Unless you back up to some other device - hopefully with similar protections.
Or different but better protections. For instance, a drive like this might be in a remote office in China, whereas the backup (or the source of the data) is in some secure location in your home country.
The reality is, internet commerce still puts the burden of infrastructure on states' and federal's governments to get my motorcycle grips to me in 2 days.
You mean like the roads, paid for by taxes on the carriers and indirectly through your shipping costs?
As has been noted by one or two other commenters, if you buy something from a company such as Amazon, you are actually meant to report it on your state tax return (under USE tax) and pay the tax on it. This regulation would simply keep people honest by charging them upfront.
That assumes that "use tax" is honest in the first place. It's not; it's just an end run around the same interstate commerce clause that prohibits the states from directly taxing imports.
All you need is a 3 column database for fuck's sake. Zip code. Tax rate. Effective date.
Wrong. You also need to know this for every category of merchandise, and you need to know which categories each item of your merchandise is in in every state and locality. Furthermore, zip code and tax authority boundaries often do not coincide. There are likely other complications as well.
The business can choose to not distance sell to particular states if they have reservations about their sales tax policy. When someone buys an item remotely, the point of sale is at the point of delivery. See Independiente Ltd & Ors v Music Trading On-Line (HK) Ltd (t/a CD-WOW) & Ors, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, March 20, 2007, [2007] EWHC 533, for the UK stance on this.
The US stance is not the same; see Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992).
The real question is how much are these people doing to reduce their energy footprint given that pretty much all of today's power generation methods release radiation and/or stuff like mercury into the atmosphere....
Nuclear: radiation Coal: Mercury, SOx, assorted other pollutants, CO, CO2 Oil: SOx, assorted pollutants, CO, CO2 Gas: CO, NOx, CH4, assorted pollutants, CO2 Hydro: Kills fish, destroys habitats, catastrophic failure mode. Wind: Kills birds, ruins view, requires too many ugly transmission lines. Solar thermal: Destroys fragile desert ecosystem, reduces planetary albedo, also requires water where there isn't much.
(Yes, all those complaints have been seriously made, including the ridiculous "reduces planetary albedo") You can't satisfy all the environmentalists until you're living in the Stone Age. The question, then, is why bother to try?
What most nuclear huggers seems to disregard is that most nuclear plants are old and way past their date for decomission. Dismantle those and then we talk.
Let the "nuclear huggers" build some replacements and THEN start dismantling the old ones. Otherwise the "huggers" are going to think, not without reason, that once the old plants are dismantled, the only talk will consist of "NO!".
Stop despairing and get out there and date. Even Geeks can find true love. With 6.7 billion people on this rock there is literally somebody for everybody.
That would be statistically unlikely, and the greater the number of people the less likely it becomes.
It's an exercise in the study of language and of foundations of European culture and literature.
The Latin and Greek questions on the test were an exercise in memorization and little more.
And yet I don't think I could do justice to any of the essay-type questions. "Pericles - the Man and his Policy" - really? Are even a significant minority claiming they even know more than a sentence or two about Pericles?
I'm not, but the essay-type questions aren't as hard as you're making them out. There were accepted answers for them in the curriculum of the time, and all the student would be required to do is regurgitate them.
The maths section. Oh, what a surprise, everyone is claiming that the maths section is trivial. Well, bullshit again. I have a postgrad mathematical education and, yes, I can probably answer these questions. But I would have to think about the plane geometry proofs (which, it is likely, the candidate would be expected to have simply memorised for this test)
As you say, it's memorization again.
What is more, you annoying geeks, there were no electronic calculators in the mid-19th century. You know what this means? It means that half the challenge is doing the arithmetic quickly and without mistakes. And, whether by reading original Leibniz or the speling errors on/., there is one reassuring thing I have come to know (I am reassured because I do it myself and thought I was the only one): numerate geeky types make lots of trivial mistakes
You've got a postgrad mathematical education and you call _us_ annoying geeks? Almost everyone makes lots of trivial mistakes, not just numerate geeky types. Anyway, without knowing which materials (e.g. log and trig tables) were provided or permitted to be used, what the time limit is, and whether partial credit was given (since you were expected to show your work), it's hard to say how much trivial mistakes would hurt on the exam score.
But I guess the average contemporary housemaker could wash, cook or clean up without contemporary tools
You think? Step one of washing is "make soap". To make soap, first you have to make lye and render fat. So I think the contemporary housemaker would be stymied pretty quickly. Cooking, sure, though the prerequisite step of killing and plucking the chicken (or killing, cleaning and butchering a larger animal) might stop many.
So far, the only terrorist since they've been put in place has been the Times Square bomber. He was not caught with the cameras. Which gives a success rate of.000.
I doubt they'd be able to pass a modern test either. These people grew up with a different curriculum than those at the latter half of the 20th century / new millennium.
The exam was probably a little easier than it appears. The three translation questions are all out of classic literature (Greek, not Latin), and they give you most of the words, so it's likely largely a matter of having memorized the translations of those phrases and (failing that) knowing Latin declensions and conjugations. The various history questions would have been part of the curriculum for a college-bound student as well.
Math hasn't changed much; it seems strange that Harvard students are expected to know British currency, though.
Presumably log and trig tables were provided. The arithmetical complement of a logarithm is a calculating trick which would presumably be familiar to students then -- instead of subtracting a logarithm, you can take its arithmetical complement (10 minus the logarithm), then subtract 10. This avoids doing subtraction of long hairy decimals.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act was never intended to grant blanket immunity to any modification. Section (c) especially was made so that a manufacturer like Ford could not force you to use their service centers for all repairs large and small or risk voiding the warranty. It allows the existence of third party authorized service centers and subsection (1) gives the exception that necessary repairs should be done by the manufacturer (or authorized service center) to be covered by warranty.
Section (c) does not allow the manufacturer to require the of use third party authorized service centers either, unless the waiver has been granted. If you put a Chevy engine in your Ford, the Ford warranty would not apply to the Chevy engine. But Ford would not be allowed to void the warranty on some other item just because a Chevy engine was installed. With an engine, Ford would be able to successfully deny many warranty claims on the grounds that the Chevy engine had _caused_ the problem. But they can't just blanket void the car's warranty because an aftermarket part was used.
"It's a lot easier to just" let the KGB or whatever alphabet soup guys listen to all my chat.
Sure. They've got limited resources. While they're listening to me, maybe the real "subversives" are getting away. I take this one step further by eschewing email and chat entirely and just posting everything to slashdot... then the problem isn't keeping it secret, it's getting anyone to pay attention in the first place.
"But all I did was modify the software!". Nope, no warranty, since you put the engine outside of it's expected engine parameters. Maybe going extra fast made the engine really hot and melted it into a molten block of metal.
The burden of demonstrating that the failure was due to the modification is on the car maker, however.
They're claiming 60% efficiency? It's still a heat engine, so their absolute maximum efficiency is based on how hot they can get things and how cold it is outside, and I'm skeptical that they can get it hot enough for 60% efficiency from gasoline. (Actually, I don't think they said gasoline -- I don't think they said any specific fuel.)
Carnot efficiency doesn't enter into it; gasoline easily burns hot enough to do 60% efficiency with a room temperature cold reservoir.
I had no idea that he has a degree in education or did postgraduate studies in education or even home schooled his own children. Is this just as iffy as a Musical composer telling an engineer how to build a bridge?
Leaving education to the experts -- that is, the supposed experts in education, not experts in the subject matter being taught -- is how we got the primary & secondary school system we have today.
Obviously, you would be in no legal trouble doing B, right?
That's what free speech means. Just like those guys who figured out that you could use a Bic pen to open a Kryptonite lock were in no legal trouble for posting the videos demonstrating that. The only law making this illegal in the computerized case is the DMCA, and its no stretch to say that this is a violation of the First Amendment.
Suppose I figured out I could bypass Office copy-protection by holding down the shift key during startup? How is it anything but a clear violation of free speech to prevent me from saying so? (of course, you can't -- but there has been a copy protection scheme which was that simple to bypass.).
As for the number being Sony's "private" key... it's private in the sense of a public-private cryptosystem. It's not private in the same sense as "personal privacy", and even if it wasn't, corporations don't have personal privacy rights. And it's "Sony's key" in the sense that it is the key Sony uses. It is not a key which belongs to Sony, because it's impossible to own a random number. You're all up in arms because a guy made a particular random number public, and you're twisting yourself into knots trying to avoid the obvious free speech issue.
Road Runner was the best hacker. He not only figured out exactly what Wile E. Coyote was going to do with those Acme products, he used his position as President of Acme to sabotage the products so they would fail in the most amusing way possible.
Despite what most of the anti-Sony rants on/. (and the bit from Anon), this has nothing to do with jailbreaking his PS3, and everything to do with the releasing the key, which is a violation of the DMCA.
If releasing the key -- which is a number derivable from public information -- is a violation of the DMCA, then the DMCA is in violation of the First Amendment.
Well first off, you can forget about a peaceful solution. 'What can be done?' now becomes a little easier to answer.
I'm sure you're not suggesting shooting music industry executives from a distance using a scoped rifle. Or arranging to have their cocaine cut with cyanide. Or rigging their Ferraris to explode. Because the first two would be too good for them and the last would be a waste of a Ferrari.
Slashdot Mirror
Or different but better protections. For instance, a drive like this might be in a remote office in China, whereas the backup (or the source of the data) is in some secure location in your home country.
You mean like the roads, paid for by taxes on the carriers and indirectly through your shipping costs?
That assumes that "use tax" is honest in the first place. It's not; it's just an end run around the same interstate commerce clause that prohibits the states from directly taxing imports.
Wrong. You also need to know this for every category of merchandise, and you need to know which categories each item of your merchandise is in in every state and locality. Furthermore, zip code and tax authority boundaries often do not coincide. There are likely other complications as well.
The US stance is not the same; see Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992).
Nuclear: radiation
Coal: Mercury, SOx, assorted other pollutants, CO, CO2
Oil: SOx, assorted pollutants, CO, CO2
Gas: CO, NOx, CH4, assorted pollutants, CO2
Hydro: Kills fish, destroys habitats, catastrophic failure mode.
Wind: Kills birds, ruins view, requires too many ugly transmission lines.
Solar thermal: Destroys fragile desert ecosystem, reduces planetary albedo, also requires water where there isn't much.
(Yes, all those complaints have been seriously made, including the ridiculous "reduces planetary albedo")
You can't satisfy all the environmentalists until you're living in the Stone Age. The question, then, is why bother to try?
Let the "nuclear huggers" build some replacements and THEN start dismantling the old ones. Otherwise the "huggers" are going to think, not without reason, that once the old plants are dismantled, the only talk will consist of "NO!".
That would be statistically unlikely, and the greater the number of people the less likely it becomes.
The Latin and Greek questions on the test were an exercise in memorization and little more.
I'm not, but the essay-type questions aren't as hard as you're making them out. There were accepted answers for them in the curriculum of the time, and all the student would be required to do is regurgitate them.
As you say, it's memorization again.
You've got a postgrad mathematical education and you call _us_ annoying geeks? Almost everyone makes lots of trivial mistakes, not just numerate geeky types. Anyway, without knowing which materials (e.g. log and trig tables) were provided or permitted to be used, what the time limit is, and whether partial credit was given (since you were expected to show your work), it's hard to say how much trivial mistakes would hurt on the exam score.
You think? Step one of washing is "make soap". To make soap, first you have to make lye and render fat. So I think the contemporary housemaker would be stymied pretty quickly. Cooking, sure, though the prerequisite step of killing and plucking the chicken (or killing, cleaning and butchering a larger animal) might stop many.
So far, the only terrorist since they've been put in place has been the Times Square bomber. He was not caught with the cameras. Which gives a success rate of .000.
The exam was probably a little easier than it appears. The three translation questions are all out of classic literature (Greek, not Latin), and they give you most of the words, so it's likely largely a matter of having memorized the translations of those phrases and (failing that) knowing Latin declensions and conjugations. The various history questions would have been part of the curriculum for a college-bound student as well. Math hasn't changed much; it seems strange that Harvard students are expected to know British currency, though. Presumably log and trig tables were provided. The arithmetical complement of a logarithm is a calculating trick which would presumably be familiar to students then -- instead of subtracting a logarithm, you can take its arithmetical complement (10 minus the logarithm), then subtract 10. This avoids doing subtraction of long hairy decimals.
Those 1000 people now get a crippling lawsuit and, for a select few, a free ride to the nearest Federal holding facility for trial on bogus charges.
Section (c) does not allow the manufacturer to require the of use third party authorized service centers either, unless the waiver has been granted. If you put a Chevy engine in your Ford, the Ford warranty would not apply to the Chevy engine. But Ford would not be allowed to void the warranty on some other item just because a Chevy engine was installed. With an engine, Ford would be able to successfully deny many warranty claims on the grounds that the Chevy engine had _caused_ the problem. But they can't just blanket void the car's warranty because an aftermarket part was used.
Yes, it is. Look up the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the case law surrounding it.
This is specifically prohibited by 15 USC 2302(c).
Sure. They've got limited resources. While they're listening to me, maybe the real "subversives" are getting away. I take this one step further by eschewing email and chat entirely and just posting everything to slashdot... then the problem isn't keeping it secret, it's getting anyone to pay attention in the first place.
The burden of demonstrating that the failure was due to the modification is on the car maker, however.
Carnot efficiency doesn't enter into it; gasoline easily burns hot enough to do 60% efficiency with a room temperature cold reservoir.
Leaving education to the experts -- that is, the supposed experts in education, not experts in the subject matter being taught -- is how we got the primary & secondary school system we have today.
That's what free speech means. Just like those guys who figured out that you could use a Bic pen to open a Kryptonite lock were in no legal trouble for posting the videos demonstrating that. The only law making this illegal in the computerized case is the DMCA, and its no stretch to say that this is a violation of the First Amendment.
Suppose I figured out I could bypass Office copy-protection by holding down the shift key during startup? How is it anything but a clear violation of free speech to prevent me from saying so? (of course, you can't -- but there has been a copy protection scheme which was that simple to bypass.).
As for the number being Sony's "private" key... it's private in the sense of a public-private cryptosystem. It's not private in the same sense as "personal privacy", and even if it wasn't, corporations don't have personal privacy rights. And it's "Sony's key" in the sense that it is the key Sony uses. It is not a key which belongs to Sony, because it's impossible to own a random number. You're all up in arms because a guy made a particular random number public, and you're twisting yourself into knots trying to avoid the obvious free speech issue.
Road Runner was the best hacker. He not only figured out exactly what Wile E. Coyote was going to do with those Acme products, he used his position as President of Acme to sabotage the products so they would fail in the most amusing way possible.
No, sorry, that little bit of evil was brought to you by the late Ted Kennedy (D) Chappaquiddick.
If releasing the key -- which is a number derivable from public information -- is a violation of the DMCA, then the DMCA is in violation of the First Amendment.
Don't be ridiculous. My TP is made by by Mitsubishi, not Sony. Look for the three diamonds on the label.
I'm sure you're not suggesting shooting music industry executives from a distance using a scoped rifle. Or arranging to have their cocaine cut with cyanide. Or rigging their Ferraris to explode. Because the first two would be too good for them and the last would be a waste of a Ferrari.