My understanding is the OpenVPN will navigate dynamic IP pretty well - provided at least one link is static - but that it also supports dual dynamic ip (so long as you are not the unhappy victim of simultaneous changes.
As it was explained to me, by my good friend Jim (who wrote the thing) Both connections will attempt to reconnect and rebroadcast the return IP. (presumably this is configurable).
your suggesting that if they are in a war zone, with a Kalishnikov, (which i understand is standard garb in war zone for everyone including civees) they are by definition unprotected by the Geneva convention?
I would suggest that foriegners in one's one country with arms and no uniforms would be unprotected - but in their own country? That pushes the envelope - so our own soldiers, if they decide to go out on the town in the US with their civillian clothes - are by this definition some kind of unprotected enemy combatants?
What's the point of having the Geneva convention if only to circumvent it at the first opportunity.
In a synchronized ie "clocked" COU - this is correct.
In an Asynchronous chip - each sub component operates independently, and could be self-clocking - meaning that the frequency of each transaction is determined by a dedicated controller which understands when one transaction has finished and it is both safe AND necessary to begin another transaction.
For example - the floating point processor may only need to run when there are floating point instructions in the command que - the same with memory fetch, uart servicing, and logical operations.
The opportunity here is to localize the SOL constraint to isolated subsystems and could easily be the best solution to maintaining Moore's law.
Wouldn't it be ironic for MS to claim patent infringement. It seems that every argument they could make in a patent case would be an argument against their own success (seeing that they violated all manner of regulation related to fair play in business.) I think it's clear that MS has secured its safety by being able to buy political protection - either in form of direct contributions, or by threatening to put so many on unemployment - which is the same thing. But the courts would be exposed for their unfairness is MS sued on similar grounds (Patents after all are a branch of the monopoly laws).
Conclusion: a fork of linux should be created with the express purpose of infringing MS patents is a bold way so as to initiate the conflict. I think MS loses this one hands down.
RICO is a free spin on the triple-your-reward wheel. It's almost irresponsible for a lawyer to fail to include RICO in a complaint if it is possible to meet the conditions (interstate trade / multiple people / continuing pattern of activity) and leave it to the court to turn down the triple reward.
Given the business (interstate phone calls) there's your first hint. "Enterprize" is a slam dunk, and continuing enterprise is self-evident. The trick is to prove unlawful activity - which has yet to be explained.
Just to be more clear _EVEN_ when you have a specific obligation to act - there appears to be very little force behind that obligation. The difference between "Even" and "Except" may justify a short trip to the dictionary here. It's very difficult to criminalize inaction - even for those entrusted to take action. School officials fail in many cases to educate children; police fail to uphold many laws. I'm just saying it's really difficult to force officials to uphold the law. If anyone has an example of forcing officials to act - I'd like to see it.
IANAL however, at least one case shows that inaction is largely inactionable even if one is a law-enforcement official. I would challenge anyone to show where the failure of a government official to do their job is justification for anything more than being removed from office by voters, or perhaps a "mandate" from a court to do their job. I'm thinking of one precedent in which a shop owner, having been threatened for refusing to accept a return of merchandise (an engine block) called the police for protection - didn't get it - was subsequently killed - and his estate then sued the police for inaction - no dice. Anyone have a case which shows the opposite? - inaction leads to liability? (without personal benefit ie a bribe not to enforce drug laws)
You have to think that if the product designers can't come up with a clear name, the product probably doesn't fall far from the tree.
I've worked with P-Sql, and it really sucks when trying to store large objects. The lack of "native" blob support means there can never be a standard means of including blobs, which means tools, examples, etc will often fail to work in many situations.
I'm not so sure that the "Egyptians" of legend have all that much to do with the current occupants of Egypt. My understanding is that the Egyptian culture died out and the current occupants are a nomadic latecomer.
Whose to say Google doesn't sue to prevent it while giving it to them in the first place - I certainly would. Best of both worlds, you keep your reputation ''and'' your freedom. AIK
This thread seem to consistently miss the obvious point of this research, it is to throw bits of metal into the fray rather than taxpayers and their children. Think of these machines as the proxies for all the GWB's and DC's who wouldn't put themselves or their kids in harms way (But of course are more than willing to send yours). This device can carry the equipment necessary to be mobile, linked by satellite, and armed. AIK
I'm fairly certain that the part designer would have to understand the goal of the part - that is to hold this or that in position against the stress, thermal expansion, and vibration induced under the application scenario. A more interesting next step would be to mutate the part and hunt about for a more highly optimal shape (generally by removing unnecessary material where it is unwarranted). In fact there is an early American poem about such optimization which describes a horse carriage so perfectly balanced that no part wears out first, and the rather poetic end that the carriage runs until the moment of its demise, whereupon it is reduced in an instant to a state of unrecognizable ruble. AIK
IANALE, but I think you are optimistic when you suggest that Privilege can be "unsealed" as easily as that. The right to representation is a Constitutional right and encompasses the right to communicate with an attorney without that communication being used against oneself. I think your scenario would be seen as rendering the right to counsel moot, and would hardly fly. The real question here is whether or not the DA can hoodwink Diebold into abandoning its right to privilege by offering as bait the hanging of a snitch. I would be surprised if this isn't a cleverish ruse. The idea that a DA is going to project a "Tough on Crime" image by prosecuting a case which the media are going to endless portray as a whichunt is a much farther leap of faith than the proposition of reeling in a big political fish by casting a noisy minnow. AIK
Right - you'd think that generally; however, if in fact the documents are "privileged" then the subpoena doesn't really get you that far. Without the documents - how do you even get to an indictment? where is reasonable cause? You have nothing. So - do you go with what you do have - evidence of improper handling of privileged documents, and you hope that reasonable cause will turn up so that you can in fact turn the tables. I have to believe that the DA is not hoping to end shis political career in order to put a whistle-blower behind bars. Shim is hoping not to get ousted for failing to prosecutor in the face of a rather big insult to the voters. AIK
Technically so, while Grand Juries are asked directly to state the trueness of facts alleged, Criminal juries in the US are asked to decide the outcome of the entire question, while instructed as to what the law is or isn't, the guilt or innocence is the product with only inferences as to the findings of fact. There may be in complex (and presumably civil) cases a separate finding of fact, as such things are often asserted, but I am not aware of a jury - other than a grand jury - being asked to indicate directly the truthfulness of a barrel of facts. AIK
There is a curious possibility that the DA is using this to investigate the actions of Diebold in this case. It could be - and here's hoping - that by bringing the whistle blower into court (the only way possible) the DA hopes to create a public record which can then be used to investigate Diebold. It would seem, that if in fact Diebold has rigged an election, that is a far more worthy pursuit; but it may also be that the evidence is unavailable and this round-about approach is a rude means to a proper end. No?
A great deal of litter is intentional and is used for advertising purposes (similar to graffiti) This litter may take the form of posters or placards on telephone poles - or other public property and is prohibited so far as I know in every country and state (though my research is limited to english speaking domains).
I was convicted of encouraging minors to participate in making the roadsides clean of litter. Appearing soon in a federal court near you.
As having been arrested for picking up litter - I can understand this problem. Police are mmotivated to enforce the status quo, actual facts are too bothersome. AIK
Roads are subsidized; which means it costs more to build and maintain the roads than is collected by the fees associated with their use (mostly gas taxes). In addition, the cost of accidents is subsidized whenever the taxpayer picked up the cost of medical care for uninsured motorists, also, the health effects of pollution are not charged to the polluter, so there is an additional subsidy; all told, people who choose to ride a bike are denied the full economic benefit of the trade-off, and is forced to pay for the hummer drivers over-consumption regardless.
- As for oil wars - let's not beat around the bush - we're there because you and others perceive it is necessary to ensure a steady flow of oil - but that costs money - all I'm suggesting is that people who find ways to avoid using oil should be entitled to the full economic benefit of that choice. Subsidies prevent markets from making good choices by denying individuals the full economic benefit of the better choice.
I fail to see how ending the taxpayer subsidies required to make driving a Hummer universally affordable is in any way similar to letting people starve. If we merely ended the oil subsidies - including the failure to recognize that iraq is an oil war, and to tack the cost of the war onto the price at the pump - the American ingenuity (cost-avoidance experts) would react by designing both cars and cities for minimal cost. Viola - no war.
Official encyclopedias also have weaknesses with respect to a full and accurate hearing on any subject. Hopefully Wikipedia is strongest where (say) Britannica is weakest. Users wanting the best information should consider using a plurality of sources. Creating a ministry of truth at Wikipedia would only shift its weaknesses such that they coincide with the weaknesses of dead-trees counterparts. - For example, if politicians where pulling strings at Britannica to pretty-up their sordid past - would there be a verbatim record of the edit process available to the public? No. in a very real sense, Wikipedia provides more than just temporal content - it provides a chain of custody for assertion and opinions. Beat that.
Statutes won't trump Constitutional concerns however, and the plaintiffs have a complaint alleging discrimination across state lines. I'd put my money on plaintiffs.
The question posed is whether or not Craigslists is (merely) an "Internet Service" provider - or a provider of a specific product which uses the Internet as its medium. The distinction will be obvious to those inclined to see it. Napster, for example was a fine purveyor of (mostly) stolen IP, and it's use of the Internet did not release it from liability as a purveyor of specifically advertised goods. The point is that Napster advertised itself as a place for music - not a place for internet service. Craigslists is well advertised as a place for housing advertisements, and as such ought to be fully accountable under the fair housing laws. That said, if Slashdot - which in no way holds itself out as a housing exchange where to host the same text, it should not be held accountable. Thus, it is not the speech itself which is unlawful, but rather it is the maintaining of a specific use forum which flaunts the regulations attendant to that use. "Internet Service" is limited to the mere retransmission of packets under the various IP protocols.
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding is the OpenVPN will navigate dynamic IP pretty well - provided at least one link is static - but that it also supports dual dynamic ip (so long as you are not the unhappy victim of simultaneous changes.
As it was explained to me, by my good friend Jim (who wrote the thing) Both connections will attempt to reconnect and rebroadcast the return IP. (presumably this is configurable).
AIK
your suggesting that if they are in a war zone, with a Kalishnikov, (which i understand is standard garb in war zone for everyone including civees) they are by definition unprotected by the Geneva convention?
I would suggest that foriegners in one's one country with arms and no uniforms would be unprotected - but in their own country? That pushes the envelope - so our own soldiers, if they decide to go out on the town in the US with their civillian clothes - are by this definition some kind of unprotected enemy combatants?
What's the point of having the Geneva convention if only to circumvent it at the first opportunity.
AIK
One Word: Asynchronous
In a synchronized ie "clocked" COU - this is correct.
In an Asynchronous chip - each sub component operates independently, and could be self-clocking - meaning that the frequency of each transaction is determined by a dedicated controller which understands when one transaction has finished and it is both safe AND necessary to begin another transaction.
For example - the floating point processor may only need to run when there are floating point instructions in the command que - the same with memory fetch, uart servicing, and logical operations.
The opportunity here is to localize the SOL constraint to isolated subsystems and could easily be the best solution to maintaining Moore's law.
AIK
Wouldn't it be ironic for MS to claim patent infringement. It seems that every argument they could make in a patent case would be an argument against their own success (seeing that they violated all manner of regulation related to fair play in business.) I think it's clear that MS has secured its safety by being able to buy political protection - either in form of direct contributions, or by threatening to put so many on unemployment - which is the same thing. But the courts would be exposed for their unfairness is MS sued on similar grounds (Patents after all are a branch of the monopoly laws).
Conclusion: a fork of linux should be created with the express purpose of infringing MS patents is a bold way so as to initiate the conflict. I think MS loses this one hands down.
AIK
RICO is a free spin on the triple-your-reward wheel. It's almost irresponsible for a lawyer to fail to include RICO in a complaint if it is possible to meet the conditions (interstate trade / multiple people / continuing pattern of activity) and leave it to the court to turn down the triple reward.
Given the business (interstate phone calls) there's your first hint. "Enterprize" is a slam dunk, and continuing enterprise is self-evident. The trick is to prove unlawful activity - which has yet to be explained.
AIK
Just to be more clear _EVEN_ when you have a specific obligation to act - there appears to be very little force behind that obligation. The difference between "Even" and "Except" may justify a short trip to the dictionary here. It's very difficult to criminalize inaction - even for those entrusted to take action. School officials fail in many cases to educate children; police fail to uphold many laws.
I'm just saying it's really difficult to force officials to uphold the law. If anyone has an example of forcing officials to act - I'd like to see it.
AIK
'except ... inaction is not a crime'
IANAL however, at least one case shows that inaction is largely inactionable even if one is a law-enforcement official. I would challenge anyone to show where the failure of a government official to do their job is justification for anything more than being removed from office by voters, or perhaps a "mandate" from a court to do their job. I'm thinking of one precedent in which a shop owner, having been threatened for refusing to accept a return of merchandise (an engine block) called the police for protection - didn't get it - was subsequently killed - and his estate then sued the police for inaction - no dice. Anyone have a case which shows the opposite? - inaction leads to liability? (without personal benefit ie a bribe not to enforce drug laws)
AIK
You have to think that if the product designers can't come up with a clear name, the product probably doesn't fall far from the tree.
I've worked with P-Sql, and it really sucks when trying to store large objects. The lack of "native" blob support means there can never be a standard means of including blobs, which means tools, examples, etc will often fail to work in many situations.
Once you get used to:
Select * from table1 join table2 using(index_id)
It feels quite productive.
AIK
Thanks for helping clear that up.
I think my impression was of nomads on camels wandering into a half-buried egyptian ruin/pyramid scene.
AIK
I'm not so sure that the "Egyptians" of legend have all that much to do with the current occupants of Egypt. My understanding is that the Egyptian culture died out and the current occupants are a nomadic latecomer.
AIK
Whose to say Google doesn't sue to prevent it while giving it to them in the first place - I certainly would. Best of both worlds, you keep your reputation ''and'' your freedom. AIK
This thread seem to consistently miss the obvious point of this research, it is to throw bits of metal into the fray rather than taxpayers and their children. Think of these machines as the proxies for all the GWB's and DC's who wouldn't put themselves or their kids in harms way (But of course are more than willing to send yours). This device can carry the equipment necessary to be mobile, linked by satellite, and armed.
AIK
I'm fairly certain that the part designer would have to understand the goal of the part - that is to hold this or that in position against the stress, thermal expansion, and vibration induced under the application scenario. A more interesting next step would be to mutate the part and hunt about for a more highly optimal shape (generally by removing unnecessary material where it is unwarranted). In fact there is an early American poem about such optimization which describes a horse carriage so perfectly balanced that no part wears out first, and the rather poetic end that the carriage runs until the moment of its demise, whereupon it is reduced in an instant to a state of unrecognizable ruble.
AIK
IANALE, but I think you are optimistic when you suggest that Privilege can be "unsealed" as easily as that. The right to representation is a Constitutional right and encompasses the right to communicate with an attorney without that communication being used against oneself. I think your scenario would be seen as rendering the right to counsel moot, and would hardly fly. The real question here is whether or not the DA can hoodwink Diebold into abandoning its right to privilege by offering as bait the hanging of a snitch. I would be surprised if this isn't a cleverish ruse. The idea that a DA is going to project a "Tough on Crime" image by prosecuting a case which the media are going to endless portray as a whichunt is a much farther leap of faith than the proposition of reeling in a big political fish by casting a noisy minnow. AIK
Right - you'd think that generally; however, if in fact the documents are "privileged" then the subpoena doesn't really get you that far. Without the documents - how do you even get to an indictment? where is reasonable cause? You have nothing. So - do you go with what you do have - evidence of improper handling of privileged documents, and you hope that reasonable cause will turn up so that you can in fact turn the tables. I have to believe that the DA is not hoping to end shis political career in order to put a whistle-blower behind bars. Shim is hoping not to get ousted for failing to prosecutor in the face of a rather big insult to the voters. AIK
Technically so, while Grand Juries are asked directly to state the trueness of facts alleged, Criminal juries in the US are asked to decide the outcome of the entire question, while instructed as to what the law is or isn't, the guilt or innocence is the product with only inferences as to the findings of fact. There may be in complex (and presumably civil) cases a separate finding of fact, as such things are often asserted, but I am not aware of a jury - other than a grand jury - being asked to indicate directly the truthfulness of a barrel of facts. AIK
There is a curious possibility that the DA is using this to investigate the actions of Diebold in this case. It could be - and here's hoping - that by bringing the whistle blower into court (the only way possible) the DA hopes to create a public record which can then be used to investigate Diebold. It would seem, that if in fact Diebold has rigged an election, that is a far more worthy pursuit; but it may also be that the evidence is unavailable and this round-about approach is a rude means to a proper end. No?
AIK
A great deal of litter is intentional and is used for advertising purposes (similar to graffiti) This litter may take the form of posters or placards on telephone poles - or other public property and is prohibited so far as I know in every country and state (though my research is limited to english speaking domains).
I was convicted of encouraging minors to participate in making the roadsides clean of litter. Appearing soon in a federal court near you.
AIK
As having been arrested for picking up litter - I can understand this problem. Police are mmotivated to enforce the status quo, actual facts are too bothersome.
AIK
Roads are subsidized; which means it costs more to build and maintain the roads than is collected by the fees associated with their use (mostly gas taxes). In addition, the cost of accidents is subsidized whenever the taxpayer picked up the cost of medical care for uninsured motorists, also, the health effects of pollution are not charged to the polluter, so there is an additional subsidy; all told, people who choose to ride a bike are denied the full economic benefit of the trade-off, and is forced to pay for the hummer drivers over-consumption regardless.
- As for oil wars - let's not beat around the bush - we're there because you and others perceive it is necessary to ensure a steady flow of oil - but that costs money - all I'm suggesting is that people who find ways to avoid using oil should be entitled to the full economic benefit of that choice. Subsidies prevent markets from making good choices by denying individuals the full economic benefit of the better choice.
AIK
I fail to see how ending the taxpayer subsidies required to make driving a Hummer universally affordable is in any way similar to letting people starve. If we merely ended the oil subsidies - including the failure to recognize that iraq is an oil war, and to tack the cost of the war onto the price at the pump - the American ingenuity (cost-avoidance experts) would react by designing both cars and cities for minimal cost. Viola - no war.
AIK
And this differs from the Washington Post how?
To pile on,
Official encyclopedias also have weaknesses with respect to a full and accurate hearing on any subject. Hopefully Wikipedia is strongest where (say) Britannica is weakest. Users wanting the best information should consider using a plurality of sources. Creating a ministry of truth at Wikipedia would only shift its weaknesses such that they coincide with the weaknesses of dead-trees counterparts. - For example, if politicians where pulling strings at Britannica to pretty-up their sordid past - would there be a verbatim record of the edit process available to the public? No. in a very real sense, Wikipedia provides more than just temporal content - it provides a chain of custody for assertion and opinions. Beat that.
AIK
Statutes won't trump Constitutional concerns however, and the plaintiffs have a complaint alleging discrimination across state lines. I'd put my money on plaintiffs.
AIK
The question posed is whether or not Craigslists is (merely) an "Internet Service" provider - or a provider of a specific product which uses the Internet as its medium. The distinction will be obvious to those inclined to see it. Napster, for example was a fine purveyor of (mostly) stolen IP, and it's use of the Internet did not release it from liability as a purveyor of specifically advertised goods. The point is that Napster advertised itself as a place for music - not a place for internet service. Craigslists is well advertised as a place for housing advertisements, and as such ought to be fully accountable under the fair housing laws. That said, if Slashdot - which in no way holds itself out as a housing exchange where to host the same text, it should not be held accountable. Thus, it is not the speech itself which is unlawful, but rather it is the maintaining of a specific use forum which flaunts the regulations attendant to that use. "Internet Service" is limited to the mere retransmission of packets under the various IP protocols.
AIK