I find it amusing. They say that is it secure because it's proprietary technology on a licenced radio service so no one can "gain unauthorized network access". I have several radios and scanners that can certainly receive frequencies that this operates on, if not transmit as well. One does not have to "gain unauthorized network access" just to listen.
You seem to have missed the section of the sentence that says "proprietary signal processing technology". The signal is compressed, scrambled, split into time slots, etc. There is a reason that Nextel radio's cannot be intercepted with a standard radio scanner. We're not talking analog broadcast here...
Television, let alone nearly naked people depicted on television, is not natural. The television is a man-made invention, and it's exposing our children to things much earlier in life, and in a very different context, than what God had intended.
Hmmm, you must not be a biblical christian or else you would believe that God intended for none of us to ever wear clothing.
(a Windows core font, and available on all Macs which have Internet Explorer installed)
AHA!!! So evil Bill was involved! I'm sure someone from MS lobbied for them to choose a font that was CORE in Windows but only on a Mac if you installed IE!!! What a sly and sneaky ploy!
Except that our (or "my," dunno where you are from) country doesn't need to be wasting time and money to find which font should be standardized -- and you'll be sure that plenty of stupid crap will happen because of it. Contractors will be ignored or whatever because their proposals, while %33 less costly, were not in this exact font. Documents will have to be rewritten or reprinted because of this new "standard." It's just friggin stupid.
Oh no, you are completely missing the point. Without this standardization more "time and money" would be wasted because every government entity and committee and RFP would all have to decide their own requirements. Having a single government-wide standard saves all of this effort.
Now, I truly lament for all of the government employed ASCII artists who will no longer have a fixed-width font to work with.
Did this consultant organization test issues relating to interference with the process as well as alteration of the results? One of the issues in FL in 2000 was whether or not certain voter groups had their ability to reach the polls "interfered with" by police, etc.
Suppose I know the tendency of a district and I would rather that districts results are lost. Examples of activity to interfere would include:
Cutting Power
Electromagnetic Interference (burst device wiping out memory cards)
Knocking out wireless infrastructure (cell towers, radio repeaters, whatever they use)
Some folks would say that we are overreacting and that all of these criminal activities have current-day equivalents. But without a paper-trail you only need to wipe one memory card remotely to kill hundreds of votes before they are sent to the server.
The mandate was there. The Security Council just tried to change its mind, and was unable to marshal the votes to do so.
Follow this link and scroll down to the first resolution proposed by Spain (really on behalf of the US) in 2003 which "would have authorized military action against Iraq". This was what was required in order to justify the moves of the United States. You notice France, Germany and Russia opposed in a statement. The issue was, in fact, never called to a vote (though Bush had promised it would be) because the US knew it wouldn't win the issue.
Further, if you read the comments of Kofi Annan on March 10th, he states "If they fail to agree on a common position, and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action will be seriously impaired." He repeatedly made it clear that action without specifc authorization was, arguably, a violation of IL.
I believe the most famous measure put forth by war supporters is Resolution 1441, which lists out Iraq's violations of prior measures and states that the council remains "siezed" of the matter and will reconvene when UNMOVIC and/or the Secretary General has reports/responses to decide the consequence. In 1441, it references Resolution 660 and Resolution 678, the latter of which "Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of
Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as
set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all
subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and
security in the area."
These resolutions are generally used to support the US's position that the current war is "legal" as we are using "all necessary means" to uphold and implement "all subsequent relevant resolutions". This opinion is contingent on a few factors. First, you must believe war was "necessary" and that all other approaches were exhausted. Second, you must consider the UN's further resolutions on Iraq (with regard to weapons inspections mostly) as being "relevant" to the resolution 660 which was regarding the invasion of Kuwait.
Much of the international community disagrees with these two last requirements. They do not believe all other avenues were exhausted and they do not consider the current issues as extensions relevant to the invasion and occupation of Kuwait (which ended over 10 years ago).
Now, I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that I have made both of our arguments with supporting documents. Now it comes down to which you believe. The problem is that most of the international community felt our current action was unjustified (perception = reality). Legal experts can wrangle over the details for years to come. What matters to me is the result -- we royally pissed off and alienated most of the international community and also fed the anger of those terrorists we were supposed to be counteracting. Thus the reality we are left with today in the international political arena.
It is true that Iraq had violated IL as per the UN Security Council mandates. However, you cannot justify breaking IL by saying you were enforcing IL. Invading a sovereign nation without the specific mandate of the UN or the Security Council alone was a violation of Iraq's sovereignty and breaking of IL.
What the US needed was a mandate to go in and enforce IL. I believe we had this in the case of the Korean War. (though I'm admittedly fuzzy on that history)
Even if every iota of plans were lost, if we achieved the goal in 8 years previously, should it really take twice as long today? Is that the price of new technology?
I think that the delay is more caused by fear and the intolerance of the American people for risk. today we want 100% assurance that everything will be perfect. Well, we can never be 100% sure.
I think sixteen years is reasonable for the beginnings of a base on the moon. It is reasonable for the use of the moon as a fueling station for Mars. However, I think we need to prove, and sooner, that we CAN go back to the moon at all.
You began your post by saying how much you agreed with the parent. Read the parent post.
Ok, done. Funny, he doesn't discuss hating Bush either. You seem to be misinterpreting disagreement on Bush's policy choices with the more emotional feeling of "hate". "Hate" generally is used to denote a more personal feeling about an individual rather than their specific agenda. People tossing about the word "hate" as you do weaken its meaning while attempting to distract from the meat of the conversation. Note how you didn't respond to any of my other comments.
Why is it going to take 16 years to return? Because the original Apollo missions had much different goals than establishing a base there.
Bush didn't say that we would have a base on the moon in 16 years. In the long term goal of having a base there, our first manned mission landing on the moon would be in 16 years. I'm all for "doing it right", but the fact is that right now people question whether we can do it at all. We need to motivate the public. 16 years is not very motivating.
Haven't you listened to anything coming out of NASA? They're talking about taking the next step in craft development and finally retiring the space shuttle, which has long been an idea whose time has come and gone.
I have listened, and yes, I agree with this.
It's great that you are you hateful towards George Bush and you couldn't agree more and everything...
Hmm... Just went back and re-read my post... nothing about hating Bush in there... However, I do disagree with most of his policies. His direction is positive, his timeline and budget are terrible. The latter leads me to believe he isn't really serious about the former.
Bush has stepped up and made the way clear for NASA scientists to do what they need to do.
Bush has, indeed, cleared some roadblocks for NASA. However, what NASA needs, IMHO, is leeway to take risks, an aggressive timeline that challenges them, and a mandate to also focus on the facillitation of private ventures in space.
Lastly, I am hesistant to support Bush on yet another example of abandoning our allies and international partnerships. I would hardly be surprised if he also favored pulling out of the moon treaty and declaring our stake and property when we get there.
I cannot agree more and this is precisely what I thought upon hearing this announcement. The fact that he doesn't anticipate a moon landing until at least 12 years after the end of his NEXT term indicates that he could probably care less if this ever actually happens... What is frustrating though, is that in the meantime we will see the gutting of projects we have huge investments in (with our allies).
The other piece I don't understandf is, if we have been to the moon before, why will it take us 16 years to return? I'm sure by then the Chinese will have landed.
Personally the less likely I am to die in a battle, the happier I am.
And, likely, the less resistant you are the next time the government says it has to go to war... I mean if only the "other" side might suffer casualties, who cares?
Disclaimer: not meant to refer to the parent poster personally.
Here here on the speeding argument... In my city, we have a "perimeter" freeway that basically is a circle around the city. It's "speed limit" is 55 mph, but realistically few people drive less than 65 unless there is traffic.
I have always thought that an organized protest, where you get 30 or so drivers and their cars together, line up side by side so that you cover all lanes about 4-cars deep and proceed to drive 55 would be hilarious. Of course, it would also piss people off and in today's world might get you shot...
I've been debating whether or not you could be arrested for this. Impeding the flow of traffic? Can you be charged with that if you were not legally permitted to go any faster? Of course, they could argue that you could have moved over and out of the way, but are you required by law to facilitate others breaking the law (speeding?) in favor of the "free flow of traffic"?
That said, it is IMPOSSIBLE to monitor your kid 24/7, so don't lay this at the feet of the parents.
I believe you are misinterpreting the point of the parental assertion. I am fairly confident, from your comments and position, that if your 13-year old daughter happened to play this game at a friend's house, she wouldn't immeadiately want to go out and murder Haitians. The point is that you have raised your daughter with a proper understanding of right and wrong and some moral foundation. THAT is parenting.
Anyone who expects a parent to have constant control of their children is crazy. But asking that parents work, and work hard, at raising children with some sort of morality and understanding of right/wrong and the consequences of actions is not crazy.
Should a game that did those things be allowed on Wal-Mart shelves?
As a matter of law? Probably. As a matter of store policy? Probably not.
there are plenty of examples of violent, pornographic, hate-infested material out there that are "legal" but not "socially acceptable". They are shunned by commercial vendors and therefore more difficult to obtain. Some people get this sort of stuff through mailing lists, newsgroups, etc.
I just wanted to clarify that Wal-Mart's use of its commercial power in choosing what it carries, and the effect that has on the sales of games and thus what game-makers choose to put into a game is legal.
Well, your example would depend on the intervening circumstances. Writing a program that erases the contents of a hardrive is not illegal (see "format" in DOS). What would me illegal would be misrepresenting that program by claiming it did something else and using that misrepresentation to lure someone into inflicting harm on themselves through the erasure of their data.
The distinction is important. It isn't the code itself that's illegal (as erasing a hard drive has valid, legal uses), it is the accompanying actions.
once again the supreme court says the constitution isn't what it is...
Pardon me, but I thought this case was still pending in court, only "reqested" by the game company to be moved to federal court, and not commented on by the Supreme Court at all...
My wife and I spent the holidays out of state with family -- a 6 hour drive away. Yes, on the entire trip back she was playing a game on her laptop in the passenger seat. I did not find this distracting to *my* driving. Occasionally I would hear something and ask her what happened and she would explain.
Guess what? This is no different than rather antiquated forms of distration such as radio (in your own car or the one next to you at 5000 decibals) or (dare I say it?) conversation!
This law goes too far. It prohibits activities that may have nothing to do with the driver.
Frequency Modulation... I can make an assumption about what that is referring to as I saw something similar when Christmas shopping. There are several accessories out that you can buy for your MP3 player. You plug an audio source into the device, select from a set of "station presets" of FM radio (usually in the low 88.1-89.9 range) and it broadcasts the audio signal over that band in a range of roughly 10 meters.
The beauty of this is being directly in the iPod is that you can turn it on and re-route the music through any radio (car radio for example) and have a decent wireless speaker system.
Slashdot Mirror
That being said, you do have a right as a parent to make this choice for your family and this incident prevented parents from making that choice.
Removes tin hat
Now, I truly lament for all of the government employed ASCII artists who will no longer have a fixed-width font to work with.
Wasn't that pretty much the plot of 'The Net'? I always thought it made sense. ;)
Suppose I know the tendency of a district and I would rather that districts results are lost. Examples of activity to interfere would include:
- Cutting Power
- Electromagnetic Interference (burst device wiping out memory cards)
- Knocking out wireless infrastructure (cell towers, radio repeaters, whatever they use)
Some folks would say that we are overreacting and that all of these criminal activities have current-day equivalents. But without a paper-trail you only need to wipe one memory card remotely to kill hundreds of votes before they are sent to the server.Further, if you read the comments of Kofi Annan on March 10th, he states "If they fail to agree on a common position, and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action will be seriously impaired." He repeatedly made it clear that action without specifc authorization was, arguably, a violation of IL.
I believe the most famous measure put forth by war supporters is Resolution 1441, which lists out Iraq's violations of prior measures and states that the council remains "siezed" of the matter and will reconvene when UNMOVIC and/or the Secretary General has reports/responses to decide the consequence. In 1441, it references Resolution 660 and Resolution 678, the latter of which "Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
These resolutions are generally used to support the US's position that the current war is "legal" as we are using "all necessary means" to uphold and implement "all subsequent relevant resolutions". This opinion is contingent on a few factors. First, you must believe war was "necessary" and that all other approaches were exhausted. Second, you must consider the UN's further resolutions on Iraq (with regard to weapons inspections mostly) as being "relevant" to the resolution 660 which was regarding the invasion of Kuwait.
Much of the international community disagrees with these two last requirements. They do not believe all other avenues were exhausted and they do not consider the current issues as extensions relevant to the invasion and occupation of Kuwait (which ended over 10 years ago).
Now, I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that I have made both of our arguments with supporting documents. Now it comes down to which you believe. The problem is that most of the international community felt our current action was unjustified (perception = reality). Legal experts can wrangle over the details for years to come. What matters to me is the result -- we royally pissed off and alienated most of the international community and also fed the anger of those terrorists we were supposed to be counteracting. Thus the reality we are left with today in the international political arena.
It is true that Iraq had violated IL as per the UN Security Council mandates. However, you cannot justify breaking IL by saying you were enforcing IL. Invading a sovereign nation without the specific mandate of the UN or the Security Council alone was a violation of Iraq's sovereignty and breaking of IL.
What the US needed was a mandate to go in and enforce IL. I believe we had this in the case of the Korean War. (though I'm admittedly fuzzy on that history)
Even if every iota of plans were lost, if we achieved the goal in 8 years previously, should it really take twice as long today? Is that the price of new technology?
I think that the delay is more caused by fear and the intolerance of the American people for risk. today we want 100% assurance that everything will be perfect. Well, we can never be 100% sure.
I think sixteen years is reasonable for the beginnings of a base on the moon. It is reasonable for the use of the moon as a fueling station for Mars. However, I think we need to prove, and sooner, that we CAN go back to the moon at all.
Thank-you for making my point.
I have listened, and yes, I agree with this.
Hmm... Just went back and re-read my post... nothing about hating Bush in there... However, I do disagree with most of his policies. His direction is positive, his timeline and budget are terrible. The latter leads me to believe he isn't really serious about the former.
Bush has, indeed, cleared some roadblocks for NASA. However, what NASA needs, IMHO, is leeway to take risks, an aggressive timeline that challenges them, and a mandate to also focus on the facillitation of private ventures in space.
Lastly, I am hesistant to support Bush on yet another example of abandoning our allies and international partnerships. I would hardly be surprised if he also favored pulling out of the moon treaty and declaring our stake and property when we get there.
I cannot agree more and this is precisely what I thought upon hearing this announcement. The fact that he doesn't anticipate a moon landing until at least 12 years after the end of his NEXT term indicates that he could probably care less if this ever actually happens... What is frustrating though, is that in the meantime we will see the gutting of projects we have huge investments in (with our allies).
The other piece I don't understandf is, if we have been to the moon before, why will it take us 16 years to return? I'm sure by then the Chinese will have landed.
Disclaimer: not meant to refer to the parent poster personally.
Here here on the speeding argument... In my city, we have a "perimeter" freeway that basically is a circle around the city. It's "speed limit" is 55 mph, but realistically few people drive less than 65 unless there is traffic.
I have always thought that an organized protest, where you get 30 or so drivers and their cars together, line up side by side so that you cover all lanes about 4-cars deep and proceed to drive 55 would be hilarious. Of course, it would also piss people off and in today's world might get you shot...
I've been debating whether or not you could be arrested for this. Impeding the flow of traffic? Can you be charged with that if you were not legally permitted to go any faster? Of course, they could argue that you could have moved over and out of the way, but are you required by law to facilitate others breaking the law (speeding?) in favor of the "free flow of traffic"?
Anyone who expects a parent to have constant control of their children is crazy. But asking that parents work, and work hard, at raising children with some sort of morality and understanding of right/wrong and the consequences of actions is not crazy.
there are plenty of examples of violent, pornographic, hate-infested material out there that are "legal" but not "socially acceptable". They are shunned by commercial vendors and therefore more difficult to obtain. Some people get this sort of stuff through mailing lists, newsgroups, etc.
I just wanted to clarify that Wal-Mart's use of its commercial power in choosing what it carries, and the effect that has on the sales of games and thus what game-makers choose to put into a game is legal.
Well, your example would depend on the intervening circumstances. Writing a program that erases the contents of a hardrive is not illegal (see "format" in DOS). What would me illegal would be misrepresenting that program by claiming it did something else and using that misrepresentation to lure someone into inflicting harm on themselves through the erasure of their data.
The distinction is important. It isn't the code itself that's illegal (as erasing a hard drive has valid, legal uses), it is the accompanying actions.
My wife and I spent the holidays out of state with family -- a 6 hour drive away. Yes, on the entire trip back she was playing a game on her laptop in the passenger seat. I did not find this distracting to *my* driving. Occasionally I would hear something and ask her what happened and she would explain.
Guess what? This is no different than rather antiquated forms of distration such as radio (in your own car or the one next to you at 5000 decibals) or (dare I say it?) conversation!
This law goes too far. It prohibits activities that may have nothing to do with the driver.
Are you expecting a massive decrease in lifespan now that bottled water has taken off?
Frequency Modulation... I can make an assumption about what that is referring to as I saw something similar when Christmas shopping. There are several accessories out that you can buy for your MP3 player. You plug an audio source into the device, select from a set of "station presets" of FM radio (usually in the low 88.1-89.9 range) and it broadcasts the audio signal over that band in a range of roughly 10 meters.
The beauty of this is being directly in the iPod is that you can turn it on and re-route the music through any radio (car radio for example) and have a decent wireless speaker system.