Perhaps these antics by law enforcement are disgusting and against the public interest?
The Constitution was created by representatives from the States to *create* the government. It bound the States into a voluntary union with a federal government. The functions, requirements, and boundaries of that Federal are documented by the US Constitution, in addition to other functions. It serves as the charter for the US Federal Government.
The result of that is that if the Constitution says the Federal cannot do 'x', then it simple cannot do 'x', for any reason, in any place, to any person. If it says the Federal cannot do 'y' to a citizen, then the Federal cannot do 'y' to a person who is a citizen of the US for any reason, no matter where that citizen happens to be. This doesn't mean the Federal *can* do it to a non-citizen, unless the Constitution says it can. More specifically, if the Constitution doesn't say the Federal can do something, then it cannot do it.
You're looking at this from the wrong perspective: the US Constitution applies to the US government. This includes anything that the US government does, anywhere. If the Constitution says the Federal cannot detain a person without warrant and trial, then the Federal just can't do it, whether it be in Nevada, or in South Africa.
How many other people ship software that is barely half-done and filled with known bugs, many of which seem to be marked as either WILL-NOT-FIX or FEATURE-NOT-BUG? Of those people, how many of the products involved are an operating system? Now, of those, how many are shipping this garbage by forcing it to be installed on nearly ever new PC sold, and doing everything in their power to prevent anyone from getting a copy of the older/functional version?
The answer is one: Microsoft.
This wouldn't be such a hot issue if it was just bugs in their code. These issues are largely intentionally designed into the platform. No end user wants them to be in the system.
Woah, looking like that time that IBM and Microsoft put together a team of the best and brightest to develop the next generation of operating systems: OS/2. They got all the way to when MS released Windows 3.0, with an API that didn't match with OS/2, and then IBM was maintaining the OS/2 2.x system while Microsoft was developing NT OS/2 3.0. Then Microsoft took all of that collaborative work, and made off with it, calling it simply Windows NT.
I generally think drinking and driving is an outright stupid idea. I know I wouldn't want to go around driving after a few beers, any time of day. Then again, I don't really like driving around at night all that much. As a matter of fact, I'd say people like me are probably more dangerous to bicyclists than drunk drivers. The reason? Well, that's easy... I get distortion off of my corrective optics from oncoming lights, and have difficulty adjusting to changes in light. They call it night blindness. It's why I feel comfortable driving in snow, but not rain.
I'd say that bicycling at night is the biggest danger to bicyclists at night. It's dark, you have nearly no safety gear, and very poor lighting. As a bicyclist that occasionally rides at night, *I* am avoiding cars with my numerous flashing lights and reflectors. I make sure I'm nowhere near the lane, often pulling off the road. It doesn't take a drunk driver to kill me... it takes a normal and average driver that blinked at the wrong time.
Looking at the other things you've posted on this topic, really, you're being ridiculous. Being drunk and driving is not something anyone is going to say is a safe thing to do. Nobody wants to have such a thing be just fine and dandy... However, if you're going to ruin someone for some fifty cent piece of junk that says you're drunk because of your ventolin, or that beer two hours ago, or some Scope, or whatever, then you had better be willing to apply it uniformly and fairly. However, you can't, and you shouldn't do such a thing.
Our laws are unfair and unjust, overall. This is another place where that is obvious. It is necessary and proper for an officer to pull someone over who is not operating their vehicle in a safe manner, whether it be drugs or alcohol or sleep deprivation. That officer needs to make a realistic and good decision about the circumstances, and take into account everything possible. If a breathalizer type device confirms a suspicion, then that's just cause to arrest and verify with a blood test. Things like that device should just be tools among many, but we've become ridiculous about such trite politically correct things as "zero tolerance".
The advice that "nice nate" gave is intelligent, and increasingly necessary. I did not see anything about avoiding responsibility and driving while drunk... I saw a good amount of advice about how to avoid being persecuted using overzealous laws designed to maximize the number of guilty parties by utilizing an extremely broad set of definitions and untrustworthy equipment.
I personally don't drink and drive, and that's because I know that I'm not a good judge of my own impairment. This doesn't mean that I would pass the typical and rigged impairment test, either, under the best of conditions. Honestly, if I believed the police were trustworthy, I'd be much more likely to side more with you, but I don't believe that. I have seen fewer trustworthy and upstanding police than I've seen honest criminals.
The same is true for anything, if taken to an extreme. You can live without a car, without electricity, without a telephone, etc. The question that is more important, I think, is can be you be a fully functional member of society without having this thing.
If you live in a city, and in some suburbs, you can do most anything you want to, without need of a car. However, if you live in a rural area, you really can't live in modern society without having one. You can live without a telephone, but if something serious happens, you have few ways of getting help, and you can't effectively communicate for work, or socially. In some cases, you can't even get access to particular services without a phone number.
Internet access is becoming something similar to that. It has become disadvantageous to not have access to email, difficult to look things up without WWW access, and many services that used to be offered over the phone are now online. You can get by without Internet, but not on equal footing with someone who does have access. I would still agree with you that it is not yet a basic need, in the way that electricity or telephone access would be, but it is becoming closer at a rapid pace. In other words, someone with Internet access has better opportunities than someone without. If you would consider owning a computer a necessity, then Internet access would be so, as well.
Now, high speed Internet access is a different story. That really is a luxury for some time to come.
If you're a backup mail exchanger, then you must accept mail on behalf of the primary mail server, and relay to it later. You don't necessarily have any way to verify the account as valid at that time. If you don't do a NDR, then the message originator has no way to know that an error occurred when the backup MX tried to relay into the primary.
No, there isn't really the equivalent of 1-800 service for packages. There is receiver pays, though, and that works fairly close, though it does have to be more intentional. There isn't any penalty for volume, either. Also, my point was that FedEx would rather take a loss on the infrastructure upgrade, and write that loss off, rather than raise rates to cover the one-time capital expenditure, but lose customers from price hike.
And paying twice is *exactly* what they are trying to pull.
As a residential customer, you pay the ISP for an "unlimited" line. They assume you aren't going to saturate the link, so they overbook and figure they'll make up costs on high numbers of low volume customers. If the average customer is uploading more data, then the ISP will get charged more by the backbone provider, and the rates will have to go up to compensate. Most likely, they will force those particular subscribers onto a more expensive plan. The ISP is charged by the backbone provider for the link, plus upstream usage.
You charge the serious customers, mostly businesses and content providers, for data use, generally upstream capacity. Or they charge for a burstable line, and you get metered data use. Either way, the data transfer *INTO* the backbone is paid for. Transfer around on the backbone is covered through peering arrangements.
So the data going onto the backbones is being paid for by the originating ISP, which is charging the content producers as appropriate. The data traversing the backbones are not being charged for. The data coming off the backbone is being paid by the customer to the ISP to cover link costs.
If you charge the content creator to *send* the data, and then the content creator to have a customer *receive* the data, and then the customer to *receive* the data, you are charging twice. This is EXACTLY what they are trying to do.
More to the point, if I place a phone call to a land line, I pay for the time, and the receiver of my call does not. If I place the call to a mobile user, I pay for the airtime, and they pay for the airtime, but I pay for the call. The mobile phone scenario is what we use for Internet, too. We both pay to be online, and the originator of the data pays to send. They want to *change* this so that we both pay to be online, and they pay to send the data, and I pay to receive the data. This isn't how *ANYTHING ELSE* works, and for good reason.
I had a 486DX2-66 that could play MP3's (128kbit, 44.1KHz, 16bit) and use the network pretty hard at the same time. I'd renice mpg123 so that it wouldn't skip, and keep using the computer for other stuff. MP3 and SSH at the same time was a pipe dream, though.
What? You either pay to ship a package with FedEx, or you pay for someone else to ship you a package with FedEx. At no time do both sides pay to ship a package.
If FedEx needs more capacity to keep up with their shipping business, then they buy more capacity. In the short term, there might be delays, and this would cost them money in revenue, or they would realistically pay overtime instead. It may need to increase prices to pay for this upgrade, but probably won't, since that might lose them customers to UPS. Instead, it will probably make a capital improvement and write off the costs on its taxes, and then have more capacity all the time.
The obvious issue is that in your scenario, the guy with the unlimited reception free for shippers either cancels his FedEx and calls UPS, or files a lawsuit for breach of contract. Free reception would mean the shipper isn't charged, and you just decided to do so. You don't need more capacity, but you just lost a lot of revenue, and you don't get to write off your upgrade. Oops, that was probably a bad business decision, since there are probably a lot of other people doing similar things, and you'll need to upgrade in the future anyway.
Dell, and I'm pretty sure Dell is a big shipper and receiver, does RMA all the time with receiver-pays shipping. You don't pay to ship to them, but they certainly receive *a lot* of packages, sometimes from the same place. The same is true for *every other company* that does this sort of thing. Receiver pays means shipper doesn't pay.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that in Iraq, the people there are fighting against the foreigners.
In a civil war, the people that live there are fighting the people that run the place. The military the latter uses to fight is composed entirely of the former! A civil war in the US would certainly be tragic and bloody, but it would be the resistance versus a part of the military, not the entire military. Some of those former military would likely bring aid with them.
The last time I did a reinstall was about two months ago. At the time, the driver in the repo would work, but there was no software/keyboard control over the brightness of the LCD. I installed the beta driver directly from NVIDIA, and that fixed it. The current release version might fix that, but I haven't checked.
This site is invaluable for Thinkpads:
http://www.thinkwiki.org/
I had the same trouble with my Thinkpad T61p. Get the alternate install disc and use that to install. Then you have to get the latest beta driver off the NVIDIA site, and install it by hand. Text mode will be your friend for this. I found the easiest way was to get sshd up and running and do it remotely. Hope this helps!
It could very well still work out in Microsoft's favor. If they manage to wipe out competition in a market, or use illicit means to get dominance through tie-ins, etc, it puts the company in a very favorable position in that market. This is why so many countries have anti-trust and competition laws.
In other words, taking a loss eventually generates profit by decreased costs. MS doesn't have to spend as much to keep up the business because they essentially pay the EU (with the fine/asset seizure), and erase the competition.
The only thing such an anti-competitive company as MS is going to listen to is something that threatens to put them out of business. Unfortunately for everyone, MS has demonstrated repeatedly over the last 15 years that they will not follow the law as long as it remains profitable to ignore it. Maybe seizing a few important patents/copyrights and putting them in the public domain would change their tune a little, as monetary fines obviously do not.
I don't really care one way or the other about the company making my software. I'm concerned with price, performance, reliability, etc. I avoided the "Vista Capable" marketing fraud by not being concerned with Vista capability at all. It had already been evaluated and set aside as not suiting my organizational needs. As it turns out, this was a great idea, since Vista still has show-stopper issues, as far as I'm concerned, *and* I didn't get duped into buy less-than-capable hardware for the platform.
A pilots license grants you certain category allowances by the FAA. Depending on the class of your certification and your ratings, you can pilot a range of aircraft under a variety of conditions. A basic private pilots certification does not let you pilot a 747, in the same way that a typical drivers license doesn't let you drive a 35,000lb commercial truck down a public way. It is rather clear what you are certified to pilot, though. You probably only have certification and rating to fly recreational aircraft of a specific class, and might have instrumentation rating.
Vista Home is still Vista, but it is not clear what that means. MS advertising says Vista is the newest and best of all Windows ever, and includes this list of supposedly unbelievable and life-changing new features. Vista Home just doesn't come with any of them, a fact which they have conveniently decided not to mention. Vista Capable means only that the computer can run the absolute core of Vista, which is undefined. It means that I can go buy a copy of Vista, or use my upgrade certificate, and it won't work right if I don't already know more than Microsoft tells me about the "Vista Capable" program.
While caveat emptor is still the only sane way of doing business, and isn't necessarily nice, you still can't deliberately mislead or lie. Try to find what this "core experience" of Windows Vista actually is. I have never been able to find a single reference to a definitive list. Every single mention anywhere I have seen is purposefully and noticeably vague. In other words, you can't actually find out what "Vista Capable" means, because Microsoft doesn't tell you.
That difference, the bit where they don't clarify their vague wording, is a key difference between your pilots certification and the "Vista Capable" program. I can go look up all sorts of interesting things in the FAR Code, and find out exactly what someone can and cannot do involving aircraft, based on their certification. I *can't* go look up exactly what "Vista Capable" means, and what I can and cannot do as a result.
For what it's worth, this has never been an issue before Vista. Something would say "Designed for Windows XP", or for 2000, or 98, and no matter what licensing and such you had, it would work. They would tell you that you can't watch TV without a tuner, that you can't get on the Internet without an Internet connection, and that you needed a 3D video card for 3D graphics. It was all very obvious and well defined. Windows still worked, though, regardless, as long as you met the minimum requirements printed on the box. This is just not the case with Vista, and between their advertisers and marketing people, they have managed to complicate things to such an extent that they are lying and misleading, and they can't even tell.
The point is that "Vista Capable" doesn't say "Vista Capable for a subset of the features of Vista", the implication is that if I buy a copy of Vista, it will work. This has very clearly not been the case. If you have a system labeled "Vista Capable" and go to the store, and buy six out of seven versions of Vista, it may not work properly.
Also, there *is* quite a bit of difference between Home Basic and Home Premium. This is to say that Home Basic is completely missing nearly every advertised function and feature of the platform. Home Basic doesn't have Aero, all the mobility support for laptops, SideShow, scheduled backups, fax support, DVD Maker, Movie Maker, Media Center, and a bunch of other things. Vista is advertised as supporting all of those things, with no mention of version distinction outside of tiny small print.
Even if you to their web site, and browser the Vista pages, it is misleading. There a pages dedicated to footnotes, exceptions to system requirements, an A-V list of poorly documented version differences, etc. I still haven't found a page that describes what the "Core Experiences of Windows Vista", which they continually mention, even are.
In other words, Microsoft seems to knowingly mislead consumers. They were aware of the differences, and did not adequately inform purchasers of it. They certainly appear to be misleading through deceptive labeling and advertising.
Take a look at the 16th and 17th amendments. First, they gave the Federal an unlimited source of money. Then they removed State representation in the Federal. The result of these actions was the removal of most of the role of the State.
The issues of slavery was very strongly debated at the Constitutional Convention. While few wanted to outright ban the practice, there were many that wanted to eliminate the slave trade, as a matter of human rights. The idea of selling yourself into slavery, and similar, seemed relatively okay with them. Slavery was recognized, even then, as an issue that could lead to destabilization of the Union.
There isn't anything preventing income taxes on the State level. I don't like income taxes, myself, but the individual states, as the intended provider of the majority of services and protections within the United States, is the government unit that really needed some method of heavier taxation. Unfortunately for *all* of us, the 16th and 17th amendments made this largely untrue.
We didn't even have the Navy in the beginning of the country. We did have what is today the Coast Guard, and then later commissioned a full-time military Navy. The Constitution makes specific allowances for the Army and Navy. We probably couldn't pay for your current military spending, but we also currently spend quite a silly amount of money. It is one of the primary purposes of the Federal, though. Still, we managed to do this for about 137 years before the income tax was ratified.
Constitutionally, the individuals States are supposed to be operating themselves within the Union. They are provided protection from invasion, and potentially help with domestic violence. The General Welfare clause would allow the Federal to provide assistance to a State in such a situation as you're describing. It would take action by Congress, which, under the original wording, would mean that one State would be petitioning the other States for aid, through Congress, by means of the State representation in the Senate.
This is a 100% incorrect analogy. You don't rent anything having to do with data from your ISP... you are purchasing connectivity for a period of time. Your ISP is arranging for you to have a physical line that they can use to deliver that service to you. The ISP owes you the service that you agreed to pay for, and, in this case, Comcast is not providing that service as agreed.
As a Comcast customer, you are not currently receiving unlimited Internet access, in any way of defining the term. They aren't letting you connect to whatever you want, so they aren't providing unlimited access to Internet sites. You can't transfer arbitrarily large amounts of data, since they have their secret transfer limit. You aren't getting unlimited speed, since they limit you to certain maximum transfer rates.
Also, you can't put the no-monitor rider into a contract, either. Federal law stipulates certain things, and wiretaps are one of them. That contract term would be void due to a contradictory law.
Most of the Sprint EVDO cards have an external antenna connector. It might help out a whole lot for him to try a well placed external... I'm using one of the Pantech PX-500 PCMCIA cards, which aren't even that great. The only reason that I've seen a disconnect is because of signal strength, so far.
What do you call five cruisers waiting to harass a line of traffic? How about a cruiser that eschews useful service and parks underneath an overpass for hours every day? I've even seen LEOs on interstates that were so stupid as to sit on the side of the road with two other cruisers, *get out of their vehicle* and point at people to try to pull them over, using the other two to pursue the people who ignored or never noticed those idiots.
Interstate speeds vary from 50 to no limit, in my experience. I'm in the Northeast, and most of them are 65 in this region, except near cities, where they change to 50.
They *should* be 75mph, but then they wouldn't write as many tickets.
So far, the majority of unsafe or unexpected driving hazards can be directly attributed to police. People get scared, and pay attention to the cruiser instead of the road. You get traffic slamming on their brakes and slowing to (speed limit)-5 to avoid harassment. People divert their attention to watch for cruisers and unmarked cars. Radar detectors get purchased and serve to add another distraction to drivers. Hell, the only real close call to a collision that I've had on an interstate was a cop just blindly pulling into 65mph left-lane traffic from a stop behind an overpass just because he wanted to turn around.
The *original* purpose of speed limits was safety. During the 1970s it was for fuel economy, though that really isn't an issue for most modern cars. I get within 0.5mpg of the same gas economy at 75mph as I get at 65mph in my car; at 75mph I am more efficient than at 55mph, just because of gearing. The limits are what they are because of bad policy.
Nope, Federal law says you have to pay tobacco excise to the state you *use* the tobacco in. If you buy in KY and use in FL, you owe FL money. Feds even require retailers that ship tobacco to report it to the destination state.
Next year the headlines will be "ozone hole 30% larger than last year." You just wait for it.
This is true, however, there is one very large difference between Google and everything that you listed. While Google build the apps, similar to case of your car, house, etc, they are also operating and maintaining the product. The car manufacturer doesn't *run* your car, or maintain it. If it break, you go somewhere and pay a different third party to fix it, or you fix it yourself. In Google's case, they have your car, and keep it running, and they come around and drive you places when you want them to.
The problem I mentioned was where the *police* did not make an attempt to figure out what was going on before publicly pointing a machine gun at someone, arresting them, leveling spurious charges to cover their poor conduct, etc.
I wouldn't call her apparent conduct "smarmy" either. If you're in a busy store and ask an employee where something is, you stop paying attention when they have led you there. That isn't suspicious unless you're looking for an excuse to find it.
In the current climate of this country, wearing the shirt into an airport was a bad idea.
While you are a member of the public, you don't speak for the public as a whole. It's fine to think this was in your interests, even though I think it wasn't. I'd have no problem with the police having checked this incident out to make sure there wasn't a problem. Unfortunately, that isn't really what they did.
Perhaps she'd been wearing it the entire day and didn't even think about it any more. #4 can be trivially explained by anyone that's around most engineering school techies: query was answered, moving on, no longer paying attention.
#2,3,5 can be explained by another idiotic response by the already embarrassing law enforcement actions of the Boston area.
Perhaps if they had held off on the thugs with MP-5s, and tried a direct question, then they wouldn't have had panic, a needless arrest, and mocked-up charges to punish some kid and ruin her life before she's even out of college. Perhaps these antics by law enforcement are disgusting and against the public interest?
The Constitution was created by representatives from the States to *create* the government. It bound the States into a voluntary union with a federal government. The functions, requirements, and boundaries of that Federal are documented by the US Constitution, in addition to other functions. It serves as the charter for the US Federal Government.
The result of that is that if the Constitution says the Federal cannot do 'x', then it simple cannot do 'x', for any reason, in any place, to any person. If it says the Federal cannot do 'y' to a citizen, then the Federal cannot do 'y' to a person who is a citizen of the US for any reason, no matter where that citizen happens to be. This doesn't mean the Federal *can* do it to a non-citizen, unless the Constitution says it can. More specifically, if the Constitution doesn't say the Federal can do something, then it cannot do it.
You're looking at this from the wrong perspective: the US Constitution applies to the US government. This includes anything that the US government does, anywhere. If the Constitution says the Federal cannot detain a person without warrant and trial, then the Federal just can't do it, whether it be in Nevada, or in South Africa.
How many other people ship software that is barely half-done and filled with known bugs, many of which seem to be marked as either WILL-NOT-FIX or FEATURE-NOT-BUG? Of those people, how many of the products involved are an operating system? Now, of those, how many are shipping this garbage by forcing it to be installed on nearly ever new PC sold, and doing everything in their power to prevent anyone from getting a copy of the older/functional version?
The answer is one: Microsoft.
This wouldn't be such a hot issue if it was just bugs in their code. These issues are largely intentionally designed into the platform. No end user wants them to be in the system.
Woah, looking like that time that IBM and Microsoft put together a team of the best and brightest to develop the next generation of operating systems: OS/2. They got all the way to when MS released Windows 3.0, with an API that didn't match with OS/2, and then IBM was maintaining the OS/2 2.x system while Microsoft was developing NT OS/2 3.0. Then Microsoft took all of that collaborative work, and made off with it, calling it simply Windows NT.
I generally think drinking and driving is an outright stupid idea. I know I wouldn't want to go around driving after a few beers, any time of day. Then again, I don't really like driving around at night all that much. As a matter of fact, I'd say people like me are probably more dangerous to bicyclists than drunk drivers. The reason? Well, that's easy... I get distortion off of my corrective optics from oncoming lights, and have difficulty adjusting to changes in light. They call it night blindness. It's why I feel comfortable driving in snow, but not rain.
I'd say that bicycling at night is the biggest danger to bicyclists at night. It's dark, you have nearly no safety gear, and very poor lighting. As a bicyclist that occasionally rides at night, *I* am avoiding cars with my numerous flashing lights and reflectors. I make sure I'm nowhere near the lane, often pulling off the road. It doesn't take a drunk driver to kill me... it takes a normal and average driver that blinked at the wrong time.
Looking at the other things you've posted on this topic, really, you're being ridiculous. Being drunk and driving is not something anyone is going to say is a safe thing to do. Nobody wants to have such a thing be just fine and dandy... However, if you're going to ruin someone for some fifty cent piece of junk that says you're drunk because of your ventolin, or that beer two hours ago, or some Scope, or whatever, then you had better be willing to apply it uniformly and fairly. However, you can't, and you shouldn't do such a thing.
Our laws are unfair and unjust, overall. This is another place where that is obvious. It is necessary and proper for an officer to pull someone over who is not operating their vehicle in a safe manner, whether it be drugs or alcohol or sleep deprivation. That officer needs to make a realistic and good decision about the circumstances, and take into account everything possible. If a breathalizer type device confirms a suspicion, then that's just cause to arrest and verify with a blood test. Things like that device should just be tools among many, but we've become ridiculous about such trite politically correct things as "zero tolerance".
The advice that "nice nate" gave is intelligent, and increasingly necessary. I did not see anything about avoiding responsibility and driving while drunk... I saw a good amount of advice about how to avoid being persecuted using overzealous laws designed to maximize the number of guilty parties by utilizing an extremely broad set of definitions and untrustworthy equipment.
I personally don't drink and drive, and that's because I know that I'm not a good judge of my own impairment. This doesn't mean that I would pass the typical and rigged impairment test, either, under the best of conditions. Honestly, if I believed the police were trustworthy, I'd be much more likely to side more with you, but I don't believe that. I have seen fewer trustworthy and upstanding police than I've seen honest criminals.
The same is true for anything, if taken to an extreme. You can live without a car, without electricity, without a telephone, etc. The question that is more important, I think, is can be you be a fully functional member of society without having this thing.
If you live in a city, and in some suburbs, you can do most anything you want to, without need of a car. However, if you live in a rural area, you really can't live in modern society without having one. You can live without a telephone, but if something serious happens, you have few ways of getting help, and you can't effectively communicate for work, or socially. In some cases, you can't even get access to particular services without a phone number.
Internet access is becoming something similar to that. It has become disadvantageous to not have access to email, difficult to look things up without WWW access, and many services that used to be offered over the phone are now online. You can get by without Internet, but not on equal footing with someone who does have access. I would still agree with you that it is not yet a basic need, in the way that electricity or telephone access would be, but it is becoming closer at a rapid pace. In other words, someone with Internet access has better opportunities than someone without. If you would consider owning a computer a necessity, then Internet access would be so, as well.
Now, high speed Internet access is a different story. That really is a luxury for some time to come.
If you're a backup mail exchanger, then you must accept mail on behalf of the primary mail server, and relay to it later. You don't necessarily have any way to verify the account as valid at that time. If you don't do a NDR, then the message originator has no way to know that an error occurred when the backup MX tried to relay into the primary.
No, there isn't really the equivalent of 1-800 service for packages. There is receiver pays, though, and that works fairly close, though it does have to be more intentional. There isn't any penalty for volume, either. Also, my point was that FedEx would rather take a loss on the infrastructure upgrade, and write that loss off, rather than raise rates to cover the one-time capital expenditure, but lose customers from price hike.
And paying twice is *exactly* what they are trying to pull.
As a residential customer, you pay the ISP for an "unlimited" line. They assume you aren't going to saturate the link, so they overbook and figure they'll make up costs on high numbers of low volume customers. If the average customer is uploading more data, then the ISP will get charged more by the backbone provider, and the rates will have to go up to compensate. Most likely, they will force those particular subscribers onto a more expensive plan. The ISP is charged by the backbone provider for the link, plus upstream usage.
You charge the serious customers, mostly businesses and content providers, for data use, generally upstream capacity. Or they charge for a burstable line, and you get metered data use. Either way, the data transfer *INTO* the backbone is paid for. Transfer around on the backbone is covered through peering arrangements.
So the data going onto the backbones is being paid for by the originating ISP, which is charging the content producers as appropriate. The data traversing the backbones are not being charged for. The data coming off the backbone is being paid by the customer to the ISP to cover link costs.
If you charge the content creator to *send* the data, and then the content creator to have a customer *receive* the data, and then the customer to *receive* the data, you are charging twice. This is EXACTLY what they are trying to do.
More to the point, if I place a phone call to a land line, I pay for the time, and the receiver of my call does not. If I place the call to a mobile user, I pay for the airtime, and they pay for the airtime, but I pay for the call. The mobile phone scenario is what we use for Internet, too. We both pay to be online, and the originator of the data pays to send. They want to *change* this so that we both pay to be online, and they pay to send the data, and I pay to receive the data. This isn't how *ANYTHING ELSE* works, and for good reason.
I had a 486DX2-66 that could play MP3's (128kbit, 44.1KHz, 16bit) and use the network pretty hard at the same time. I'd renice mpg123 so that it wouldn't skip, and keep using the computer for other stuff. MP3 and SSH at the same time was a pipe dream, though.
What? You either pay to ship a package with FedEx, or you pay for someone else to ship you a package with FedEx. At no time do both sides pay to ship a package.
If FedEx needs more capacity to keep up with their shipping business, then they buy more capacity. In the short term, there might be delays, and this would cost them money in revenue, or they would realistically pay overtime instead. It may need to increase prices to pay for this upgrade, but probably won't, since that might lose them customers to UPS. Instead, it will probably make a capital improvement and write off the costs on its taxes, and then have more capacity all the time.
The obvious issue is that in your scenario, the guy with the unlimited reception free for shippers either cancels his FedEx and calls UPS, or files a lawsuit for breach of contract. Free reception would mean the shipper isn't charged, and you just decided to do so. You don't need more capacity, but you just lost a lot of revenue, and you don't get to write off your upgrade. Oops, that was probably a bad business decision, since there are probably a lot of other people doing similar things, and you'll need to upgrade in the future anyway.
Dell, and I'm pretty sure Dell is a big shipper and receiver, does RMA all the time with receiver-pays shipping. You don't pay to ship to them, but they certainly receive *a lot* of packages, sometimes from the same place. The same is true for *every other company* that does this sort of thing. Receiver pays means shipper doesn't pay.