Then why do we even have the Bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights is full of "Congress shall make no law...", why bother? Why not a "Bill of Government Rights" full of "Congress shall..." and "Congress may..."
That's what Article I of the Constitution is for.
BTW, using the enumeration of rights under Bill of Rights to disparage unenumerated rights is specifically forbidden by the Ninth Amendment.
What is really amazing is how much you can do to them before they can put you in prison. Here in the US - despite the current trend toward tyranny - you can do a lot that would get you imprisioned or even executed in many other countries.
Which says more about other countries than it does about the US. If you're going to use North Korea or some Islamic dictatorship as your benchmark, even the old Soviet Russia might start looking relatively free.
I think you have it backwards. The real question is how much the search engines are willing to pay the news sources they rely on for continued permission to reproduce their work in any form at all.
That would be... nothing. Cipher. Zero. Zip. Null. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, if the news sources don't want Google indexing their site, they can use robots.txt. Of course, they don't really want that; they want to be indexed, but they want to be indexed their way, and not the indexers way. Tough tootles. Copyright is a red herring, really, because Google is already willing to not index their sites; copyright doesn't give them a magical way of forcing Google to index the sites their way.
(Note that the chart has a mistake in it, listing the Roadster's charging time as 3.5 hours on a 110V connection - it's 3.5 hours using a dedicated 220V 90 amp circuit, it'll take ~8 hours to charge by a normal 110V circuit)
Unfortunately that wouldn't be just a dedicated circuit; it'd probably be a dedicated drop, or you'd at least have to get your standard 200A service bumped to 300A. If everyone on the block gets one the power company probably isn't going to be able to provide that much power for a while.
Not a problem if you own (and spend a lot of time in) a business in a commercial or industrial area of course.
Too bad the gym is so frighteningly boring. I can exercise in the spring and summer when there's light and warmth and I can ride a bicycle. But in the late fall and winter, while I do drag my butt to the gym once a week or so just to keep from turning into a complete lump, it's hard to do.
If you've dropped about 5 pounds in a month, it probably IS working. And it probably is fat, just not from where you want it lost. It's just making you miserable. This is not of particular concern to conventional-wisdom nutritionists, who call such misery a "healthy lifestyle".
It is amazing that the food industry as a whole does not take responsibility for this. They fill everything with MSG which is basically a neuro-toxin. It not only overexcites neurons to death but it leads to hyper-tension and heart arrhythmias. It can cause an increase in total blood cholesterol levels by reducing the ability of the pancreas to metabolize cholesterol and expel it from the body.
Read quack sites much?
High Fructose corn syrup is a substance which the body does not recognize as a sugar so no insulin is released to handle it. Wonder where that goes in the body? How about the lumps of fat everywhere.
HFCS is largely glucose and fructose, usually in roughly the same concentration as is found in sucrose. And the first stage of sucrose metabolism is to break it down into glucose and fructose.
Hydrogenated Fats (a.k.a Trans Fats) are the worst offender of them all and are the reason Saturated fats got a bad name. This is the substance that hardens the arteries and raises your LDL while lowering your HDL, combine with MSG it is time bomb for heart disease.
Sorry, saturated fats were given a bad name long before the trans-fat scare was a gleam in the NYC Health Department's eye. For a while it was monounsaturated = good, polyunsaturated = better, saturated = bad. Then they changed their mind about polyunsaturated fats. Then they got into the whole omega-3 versus omega-6 thing. Then, and only then, was it the Great Trans-Fat Scare. Trans-fats, BTW, are unsaturated.
It's completely unreasonable for a company or government to issue a laptop to an individual and tell him if he loses it or it gets stolen, he's going to jail.
What would you do if your boss gave you a laptop and told you just that? Most people, I think, wouldn't touch the laptop with a proverbial 10 foot pole. So the only people who are going to be caught by this are people who are unaware of the situation.
We heard that before from Japan in the '80s, the Soviets in the '60s, the Nazis in the 40's and so on. The problem is that centrally managed economies can grow fast for a while, but then they hit a wall because of the market inefficiencies that these practices inevitably introduce.
China's success right now is on the backs of its people. If China were anything approaching a free (economically) nation, its success would have made its people much more well off, which would limit its usefulness as a cheap place to manufacture things. Since it's not, the rewards for its success are siphoned off by those in power, its people make nothing, the yuan does not rise meteorically, and it remains a cheap place to manufacture things. Good for the rest of the world, good for the powers that be in China, not so good for the average Chinese worker.
These folks are in for a wake-up call when they start sending messages that actually have some importance or weight to them and don't feel comfortable with Mr. Facebook reading it.
Assuming they ever do. Most of us, I think, don't. Business communication is only a problem if Mr. Facebook (or, Mr. Google, for a channel which might actually be used for such) is working for the competition (which is possible, but not likely). Stuff that's important to us personally just isn't going to be interesting to Mr. Facebook. Sure, you might not want the world knowing that both your sons are going down on drug charges and that your job is going poorly, but knowing that some anonymous corporation knows about it might not bother you.
Please. Incessant IMing and SMSing by younger folks is just the contemporary equivalent of teens trying up the phone line with content-free communication. As Leary and Wilson put it, "Most human communication is embarrassingly primitive, consisting of endless variations on `I'm still here. Are you still there?' (hive solidarity) and `Nothing has really changed' (hive business as usual)."
Perhaps unsurprisingly, most machine communication is of the same nature.
P.S. there's some teens hanging out in your front lawn for you to yell at.
Even if I do all the encryption myself, they can come to me and ask me for my keys.
They can. But they can't do so without you knowing they are doing so, which is valuable in itself. And if you're sufficiently paranoid, there are steps you can take to limit the damage there.
I agree again. The A) can be checked/estimated. The B) is basically spinning around the question whether government agencies do the math better or mathematicians that are not in those agencies. I'd say latter are going to have an edge, since they have to be educated, and that's academia's job, and not all of them are by default going to work for such agencies.
We know the historic answer to "B" now -- the government agencies. Public key encryption was invented/discovered (twice, separately, I believe) at intelligence agencies before it was invented/discovered in the open. Differential cryptanalysis was also discovered secretly before it was discovered openly. There's a lot more open interest in cryptography now, but I wouldn't count the NSA and its foreign counterparts out just yet.
It's hard to see how the NSA could have expected to put this one over today. Personally I'm convinced they _do_ know the secret number and advanced this algorithm specifically as a back door, but it seems hard to believe that they expected to succeed. Perhaps it was a mandate from above, and the people doing it didn't care if it got discovered.
Never, ever believe you can fight a non-compete agreement. You can't. Your new or prospective employer isn't going to value you so much as to agree to sign on to a legal battle that will drag them into court.
Really? Last company I worked for did just that with respect to some employees. The previous employer -- a direct competitor -- had closed their office down and these employees refused an offer to move to a new location (over 100 miles away). My employer picked them up, _knowing_ they were subject to non-compete agreements. And got sued by the previous employer. And the non-compete was not upheld (I don't know the legal reasons why).
A wise finance teacher once explained that splits are unconditionally a net-negative effects to the value of a company.
Stock splits keep the finance/accounting people busy and that's about it.
If that were universally or even commonly believed to be true, splits would be exceedingly rare. They aren't.
If buying X shares at Y dollars per share was essentially the same transaction as buying X/k shares for Yk dollars per share for all integer k > 1, it would be true. But it isn't; generally, as soon as X/k is less than 100, transaction costs go up. When X/k is less than 1, they go up more.
"Giigle: how Pure Envy powers nearly every startup in silicon valley, everyone reading this book, the NYT article, this Slashdot submission and this comment"
My envy isn't pure, it's alloyed with plain old fashioned avarice.
An even more useful switch is one which lights up when the device it is controlling is off, and goes dark when it is on.
But the #1 switch should be the Frankenstein-style knife switch. Nothing says fun like exposed very-high-current conductors.
Operating cash-only is a mistake. Instead, the successful terrorist has to separate out his innocuous "cover" activities and his terrorist activities. The cover activities should use a blend of cash and credit, and the terrorist activities should be cash-only. Even better, the cover activities can hide the terrorist stuff. For instance, if the terrorist is making an ANFO bomb, buying a bunch of ammonium nitrate and diesel with cash will certainly set off flags. But if his cover identity is as some sort of farmer, then if he diverts 5% of the stuff he's buying for the farm to his bomb, nobody will notice anything.
Well, that's bullshit if I've ever seen it. The very idea that the success of a country is dictated solely by it's culture (language, traditions, etc) is so bigotted I'm at a loss for words.
Who sad "solely"? That's a strawman. But it seems to me pretty clear that, other things being equal, a culture with a strong work ethic is going to do better economically than one with a mañana attitude.
You are, frankly, a blind, ignorant, xenophobic, close-minded ass,
Denying culutural relativism doesn't make one blind, ignorant, xenophobic, or close-minded. Accepting it, however, does require a degree of blindness.
I think you're misunderstanding power factor. A power factor of.2 does not mean you're causing line losses of 3W for every watt you're consuming. It means you're causing line losses comparable to that of a 5W resistive load. A 5W resistive load will still always take more power than a 1W load with 5VA apparent power.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what Article I of the Constitution is for.
BTW, using the enumeration of rights under Bill of Rights to disparage unenumerated rights is specifically forbidden by the Ninth Amendment.
Which says more about other countries than it does about the US. If you're going to use North Korea or some Islamic dictatorship as your benchmark, even the old Soviet Russia might start looking relatively free.
That one has nothing to do with public figure law... it's because in the US, truth is an absolute defense to libel.
The Mossad isn't stupid; they've read the Evil Overlord list. They sent "detonate" and THEN said "goodbye".
Unfortunately that wouldn't be just a dedicated circuit; it'd probably be a dedicated drop, or you'd at least have to get your standard 200A service bumped to 300A. If everyone on the block gets one the power company probably isn't going to be able to provide that much power for a while.
Not a problem if you own (and spend a lot of time in) a business in a commercial or industrial area of course.
Too bad the gym is so frighteningly boring. I can exercise in the spring and summer when there's light and warmth and I can ride a bicycle. But in the late fall and winter, while I do drag my butt to the gym once a week or so just to keep from turning into a complete lump, it's hard to do.
If you've dropped about 5 pounds in a month, it probably IS working. And it probably is fat, just not from where you want it lost. It's just making you miserable. This is not of particular concern to conventional-wisdom nutritionists, who call such misery a "healthy lifestyle".
Pretzels.
It's completely unreasonable for a company or government to issue a laptop to an individual and tell him if he loses it or it gets stolen, he's going to jail.
What would you do if your boss gave you a laptop and told you just that? Most people, I think, wouldn't touch the laptop with a proverbial 10 foot pole. So the only people who are going to be caught by this are people who are unaware of the situation.
Assuming they ever do. Most of us, I think, don't. Business communication is only a problem if Mr. Facebook (or, Mr. Google, for a channel which might actually be used for such) is working for the competition (which is possible, but not likely). Stuff that's important to us personally just isn't going to be interesting to Mr. Facebook. Sure, you might not want the world knowing that both your sons are going down on drug charges and that your job is going poorly, but knowing that some anonymous corporation knows about it might not bother you.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, most machine communication is of the same nature.
P.S. there's some teens hanging out in your front lawn for you to yell at.
They can. But they can't do so without you knowing they are doing so, which is valuable in itself. And if you're sufficiently paranoid, there are steps you can take to limit the damage there.
We know the historic answer to "B" now -- the government agencies. Public key encryption was invented/discovered (twice, separately, I believe) at intelligence agencies before it was invented/discovered in the open. Differential cryptanalysis was also discovered secretly before it was discovered openly. There's a lot more open interest in cryptography now, but I wouldn't count the NSA and its foreign counterparts out just yet.
It's hard to see how the NSA could have expected to put this one over today. Personally I'm convinced they _do_ know the secret number and advanced this algorithm specifically as a back door, but it seems hard to believe that they expected to succeed. Perhaps it was a mandate from above, and the people doing it didn't care if it got discovered.
Really? Last company I worked for did just that with respect to some employees. The previous employer -- a direct competitor -- had closed their office down and these employees refused an offer to move to a new location (over 100 miles away). My employer picked them up, _knowing_ they were subject to non-compete agreements. And got sued by the previous employer. And the non-compete was not upheld (I don't know the legal reasons why).
If that were universally or even commonly believed to be true, splits would be exceedingly rare. They aren't.
If buying X shares at Y dollars per share was essentially the same transaction as buying X/k shares for Yk dollars per share for all integer k > 1, it would be true. But it isn't; generally, as soon as X/k is less than 100, transaction costs go up. When X/k is less than 1, they go up more.
My envy isn't pure, it's alloyed with plain old fashioned avarice.
An even more useful switch is one which lights up when the device it is controlling is off, and goes dark when it is on. But the #1 switch should be the Frankenstein-style knife switch. Nothing says fun like exposed very-high-current conductors.
Operating cash-only is a mistake. Instead, the successful terrorist has to separate out his innocuous "cover" activities and his terrorist activities. The cover activities should use a blend of cash and credit, and the terrorist activities should be cash-only. Even better, the cover activities can hide the terrorist stuff. For instance, if the terrorist is making an ANFO bomb, buying a bunch of ammonium nitrate and diesel with cash will certainly set off flags. But if his cover identity is as some sort of farmer, then if he diverts 5% of the stuff he's buying for the farm to his bomb, nobody will notice anything.
Who sad "solely"? That's a strawman. But it seems to me pretty clear that, other things being equal, a culture with a strong work ethic is going to do better economically than one with a mañana attitude.
Denying culutural relativism doesn't make one blind, ignorant, xenophobic, or close-minded. Accepting it, however, does require a degree of blindness.
His Mac x86 prediction came with a time limit -- IIRC, 2 years from date of prediction. He missed by quite a wide margin.
I think you're misunderstanding power factor. A power factor of .2 does not mean you're causing line losses of 3W for every watt you're consuming. It means you're causing line losses comparable to that of a 5W resistive load. A 5W resistive load will still always take more power than a 1W load with 5VA apparent power.