Just more cases of every problem looking like a nail when you only have a hammer. Windows is usually not the best choice, but incompetent managers try this kind of garbage. There are situations where Windows is the best tool. Running a UNIX application ported to Windows is a dumb idea. There are so few places that really require MSSQL and ASP. MSSQL is the same as most other databases, as far as interface, and ASP is just Visual Basic.
MS is just a vendor. Screw this vendor lock in; just pick the best tool for the job.
I don't exactly hate to point this out, but not running protection software on a Windows machine makes you a very dangerous administrator. You decided that your setup is better than the attackers' skills, and you set up a situation that can result in complete compromise due to your arrogance.
Truth is that you can't patch a Windows server without taking it offline. You can apply most UNIX patches while leaving everything running. You know damn well that's the truth, or you're making up your story. I've never seen a server "just work" either. You must have some very interesting magical powers.
Yes, sometimes poorly written software doesn't port well. Shame about your example being backwards of the point repeatedly driven home by the parent, grandparent, etc. Your poorly written application doesn't work on newer versions of the OS. The point was for newer software to work on an older OS.
I would wager a guess that if you got off of your high horse and installed the necessary software to safely run a Windows machine on a network, you would find a good number of viruses and spyware apps installed on it.
Hopefully you will be fired if you actually run some poor company's machines this way. It is irresponsible to a quite high degree. Pull this kind of crap in my shop, and you'd be more than out the door; I'd try to hold you responsible for the puposeful actions that jeopardized my business operations.
This is the same type of organization that purported massive losses due to internet piracy. They contradict themselves with this sort of thing. Now upwards of 66% of piracy is from physical media copying. What happened to the 271.3 trillion dollars or whatever that supposedly was losses from mp3s?
"Schoolyard piracy" won't vanish either. That's the group that's more likely to work around the copy restriction garbage and release onto the 'net! Besides, what their parents don't buy them they just download.
As for books, it's more likely that they work because people want the book, not a copy. Doesn't hurt that for most of the time books existed, there was no such thing as a copier.
We do have repeat offender laws on the books right now in many states. The problem you mention is with corruption, not with weak laws.
In my state (MA) you lose your license for three months with a DUI conviction, then you can be considered for a restricted license. The restricted period lasts for a year, and the fine is 500$-5000$. The alternative sentence is a 45 day suspension and you must go to an alcohol education program on your own dime, but you qualify for a restricted license. Third offense requires at least 180 days in jail, at least 2000$, and an 8 year suspension. This state recognised that their mandatory minimum idea was ill conceived and had to fix it.
However, I still don't want mandatory minimums and such, because you might run into a circumstance where the punishment doesn't fit the crime. At that time you, as a juror, may acquit a criminal because the required penalty is asinine. Or, perhaps the charge is plea bargained because of the penalty. You stop the person from being convicted of the appropriate crime because you force a particular penalty. You tell the judge: "I don't think you know how to sentence people, even though it is your job to do. I'll do it for you."
It's like the sex crime laws that make someone that streaks in college go on a "think of the children" list. Or the backwardness of a law that says: since you are a white guy, and you hit a black/gay/whatever person, you go to jail for three times as long.
Losing your driving privledges for a year for a DUI that has blanket levels and blanket penalties will not stop DUI. It will increase the number of unlicensed drivers, though. Just like all the other things that cause you to lose your license. People don't stop driving, because, as I said, in the US that isn't always an alternative. True, they shouldn't have done whatever caused the penalty. They should have been more responsible. Are the potential ramifications worth this, though? Is it appropriate to take the person's job and then having them live off unemployment for the duration of the license suspension?
I agree, the idea of fixing the corruption is nice, but that sort of thing *will not* do what you think it will.
Oh, and your comment on Hammurabi... he codified what was against law. He also codified that you, or your son, or your wife, would be killed for breaking them. As the creator of the first known public body of law, he is respectable. As for advocating justice through murder, he was a vengeful fool. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
Just to point out the extreme, but I suppose it would be okay to continuously transmit your vehicle speed, coordinates, and video, and allow the police to take remote control of your vehicle? You might cause an accident/speed/run a light. You have to prevent it from happening or someone might get hurt.
Prevention is about changing attitudes and convincing people to not break the law. This assumes that you *will* break the law, and doesn't allow you to. Freedom is partially about having the ability to break the law. Life is partially about knowing right from wrong, and making the proper choice.
This is punishment before the crime; you aren't a criminal until you commit a crime. I don't want to be treated like one. I don't want to give up what freedom I have now for anything.
I think there is more to it than that. Part of the problem is that people just eat these pre-prepared garbage meals instead of making food. You can eat largely whatever you want as long as you aren't being stupid. There's nothing wrong with a burger or a bowl of ice cream or some potato chips. There is something wrong if they become a staple.
As for the BMI and related crap, they aren't true. They're guides that assist people in figuring out what they should work towards. BMI says that I should weigh around 170lbs, but I would have to starve myself and let my muscles atrophy to be that weight. For me, 180-185lbs is what I aim for, and that leaves me fit with good stamina and little fat. People seem to want instant answers and quick fixes, and don't seem to be willing to understand that you can't get that.
The food we eat now is not as healthy as food generally used to be. We have all sorts of chemicals in there in various forms. We don't eat things that are fresh, which causes some loss of nutritional value. There are a lot of things that you can't easily notice that happen to our bodies as a result. We get build ups of cholesterol, changes in metabolism, etc. They're things we have to go to a doctor and be tested for.
Just because somebody looks healthy and feels fine does not mean that they are.
I think you're missing something. First off, you mention air bags, etc. Are these things that should be mandated, or just a good idea? I like having seat belts, but I don't completely like air bags. I would still get both if they were options, because I like being alive and the potential air bag failure is acceptable to me. I should just have the option of not getting them.
Forcing cars to have a sensor system like this doesn't stop people from drinking and it doesn't stop people from getting around the system. It would be required to have one, so the assumption would be that you would drive drunk without it. However, why should you have to be treated like you are already going to this? It will just be more regulation and more cost for yet another intangable, and possible nonexistant, benefit to society.
Make something like this optional. Insurance companies will surely give you a rate reduction for having it, so many people will get one voluntarily. Allow it to be part of a sentencing from a judge. You could say that for however long after a DUI conviction, you will have to have one installed, in addition to whatever else the judge finds appropriate.
The GP is also correct... the more you add to the system, the more potential for something going wrong. It's amazing that cars work as well as they do, considering how complex they are now. They do fail, though, and it is much more expensive to have them repaired. As was said, there are some things that you aren't even legally allowed to do yourself. This would very likely be another one of them.
It may be nice that we can prevent crime from happening, but this sort of thing is not the right way. Discourage crime, prosecute crimes that still happen, punish/rehabilitation those that need it. If you haven't gotten into the car and started driving while drunk, you haven't done anything contrary to the law. Don't treat people like they did. This may be something small, but as a part of a larger system, one that supposedly stands for and defends liberty and freedom, it is inappropriate.
It looks like you are talking about a mandatory minimum sentence. Those are always a bad idea as they take the ability to lay down penalty away from the courts. Do you really want to start down that kind of road? So for now you have a penalty that seems justified for DUI, since drunk driving endangers people needlessly; do you then start similar sentences for other transgressions? Also, the ability for a judge to accept a plea is not only something that should be able to happen, but is a necessity in a world of mandatory minimums with excessive punishment.
People make mistakes all the time, and bad things sometimes result. You don't want to ruin someone's ability to live for that period of time. There are a few ideas about what the purpose of a court sentencing is. I would like to think that they serve as a deterrent, and barring that, as a penalty that goes along with rehabilitation. Truth is that you can't just throw people in jail, forget about them for a few years, and expect anything good to come of it.
As far as the DUI goes, think of where we live. I'm guessing that you had something to do with college in an Ohio city. How difficult would it be for the person that you just stripped the license from for the next few years if, say, they were living in northwest Pennsylvania? You do not leave that person with many options, and they will very likely drive anyway, out of necessity. You have to take a wider view of what the problem is. Is the problem too much drinking, or is the problem irresponsibility?
As tragic is it may be, you can't punish people for a crime they haven't committed yet. Driving under the influence is a crime, but it should not be punished as if they killed someone. Our country isn't supposed to work that way for good reason. Arrest the person, scare the hell out of them, make them see what *can* happen through their actions. Restrict their driving for a few months, and they'll still be able to make due. Do it for a few hundred days, and they probably can't keep finding a way to get to work.
Basically, what seems to be the easy and obvious answer is rarely the right answer.
Operator interrupt doesn't always work. I know that from personal experience, as I've had two modems that an operator was completely unable to get to disconnect.
I do know about the new standard, but that wasn't my point. If you don't have a land-line because you got rid of it in favor of a cellular, this does absolutely nothing to help you. Now you have to have the land-line to get dialup, so the cost is over 50$.
Even with all that, DSL without phone service is getting more popular. For example, the majority of the people that I know don't have a land-line at all, and have either naked DSL or cable modem service.
Perhaps things are just very different for people that don't deal with Verizon "service". In all the areas that I know people who have to deal with them, they would love to get rid of the line and be done with Verizon. Hell, I even know one person that cancelled their line because Verizon kept screwing it up quite often (service down more than not). Finally he got fed up with their bs and cancelled service and his DSL, went to order naked DSL, and was informed that DSL wasn't available in his area. So not only does that particular company screw up their equipment all the time, they lie to people too.
Yeah, the Federal basically instituted base standards for environmental controls. Some states then have laws that carry them further. For example, California has much stricter controls for auto emissions than other states.
I'm familiar with the water laws. I recall a few years ago that an amendment to one of the Federal laws forced areas to install water filtration when it was quite unnecessary. In one place that I frequent, the treatment reduced the water quality a fair amount. I guess the nearly pure mountain spring water wasn't clean enough for the government, so they forced the town to add flouride and chlorine to it after passing it through filters.
Just don't forget that Federal law trumps State law. If one State wanted to have less environmental regulation, their law would be basically ignored since the Federal law would be more strict. If, say, one state had a law that said that you didn't need to filter municipal water, you still would have to filter it due to Federal laws.
Because they gave up the land-line due to redundant cost or dislike of the provider. I know very few people that live in an area with spotty cell coverage for every cell provider, and you can see this looking at the coverage maps. Broadband coverage is also quite good now. There are many people who don't consider it because their dialup is "good enough". Most COs are wired for DSL now, and most cable providers offer internet service. There are some very good maps available at dslreports that will show you what is wired in your area.
I don't have a phone.:) Quite a few people that I know don't, either. It's becoming rather common to ditch the high cost land-line and just go with an equal priced cellular. Mobiles often have a better set of services included (no cost long-distance, call id, voice mail, three way calling, etc) and you can take them with you if you want. When your land-line base cost starts being over 30$, there isn't much reason to have that *and* a mobile.
It cost me 100$ to get my DSL installed, which is the first time I've actually had to pay for installation. Many places still have nice deals. Besides, your dialup *really* costs over 50$/mo when you figure in the phone line.
30$/mo for the phone line, plus 22$/mo for the dial up service. 52$ is very close to 55$ and to 60$! Don't forget the cost of the base line from the RBOC, cause that's the larger of the costs involved.
As I've said many times, they could also just enforce existing laws. You aren't allowed to use a SSN except for Social Security and for matters specifically exempted by law. Look up the Social Security Act, the IRS excemption from 1962, and the Privacy Act of 1974.
Your bank and your school, etc, isn't supposed to be using the SSN at *all* for this sort of thing.
You said: "I do not see the need for Colleges to have our SSNs or track the students via that number. I don't think they care enough to be responsible."
That's OK... neither does the Federal government. It is technically illegal to use a SSN for most purposes, as set forth in the Privacy Act of 1974, as well as the Social Security Act.
Many of those are thing that the Federal has taken control of by abusing wording in the Constitution. They play games with the general welfare clause and the commerce clause. These things should more properly be done at the state level. Census is allowed by article 1, section 2 of the Constitution. Auto safety is taken under "general welfare", and so is environmental law, in part. Media/FCC is by interstate commerce.
Environmental law, FCC, and auto safety should probably be done at the state level, but as far as environmental law, and the spectrum allocation portion of the FCC, you won't get much fight from me that it works better at the Federal level.
Remember, just because the Federal is doing it now does not mean that it *should* be doing it, or even that it is allowed by the Constitution. It just hasn't been challenged to the SCOTUS yet.
That entirely depends on where you are. Many states run registration, drivers licenses, and testing from the same facility. Many states have also started to clean up the messes their DMVs are run as. I rarely have to wait more than five minutes for anything where I live (central MA), but if I have to go into a city for something, it's pretty terrible.
Just because that post disagrees with you does NOT make it a troll. Perhaps.NET does suck, perhaps not. I certainly don't want to deal with it, seeing as to how it makes nothing better for the user, does nothing to reduce bugs, but does add a lot of overhead.
Here's a better one: it's not allowed for the Federal government to do it. It removes States rights and further erodes our government's division of power. Going international with it removes privacy even further, plus removes power from the individual countries. In the US it is unconstitutional for us to do this, though our government ignores that.
That isn't a joke. TV is probably the worst thing to ever happen to social interaction. When I go to a party and people sit and the TV comes on, I get my things together and get ready to leave. There isn't any point in wasting my time at a "party" when people are sitting in silence in front of that damned box. Go ahead, try to talk in that situation and you get "ssshhh, I can't hear the TV".
Similar is true with these coffee shops. You go to a shop to meet people, to see performers, or to talk. You can sit at home and be antisocial on the Internet, and not be taking up a spot that a customer might have.
It's not that those crimes are exempt from continued scrutiny, it's that sex crimes have become "special" and subject to punishment above and beyond the handed down sentencing from the judge. I would wager that had this been done for certain other crimanal acts that people would've been going crazy about the cruel and unusual punishment. It means that a sex offender can never finish serving sentence, yet a murderer or thief or whatnot can.
I think something like this should either be all violent crime (would then not be unusual, but would be cruel), or no crimes. Perhaps you do it to people that are repeat offenders. It probably shouldn't be done at all, regardless. I don't like the idea of people being tracked, and I don't like the implications for harm that can come to someone by having their safety potentially compromised after they already served their jail time. Much like what happened in England, I can easily see some nasty sex-related crime happening somewhere, and a mob injuring/killing everyone on that list.
Lots of people still pay AOL, even if they have broadband. They also think Comcast has a different Internet than AOL or TimeWarner.
WinAmp wasn't killed, especially not by iTunes. The people who like WinAmp tend to despise iTunes as a bloated and annoying piece of crap, and only get for running the uninstall program with.
AIM is threatened by MSN and Yahoo. Nobody really started to use Jabber for some reason, and XMPP doesn't really exist yet. Also, sending messages on your cell phone sucks.
TW probably wants to get rid of AOL because their business model is terrible, and they hemorrhage cash. They should've known that when they bought them in the first place! AOL drops so much money on their terrible advertising, and then irritates the people who actually pay them at every move in the client software.
I'm somewhat surprised TW's investors didn't throw a fit and start a series of lawsuits.
Actually, SCSI does beat the crap out of SATA, for many reasons. First is the reliability... they use better components on the SCSI drives, and they have better warrantees. Second is the higher spindle speeds. Third is SATA only lets you have *one* drive. SCSI lets you have 15. You also get real command queuing, more reliable controllers, longer cable lengths, external devices, hotswapping, and multipath I/O. You also get access to a massive amount of existing hardware, instead of waiting for SATA versions of things to come out. Look how long it took before a single SATA optical drive was released!
I never understood why the industry went with something silly like "Hey, lets take IDE and make a new connector. That'll fix ALL the problems!". They could've just chosen one of the SCSI variants out there, and called that the next big consumer thing. Would've saved tons of money in manufacturing and design. You could've leveraged your existing hardware lines to produce the drives and used existing chipsets to drive them.
I do agree though, SCSI doesn't beat the crap out of everything as a law. There are junk controllers and drives out there, and they perform badly. But if you buy a good controller and good drives, SCSI beats the crap out of most everything else.
This benchmark doesn't seem to have configured things very well, anyway. It looks like a very small number of drives were used, the minimum for the RAID type. This means minimum performance.
If SCSI had been used and you had like five or seven drives, it would've screamed! Also, different things do RAID different ways. On some setups a RAID1 will write to all discs simultaneous, and read from only one. You can seriously improve throughput by reading different chunks off each drive simultaneously. Same idea as RAID0, except it doesn't suck for reliability.
The US' way is supposed to be for these sorts of things to happen on the lowest level possible. If a town or city wanted to ban liquor, they can. If they wanted rules about restriction of sale of certain items, they can have that too. Doing it at the Federal level is a travesty on the intent of the form of government. It really isn't appropriate on the State level, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Just more cases of every problem looking like a nail when you only have a hammer. Windows is usually not the best choice, but incompetent managers try this kind of garbage. There are situations where Windows is the best tool. Running a UNIX application ported to Windows is a dumb idea. There are so few places that really require MSSQL and ASP. MSSQL is the same as most other databases, as far as interface, and ASP is just Visual Basic.
MS is just a vendor. Screw this vendor lock in; just pick the best tool for the job.
I don't exactly hate to point this out, but not running protection software on a Windows machine makes you a very dangerous administrator. You decided that your setup is better than the attackers' skills, and you set up a situation that can result in complete compromise due to your arrogance.
Truth is that you can't patch a Windows server without taking it offline. You can apply most UNIX patches while leaving everything running. You know damn well that's the truth, or you're making up your story. I've never seen a server "just work" either. You must have some very interesting magical powers.
Yes, sometimes poorly written software doesn't port well. Shame about your example being backwards of the point repeatedly driven home by the parent, grandparent, etc. Your poorly written application doesn't work on newer versions of the OS. The point was for newer software to work on an older OS.
I would wager a guess that if you got off of your high horse and installed the necessary software to safely run a Windows machine on a network, you would find a good number of viruses and spyware apps installed on it.
Hopefully you will be fired if you actually run some poor company's machines this way. It is irresponsible to a quite high degree. Pull this kind of crap in my shop, and you'd be more than out the door; I'd try to hold you responsible for the puposeful actions that jeopardized my business operations.
This is the same type of organization that purported massive losses due to internet piracy. They contradict themselves with this sort of thing. Now upwards of 66% of piracy is from physical media copying. What happened to the 271.3 trillion dollars or whatever that supposedly was losses from mp3s?
"Schoolyard piracy" won't vanish either. That's the group that's more likely to work around the copy restriction garbage and release onto the 'net! Besides, what their parents don't buy them they just download.
As for books, it's more likely that they work because people want the book, not a copy. Doesn't hurt that for most of the time books existed, there was no such thing as a copier.
We do have repeat offender laws on the books right now in many states. The problem you mention is with corruption, not with weak laws.
In my state (MA) you lose your license for three months with a DUI conviction, then you can be considered for a restricted license. The restricted period lasts for a year, and the fine is 500$-5000$. The alternative sentence is a 45 day suspension and you must go to an alcohol education program on your own dime, but you qualify for a restricted license. Third offense requires at least 180 days in jail, at least 2000$, and an 8 year suspension. This state recognised that their mandatory minimum idea was ill conceived and had to fix it.
However, I still don't want mandatory minimums and such, because you might run into a circumstance where the punishment doesn't fit the crime. At that time you, as a juror, may acquit a criminal because the required penalty is asinine. Or, perhaps the charge is plea bargained because of the penalty. You stop the person from being convicted of the appropriate crime because you force a particular penalty. You tell the judge: "I don't think you know how to sentence people, even though it is your job to do. I'll do it for you."
It's like the sex crime laws that make someone that streaks in college go on a "think of the children" list. Or the backwardness of a law that says: since you are a white guy, and you hit a black/gay/whatever person, you go to jail for three times as long.
Losing your driving privledges for a year for a DUI that has blanket levels and blanket penalties will not stop DUI. It will increase the number of unlicensed drivers, though. Just like all the other things that cause you to lose your license. People don't stop driving, because, as I said, in the US that isn't always an alternative. True, they shouldn't have done whatever caused the penalty. They should have been more responsible. Are the potential ramifications worth this, though? Is it appropriate to take the person's job and then having them live off unemployment for the duration of the license suspension?
I agree, the idea of fixing the corruption is nice, but that sort of thing *will not* do what you think it will.
Oh, and your comment on Hammurabi... he codified what was against law. He also codified that you, or your son, or your wife, would be killed for breaking them. As the creator of the first known public body of law, he is respectable. As for advocating justice through murder, he was a vengeful fool. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
Just to point out the extreme, but I suppose it would be okay to continuously transmit your vehicle speed, coordinates, and video, and allow the police to take remote control of your vehicle? You might cause an accident/speed/run a light. You have to prevent it from happening or someone might get hurt.
Prevention is about changing attitudes and convincing people to not break the law. This assumes that you *will* break the law, and doesn't allow you to. Freedom is partially about having the ability to break the law. Life is partially about knowing right from wrong, and making the proper choice.
This is punishment before the crime; you aren't a criminal until you commit a crime. I don't want to be treated like one. I don't want to give up what freedom I have now for anything.
I think there is more to it than that. Part of the problem is that people just eat these pre-prepared garbage meals instead of making food. You can eat largely whatever you want as long as you aren't being stupid. There's nothing wrong with a burger or a bowl of ice cream or some potato chips. There is something wrong if they become a staple.
As for the BMI and related crap, they aren't true. They're guides that assist people in figuring out what they should work towards. BMI says that I should weigh around 170lbs, but I would have to starve myself and let my muscles atrophy to be that weight. For me, 180-185lbs is what I aim for, and that leaves me fit with good stamina and little fat. People seem to want instant answers and quick fixes, and don't seem to be willing to understand that you can't get that.
The food we eat now is not as healthy as food generally used to be. We have all sorts of chemicals in there in various forms. We don't eat things that are fresh, which causes some loss of nutritional value. There are a lot of things that you can't easily notice that happen to our bodies as a result. We get build ups of cholesterol, changes in metabolism, etc. They're things we have to go to a doctor and be tested for.
Just because somebody looks healthy and feels fine does not mean that they are.
I think you're missing something. First off, you mention air bags, etc. Are these things that should be mandated, or just a good idea? I like having seat belts, but I don't completely like air bags. I would still get both if they were options, because I like being alive and the potential air bag failure is acceptable to me. I should just have the option of not getting them.
Forcing cars to have a sensor system like this doesn't stop people from drinking and it doesn't stop people from getting around the system. It would be required to have one, so the assumption would be that you would drive drunk without it. However, why should you have to be treated like you are already going to this? It will just be more regulation and more cost for yet another intangable, and possible nonexistant, benefit to society.
Make something like this optional. Insurance companies will surely give you a rate reduction for having it, so many people will get one voluntarily. Allow it to be part of a sentencing from a judge. You could say that for however long after a DUI conviction, you will have to have one installed, in addition to whatever else the judge finds appropriate.
The GP is also correct... the more you add to the system, the more potential for something going wrong. It's amazing that cars work as well as they do, considering how complex they are now. They do fail, though, and it is much more expensive to have them repaired. As was said, there are some things that you aren't even legally allowed to do yourself. This would very likely be another one of them.
It may be nice that we can prevent crime from happening, but this sort of thing is not the right way. Discourage crime, prosecute crimes that still happen, punish/rehabilitation those that need it. If you haven't gotten into the car and started driving while drunk, you haven't done anything contrary to the law. Don't treat people like they did. This may be something small, but as a part of a larger system, one that supposedly stands for and defends liberty and freedom, it is inappropriate.
It looks like you are talking about a mandatory minimum sentence. Those are always a bad idea as they take the ability to lay down penalty away from the courts. Do you really want to start down that kind of road? So for now you have a penalty that seems justified for DUI, since drunk driving endangers people needlessly; do you then start similar sentences for other transgressions? Also, the ability for a judge to accept a plea is not only something that should be able to happen, but is a necessity in a world of mandatory minimums with excessive punishment.
People make mistakes all the time, and bad things sometimes result. You don't want to ruin someone's ability to live for that period of time. There are a few ideas about what the purpose of a court sentencing is. I would like to think that they serve as a deterrent, and barring that, as a penalty that goes along with rehabilitation. Truth is that you can't just throw people in jail, forget about them for a few years, and expect anything good to come of it.
As far as the DUI goes, think of where we live. I'm guessing that you had something to do with college in an Ohio city. How difficult would it be for the person that you just stripped the license from for the next few years if, say, they were living in northwest Pennsylvania? You do not leave that person with many options, and they will very likely drive anyway, out of necessity. You have to take a wider view of what the problem is. Is the problem too much drinking, or is the problem irresponsibility?
As tragic is it may be, you can't punish people for a crime they haven't committed yet. Driving under the influence is a crime, but it should not be punished as if they killed someone. Our country isn't supposed to work that way for good reason. Arrest the person, scare the hell out of them, make them see what *can* happen through their actions. Restrict their driving for a few months, and they'll still be able to make due. Do it for a few hundred days, and they probably can't keep finding a way to get to work.
Basically, what seems to be the easy and obvious answer is rarely the right answer.
Operator interrupt doesn't always work. I know that from personal experience, as I've had two modems that an operator was completely unable to get to disconnect.
I do know about the new standard, but that wasn't my point. If you don't have a land-line because you got rid of it in favor of a cellular, this does absolutely nothing to help you. Now you have to have the land-line to get dialup, so the cost is over 50$.
Even with all that, DSL without phone service is getting more popular. For example, the majority of the people that I know don't have a land-line at all, and have either naked DSL or cable modem service.
Perhaps things are just very different for people that don't deal with Verizon "service". In all the areas that I know people who have to deal with them, they would love to get rid of the line and be done with Verizon. Hell, I even know one person that cancelled their line because Verizon kept screwing it up quite often (service down more than not). Finally he got fed up with their bs and cancelled service and his DSL, went to order naked DSL, and was informed that DSL wasn't available in his area. So not only does that particular company screw up their equipment all the time, they lie to people too.
Yeah, the Federal basically instituted base standards for environmental controls. Some states then have laws that carry them further. For example, California has much stricter controls for auto emissions than other states.
I'm familiar with the water laws. I recall a few years ago that an amendment to one of the Federal laws forced areas to install water filtration when it was quite unnecessary. In one place that I frequent, the treatment reduced the water quality a fair amount. I guess the nearly pure mountain spring water wasn't clean enough for the government, so they forced the town to add flouride and chlorine to it after passing it through filters.
Just don't forget that Federal law trumps State law. If one State wanted to have less environmental regulation, their law would be basically ignored since the Federal law would be more strict. If, say, one state had a law that said that you didn't need to filter municipal water, you still would have to filter it due to Federal laws.
Because they gave up the land-line due to redundant cost or dislike of the provider. I know very few people that live in an area with spotty cell coverage for every cell provider, and you can see this looking at the coverage maps. Broadband coverage is also quite good now. There are many people who don't consider it because their dialup is "good enough". Most COs are wired for DSL now, and most cable providers offer internet service. There are some very good maps available at dslreports that will show you what is wired in your area.
I don't have a phone. :) Quite a few people that I know don't, either. It's becoming rather common to ditch the high cost land-line and just go with an equal priced cellular. Mobiles often have a better set of services included (no cost long-distance, call id, voice mail, three way calling, etc) and you can take them with you if you want. When your land-line base cost starts being over 30$, there isn't much reason to have that *and* a mobile.
It cost me 100$ to get my DSL installed, which is the first time I've actually had to pay for installation. Many places still have nice deals. Besides, your dialup *really* costs over 50$/mo when you figure in the phone line.
30$/mo for the phone line, plus 22$/mo for the dial up service. 52$ is very close to 55$ and to 60$! Don't forget the cost of the base line from the RBOC, cause that's the larger of the costs involved.
As I've said many times, they could also just enforce existing laws. You aren't allowed to use a SSN except for Social Security and for matters specifically exempted by law. Look up the Social Security Act, the IRS excemption from 1962, and the Privacy Act of 1974.
Your bank and your school, etc, isn't supposed to be using the SSN at *all* for this sort of thing.
You said: "I do not see the need for Colleges to have our SSNs or track the students via that number. I don't think they care enough to be responsible."
That's OK... neither does the Federal government. It is technically illegal to use a SSN for most purposes, as set forth in the Privacy Act of 1974, as well as the Social Security Act.
Many of those are thing that the Federal has taken control of by abusing wording in the Constitution. They play games with the general welfare clause and the commerce clause. These things should more properly be done at the state level. Census is allowed by article 1, section 2 of the Constitution. Auto safety is taken under "general welfare", and so is environmental law, in part. Media/FCC is by interstate commerce.
Environmental law, FCC, and auto safety should probably be done at the state level, but as far as environmental law, and the spectrum allocation portion of the FCC, you won't get much fight from me that it works better at the Federal level.
Remember, just because the Federal is doing it now does not mean that it *should* be doing it, or even that it is allowed by the Constitution. It just hasn't been challenged to the SCOTUS yet.
That entirely depends on where you are. Many states run registration, drivers licenses, and testing from the same facility. Many states have also started to clean up the messes their DMVs are run as. I rarely have to wait more than five minutes for anything where I live (central MA), but if I have to go into a city for something, it's pretty terrible.
Just because that post disagrees with you does NOT make it a troll. Perhaps .NET does suck, perhaps not. I certainly don't want to deal with it, seeing as to how it makes nothing better for the user, does nothing to reduce bugs, but does add a lot of overhead.
THIS post is offtopic, though.
Here's a better one: it's not allowed for the Federal government to do it. It removes States rights and further erodes our government's division of power. Going international with it removes privacy even further, plus removes power from the individual countries. In the US it is unconstitutional for us to do this, though our government ignores that.
That isn't a joke. TV is probably the worst thing to ever happen to social interaction. When I go to a party and people sit and the TV comes on, I get my things together and get ready to leave. There isn't any point in wasting my time at a "party" when people are sitting in silence in front of that damned box. Go ahead, try to talk in that situation and you get "ssshhh, I can't hear the TV".
Similar is true with these coffee shops. You go to a shop to meet people, to see performers, or to talk. You can sit at home and be antisocial on the Internet, and not be taking up a spot that a customer might have.
IOW, you're damn right!
It's not that those crimes are exempt from continued scrutiny, it's that sex crimes have become "special" and subject to punishment above and beyond the handed down sentencing from the judge. I would wager that had this been done for certain other crimanal acts that people would've been going crazy about the cruel and unusual punishment. It means that a sex offender can never finish serving sentence, yet a murderer or thief or whatnot can.
I think something like this should either be all violent crime (would then not be unusual, but would be cruel), or no crimes. Perhaps you do it to people that are repeat offenders. It probably shouldn't be done at all, regardless. I don't like the idea of people being tracked, and I don't like the implications for harm that can come to someone by having their safety potentially compromised after they already served their jail time. Much like what happened in England, I can easily see some nasty sex-related crime happening somewhere, and a mob injuring/killing everyone on that list.
A few points:
Lots of people still pay AOL, even if they have broadband. They also think Comcast has a different Internet than AOL or TimeWarner.
WinAmp wasn't killed, especially not by iTunes. The people who like WinAmp tend to despise iTunes as a bloated and annoying piece of crap, and only get for running the uninstall program with.
AIM is threatened by MSN and Yahoo. Nobody really started to use Jabber for some reason, and XMPP doesn't really exist yet. Also, sending messages on your cell phone sucks.
TW probably wants to get rid of AOL because their business model is terrible, and they hemorrhage cash. They should've known that when they bought them in the first place! AOL drops so much money on their terrible advertising, and then irritates the people who actually pay them at every move in the client software.
I'm somewhat surprised TW's investors didn't throw a fit and start a series of lawsuits.
Actually, SCSI does beat the crap out of SATA, for many reasons. First is the reliability... they use better components on the SCSI drives, and they have better warrantees. Second is the higher spindle speeds. Third is SATA only lets you have *one* drive. SCSI lets you have 15. You also get real command queuing, more reliable controllers, longer cable lengths, external devices, hotswapping, and multipath I/O. You also get access to a massive amount of existing hardware, instead of waiting for SATA versions of things to come out. Look how long it took before a single SATA optical drive was released!
I never understood why the industry went with something silly like "Hey, lets take IDE and make a new connector. That'll fix ALL the problems!". They could've just chosen one of the SCSI variants out there, and called that the next big consumer thing. Would've saved tons of money in manufacturing and design. You could've leveraged your existing hardware lines to produce the drives and used existing chipsets to drive them.
I do agree though, SCSI doesn't beat the crap out of everything as a law. There are junk controllers and drives out there, and they perform badly. But if you buy a good controller and good drives, SCSI beats the crap out of most everything else.
This benchmark doesn't seem to have configured things very well, anyway. It looks like a very small number of drives were used, the minimum for the RAID type. This means minimum performance.
If SCSI had been used and you had like five or seven drives, it would've screamed! Also, different things do RAID different ways. On some setups a RAID1 will write to all discs simultaneous, and read from only one. You can seriously improve throughput by reading different chunks off each drive simultaneously. Same idea as RAID0, except it doesn't suck for reliability.
The US' way is supposed to be for these sorts of things to happen on the lowest level possible. If a town or city wanted to ban liquor, they can. If they wanted rules about restriction of sale of certain items, they can have that too. Doing it at the Federal level is a travesty on the intent of the form of government. It really isn't appropriate on the State level, either.