Wouldn't this technically be illegal in terms of the 'license' you have to use the hardware?
Remember ye olde 'mod chips' that MS went after tooth n nail?
It just strikes me as a wee bit hypocritical to then feature such a blatant violation of the license in an 'official' MS magazine.
Now, I understand that this actual 'change' doesn't affect how the Xbox actually works. But I'd also bet that the license doesn't differentiate between mod'ing a chip and ripping out the innards to display them in your own custom case either. As such, has MS just undermined the legal 'heft' of their license since they allow *some* mods and not others?
It's not limited to college dorms...take *any* office building that requires a security badge swipe to get in. Count how many times you can ask someone to hold the door without offering ID.
Hey,
in terms of correspondence that related to a committee the Rep sits on...how is that handled? Since as a US Citizen I might want to give input to the Committee but am not in a district of any Rep sitting on the Committee.
Thanks
The hydrogen is produced by the electrolysis portion...this does take energy to produce. That energy is provided by the diesel engine.
Normally this doesn't work as nothing is 100% efficient.
The reason it works here is that the amount of energy stored in the diesel fuel is significantly greater than the amount of energy needed to produce the hydrogen.
The hydrogen then burns more of the diesel fuel, producing more energy and the system repeats itself.
This doesn't work if you're using hydrogen as your fuel source, only as a combustion aide as another poster correctly noted.
One of my more cynical thoughts is that we should give everybody a Hummer. Lets burn up all the oil and get past this stage of development as quickly as possible.
Once there is incentive to change, change will happen. But now, since people only see the perfect solution of our blinder restricted vision, we're stuck with status quo.
I know there was an article a while back about Canadian trucking Co. using an electrolysis rig to generate hydrogen which in turn fed into the engine producing significant better fuel combustion and mileage and much less pollution emissions. Something like 20-30% better. Which as you suggested, pays for itself *very* quickly in terms of long haul trucking.
This article is even a no modification setup...just bolt it on and hook up power.
Last time I checked, most cable co's do infact own their lines. They laid the media in the ground based being given the local 'monopoly' on video service.
This isn't about sharing those lines, it's about phone co's using their networks to supply video.
IE6 XPSP2 does not maintain the URLs correctly.
Fully patched corporate 'puter here and it fails the test. I get the Secunia flash but still with google in the address bar. It's slow as dirt, meaning I can clearly see the switch over, but if a true phish site looked reasonably close you wouldn't likely notice.
Firefox 1.5.0.1 works correctly.
Except that we have found one that might do just that within about 40 years. Pretty slim timescale to 'fix' the problem isn't it?
Search Google for 'asteroid collision 2029' and you'll see many links about it. They've pretty much ruled out a collision on 2029 itself, but the thinking is that it will pass so close that it will alter the asteroids orbit. And then it's an every 5-6 year close pass to worry about.
Shows that you can stop unwanted 'sexual/obscene' mailings, so I suppose it's something but not the end all mass block I seem to remember was available to all bulk mailings.
the biggest difference is you can 'turn off' unsolicited bulk mailings from the Post Office. So other than being completely different...yep it's the same;-)
We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this...
But of course one more attempt...lol
The fact that they needed to tap calls to a foreign number is a *new* thing? I will bet large sums of cash they've done that before...and gotten a warrant to do it.
The mafia example doesn't hold up because since he's in the US a warrant was issued allowing the tapping. So the requirement that a call with a US citizen on it needs a warrant is upheld. They don't need a warrant for every citizen on the call, but at least one of them to verify that their rights are being upheld.
The problem is that there's no oversight, someone else said it best: "When you use the GOAL to justify the ACTION, you've lost any credibility."
if you have a known terrorist on your speed-dial, I've got no problem whatsoever with federal goons listening to what you say to him next time you call him.
Nothing stops those goons from listening in and then going to the FISA court for approval of what they did. Which is the entire point. The FISA court has rejected literally about four requests out of thousands (10,000+ i think).
The argument that it's preventing them from doing anything is ridiculous. And why 'we' are concerned about it...if the reasoning doesn't make sense you have to wonder what they are really up to.
Tapping the entire exchange means they are tapping EVERYBODY in that exchange no?
If they are sifting through the calls deciding what's interesting? Waaaaay beyond acceptable to me and I think most people.
If they 'know' the number of the drug dealers phone, and want to track any calls to that number from within a particular exchange...they still have to go to court to tap into the exchange. This is because now they are effectively tapping any phone call going FROM that exchange.
Lets look at the reverse...the drug dealer calling in. A little harder to track sure...but they should know which numbers they are worried about the dealer calling, no? So get a warrent and see what happens. Again they can do this AFTER the fact...so why the arguement that it impedes their work? Even if you don't know who he might be calling...it's way beyond reasonable to subvert everybody elses rights in order to bring to justice.
Why not just handcuff everyone to their own beds and only let them out when it's a gov't approved trip? Won't have any terrorists doing evil things then. Or is that too much?
They don't get to track everything and only prosecute what looks interesting.
And by proxy that drug dealer monitoring has already been reviewed and approved by a Judge...so no constitutional violation.
All people are asking is the same level of deference to the Constitution be given in terrorism cases. They can get the warrants AFTER the call....so how is this stopping them from tapping the calls?
First off...they weren't tapping Chinese phones now were they? They were listening in on radio broadcasts and other OTA communications off the coast of China. Perhaps a US citizen called a Chinese cell phone...we're not monitoring the US phone that made the call. The caller has no expectation of privacy on the receiving end of the phone, but they DO have it on their end here in the US. That's the law plain and simple.
We're dealing with tapping of US phones, and the calls those phones place/receive. Not the same situation.
Calls from Germany to Pakistan aren't our concern from a constitutional perspective. It might be an American making the call, but we have no way of knowing that and the odds are pretty damn slim. As opposed to a call from Buffalo, NY say...pretty reliable to guess it's an American on the phone. If not, like I've in other posts, just explain to a judge why you believe you need to tap the phone and go ahead if the judge agrees.
Clue: The president didn't say bubkiss until it was reported in the newspapers...and now is planning on an investigation into the 'leak'. Seems like a leak to me.
Clue: FISA was written to handle PHONES and other modern communications mediums.
Clue: As long as on of the Borders is OUR border, then yes you need a friggin warrent to listen in. That's the law, it's a US Citizen (by presumption) if it's a US phone. If they can say that phone number is Osama's personal number, than great, tap away...but only after you've PROVEN that to a judge.
You are aware that Echelon is entirely OUTSIDE the US right? Same for the NSA, at least until Dubya changed their focus (the entire concept of our discussion here today).
Personally I'm amazed at how little faith Bush and company have in our democracy that they must trample on the very fabric of it to 'save' it. Sorta like wiping your feet on the carpet to keep it clean...
if they have probable cause to think you might be a terrorist
So what 'they' think is all that matters? Who says they get to make that determination? A JUDGE makes that determination in our system.
Just because the executive branch deems me a 'suspect' doesn't make me a suspect. We have laws and they have to be followed, or well, why bother with any laws if we can ignore them because 'we' feel they are getting in the way?
Nothing says you *can't* tap phones. Just that if a US Citizen is involved you have to get a court order to do it. And with the FISA law you can do it *LATER*. But you do still have to do it.
So again, how is this preventing us from tapping phones?
The very first law of our land is the Constitution. If that's something you want to ignore, please...by all means, leave.
Fully briefed? most of the FISA court was in the dark, and the ones that were briefed were forbidden from telling even people with clearances that allowed them to know. Ditto for the Congressional leadership.
So you've got a President flat out ignoring the FISA law passed by Congress, but at least telling a few people what he's doing. Where's the check that he's actually telling them the TRUTH or the ENTIRE TRUTH? or do we just 'trust' him because he's the President? Sorry, he lost that privilege right about...oh wait, we don't just trust, we have laws that must be followed. If not we try people for the crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
Um...plenty o' fat pipes in prison.
It's just sorta like Soviet Russia.
You don't use the pipe to access society, (prison) society uses the pipe to access YOU!
and 5 minutes later a 2nd SMS saying:
No, the OTHER way!
Wouldn't this technically be illegal in terms of the 'license' you have to use the hardware?
Remember ye olde 'mod chips' that MS went after tooth n nail?
It just strikes me as a wee bit hypocritical to then feature such a blatant violation of the license in an 'official' MS magazine.
Now, I understand that this actual 'change' doesn't affect how the Xbox actually works. But I'd also bet that the license doesn't differentiate between mod'ing a chip and ripping out the innards to display them in your own custom case either. As such, has MS just undermined the legal 'heft' of their license since they allow *some* mods and not others?
It's not limited to college dorms...take *any* office building that requires a security badge swipe to get in. Count how many times you can ask someone to hold the door without offering ID.
You'll get right in 99% of the time.
Hey, in terms of correspondence that related to a committee the Rep sits on...how is that handled? Since as a US Citizen I might want to give input to the Committee but am not in a district of any Rep sitting on the Committee. Thanks
Agreed, I always prefer blank checks to written ones ;-)
The hydrogen is produced by the electrolysis portion...this does take energy to produce. That energy is provided by the diesel engine.
Normally this doesn't work as nothing is 100% efficient.
The reason it works here is that the amount of energy stored in the diesel fuel is significantly greater than the amount of energy needed to produce the hydrogen.
The hydrogen then burns more of the diesel fuel, producing more energy and the system repeats itself.
This doesn't work if you're using hydrogen as your fuel source, only as a combustion aide as another poster correctly noted.
One of my more cynical thoughts is that we should give everybody a Hummer. Lets burn up all the oil and get past this stage of development as quickly as possible.
Once there is incentive to change, change will happen. But now, since people only see the perfect solution of our blinder restricted vision, we're stuck with status quo.
I know there was an article a while back about Canadian trucking Co. using an electrolysis rig to generate hydrogen which in turn fed into the engine producing significant better fuel combustion and mileage and much less pollution emissions. Something like 20-30% better. Which as you suggested, pays for itself *very* quickly in terms of long haul trucking.
This article is even a no modification setup...just bolt it on and hook up power.
Last time I checked, most cable co's do infact own their lines. They laid the media in the ground based being given the local 'monopoly' on video service.
This isn't about sharing those lines, it's about phone co's using their networks to supply video.
IE6 XPSP2 does not maintain the URLs correctly. Fully patched corporate 'puter here and it fails the test. I get the Secunia flash but still with google in the address bar. It's slow as dirt, meaning I can clearly see the switch over, but if a true phish site looked reasonably close you wouldn't likely notice. Firefox 1.5.0.1 works correctly.
Except that we have found one that might do just that within about 40 years. Pretty slim timescale to 'fix' the problem isn't it?
Search Google for 'asteroid collision 2029' and you'll see many links about it. They've pretty much ruled out a collision on 2029 itself, but the thinking is that it will pass so close that it will alter the asteroids orbit. And then it's an every 5-6 year close pass to worry about.
After more digging than I had suspected, I'm both right and wrong ;-)
http://www.usps.com/forms/_pdf/ps1500.pdf
Shows that you can stop unwanted 'sexual/obscene' mailings, so I suppose it's something but not the end all mass block I seem to remember was available to all bulk mailings.
the biggest difference is you can 'turn off' unsolicited bulk mailings from the Post Office. So other than being completely different...yep it's the same ;-)
But they didn't kick you out of school right?
So the case where you were receiving money was terminated, but not where you were paying the money.
So the OP's point still stands
it doesn't disappear.
;-)
Just sort of like your sleezy cousin Vinny, it waits outside for you to get off work
We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this...
But of course one more attempt...lol
The fact that they needed to tap calls to a foreign number is a *new* thing? I will bet large sums of cash they've done that before...and gotten a warrant to do it.
The mafia example doesn't hold up because since he's in the US a warrant was issued allowing the tapping. So the requirement that a call with a US citizen on it needs a warrant is upheld. They don't need a warrant for every citizen on the call, but at least one of them to verify that their rights are being upheld.
The problem is that there's no oversight, someone else said it best: "When you use the GOAL to justify the ACTION, you've lost any credibility."
if you have a known terrorist on your speed-dial, I've got no problem whatsoever with federal goons listening to what you say to him next time you call him.
Nothing stops those goons from listening in and then going to the FISA court for approval of what they did. Which is the entire point. The FISA court has rejected literally about four requests out of thousands (10,000+ i think).
The argument that it's preventing them from doing anything is ridiculous. And why 'we' are concerned about it...if the reasoning doesn't make sense you have to wonder what they are really up to.
Tapping the entire exchange means they are tapping EVERYBODY in that exchange no?
If they are sifting through the calls deciding what's interesting? Waaaaay beyond acceptable to me and I think most people.
If they 'know' the number of the drug dealers phone, and want to track any calls to that number from within a particular exchange...they still have to go to court to tap into the exchange. This is because now they are effectively tapping any phone call going FROM that exchange.
Lets look at the reverse...the drug dealer calling in. A little harder to track sure...but they should know which numbers they are worried about the dealer calling, no? So get a warrent and see what happens. Again they can do this AFTER the fact...so why the arguement that it impedes their work? Even if you don't know who he might be calling...it's way beyond reasonable to subvert everybody elses rights in order to bring to justice.
Why not just handcuff everyone to their own beds and only let them out when it's a gov't approved trip? Won't have any terrorists doing evil things then. Or is that too much?
They don't get to track everything and only prosecute what looks interesting.
And by proxy that drug dealer monitoring has already been reviewed and approved by a Judge...so no constitutional violation.
All people are asking is the same level of deference to the Constitution be given in terrorism cases. They can get the warrants AFTER the call....so how is this stopping them from tapping the calls?
First off...they weren't tapping Chinese phones now were they? They were listening in on radio broadcasts and other OTA communications off the coast of China. Perhaps a US citizen called a Chinese cell phone...we're not monitoring the US phone that made the call. The caller has no expectation of privacy on the receiving end of the phone, but they DO have it on their end here in the US. That's the law plain and simple.
We're dealing with tapping of US phones, and the calls those phones place/receive. Not the same situation.
Calls from Germany to Pakistan aren't our concern from a constitutional perspective. It might be an American making the call, but we have no way of knowing that and the odds are pretty damn slim. As opposed to a call from Buffalo, NY say...pretty reliable to guess it's an American on the phone. If not, like I've in other posts, just explain to a judge why you believe you need to tap the phone and go ahead if the judge agrees.
Clue: The president didn't say bubkiss until it was reported in the newspapers...and now is planning on an investigation into the 'leak'. Seems like a leak to me.
Clue: FISA was written to handle PHONES and other modern communications mediums.
Clue: As long as on of the Borders is OUR border, then yes you need a friggin warrent to listen in. That's the law, it's a US Citizen (by presumption) if it's a US phone. If they can say that phone number is Osama's personal number, than great, tap away...but only after you've PROVEN that to a judge.
You are aware that Echelon is entirely OUTSIDE the US right? Same for the NSA, at least until Dubya changed their focus (the entire concept of our discussion here today).
Personally I'm amazed at how little faith Bush and company have in our democracy that they must trample on the very fabric of it to 'save' it. Sorta like wiping your feet on the carpet to keep it clean...
Thanks for making my point.
if they have probable cause to think you might be a terrorist
So what 'they' think is all that matters? Who says they get to make that determination? A JUDGE makes that determination in our system.
Just because the executive branch deems me a 'suspect' doesn't make me a suspect. We have laws and they have to be followed, or well, why bother with any laws if we can ignore them because 'we' feel they are getting in the way?
Nothing says you *can't* tap phones. Just that if a US Citizen is involved you have to get a court order to do it. And with the FISA law you can do it *LATER*. But you do still have to do it.
So again, how is this preventing us from tapping phones?
The very first law of our land is the Constitution. If that's something you want to ignore, please...by all means, leave.
Fully briefed? most of the FISA court was in the dark, and the ones that were briefed were forbidden from telling even people with clearances that allowed them to know. Ditto for the Congressional leadership.
So you've got a President flat out ignoring the FISA law passed by Congress, but at least telling a few people what he's doing. Where's the check that he's actually telling them the TRUTH or the ENTIRE TRUTH? or do we just 'trust' him because he's the President? Sorry, he lost that privilege right about...oh wait, we don't just trust, we have laws that must be followed. If not we try people for the crimes.