Most of the cost would be in designing the probe, and getting it into orbit. Why send only one, which may fail en route? Send a dozen or so, and hope at least one survives. If more do, set them up as array antennas, or risk attempting planetary orbit with one.
The probe would have to be autonomous, anything beyond orbit of the star would have to be achievable by the probe's own logic. It might take intrasolar readings of the planet, which while remote would be far better than anything we could do from Earth.
Attempting planetary orbit would probably be too risky. Better to leave it in solar orbit sending back data.
The people paying money for commercial Linux distributions aren't Uncle Ed and Aunt Martha. They're corporate or government IT departments, and they don't need every setting available to the GUI.
What you want requires a commercial distribution target for pre install on low end consumer grade equipment. Even ignoring the Microsoft tax, such a proposition is a bit shakey, financially.
Unless by that you mean the defendant hasn't enough money to mount a defence. In most jurisdictions, truth is a defence and the burden is on the plaintiff to prove untruth. Given that, statements of opinion can never be libel, because they can never be disproven and are easily proven.
In general speech, we do not call our languages Canadian French or Canadian English. We only do so when distinguishing it from British English or American English.
I think they would have to appeal the warrant separately (to the issuing judge, not the trial judge). There would probably have to be something significantly wrong for this to go forward.
Otherwise, regardless of how wide the warrant was, the trial judge could only throw out things definitely outside that warrant. I think. IANAL et al.
They couldn't reasonably be looking for a stolen bike in your couch or on your computer. As I said in the grandparent:
so long as a reasonable argument could be made that they were searching the couch for something that was listed on the warrant. Anything that could fit in the same space as anything on the warrant is fair game, and cops (usually) aren't stupid. They'll make the warrant as broad as they can get away with, and poke around as much as they can get away with. They may add on "and any tools used to defeat bicycle locks", which would let them look in your couch and tiny box. The judge may force them to whittle it down, but if they're not in a hurry, they can game the system to give themselves maximum leeway.
It only stipulates what they are looking for as a reason for the search in the first place. If they find anything else along the way, they're perfectly entitled to use it. If the warrant is for the house, and there's a dead body in the shed, the warrant doesn't give them the right to search the shed (but probable cause from the smell would).
Now, they still have to have a reason to seize anything not listed on the warrant. If it isn't immediately suspicious, they probably can't do anything about it (besides get another warrant). A bag of weed would be fair game, even if you had it hidden inside the couch, so long as a reasonable argument could be made that they were searching the couch for something that was listed on the warrant. The gun you used to shoot your mother in the ravine with wouldn't be (presuming you own it legally).
If I leave my keys in my car for anyone to use, that means I can't use it. Which is why you never see cars with keys left in them. If I leave my AP open for anyone to use, I can still use it. At worst, I have to close it if someone over uses the bandwidth, but even then it's immediately back under my control.
The fact that "my" IP is used for something illegal does not constitute probably cause.
If it can't accommodate someone being out of the office for a few weeks due to injury, how would it accommodate one being out for months on maternity leave?
I've recently surveyed a sample of wireless networks in my city. 74% of the 3000 or so networks in the sample used at least WEP. The general public can and does set up basic security in most cases. Sure, 1610 of those encrypted networks were basic WEP, but we're not talking about cracking into wireless networks, we're talking about legitimately connecting to them.
As a human making the ultimate decision whether to use the http server at slashdot.org, what human visible indication do you have that it is public before you connect to it.
The client sends an association request, and access points respond with an acknowledgement if they are public. You have as much right to connect to them as you do the http server on slashdot.org.
Several requests to use the network are made by the client which must be either acknowledged or denied before the client is attached to a network. The access point explicitly grants permission to use the network. There is no reasonable objection to this point.
Now, that may not be what the owner intended, but that is not relevant.
Access Point: There is a network with the name $SSID on Access Point $MAC_ADDRESS. (repeated about 10 times a second) Piggybacker: My MAC address is $MAC_ADDRESS. May I join the network? Access Point: Request acknowledged, you may join. Piggybacker: May I have an IP address on this network? DHCP Server: Yes, you may use $IP_ADDRESS. Use $GATEWAY for external traffic, and $DNS_SERVERS for name resolution.
Ie, on your average open access point, two requests to use the network would be made by the piggybacker, and two confirmations of permission would be given. Clearly, permission is explicitly granted to use such an AP.
If there is in fact any systematic discrimination against women in CS departments, deal with it there. Treat the disease, not the symptoms. Have you considered that perhaps 30 years ago women weren't motivated to become lawyers? Remember, people don't spontaneously form at age 18; there is a significant generational lag. Women entering college in 1970 would have been born about 1950. I think it's quite reasonable to conclude that the socialization of people born in 1950 would be somewhat different from that of people born in 1970, and they would have different views of their gender roles.
Further, overall women are earning degrees at a higher rate then men. Shouldn't that be a higher priority than the gender balance of individual departments? Especially given that correcting the CS imbalance will further skew the overall graduation rate even further to women.
I tell firefox to treat all cookies as session cookies, with a whitelist of sites I trust or don't care if they track me. I stay logged in where I need to, and dump bad cookies without having the problems associated with not accepting cookies in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Do they even have them in Toronto? Real coffee shops are not chains. There's only one of each.
If you think Starbucks makes good coffee, you don't know what it's supposed to taste like.
Most of the cost would be in designing the probe, and getting it into orbit. Why send only one, which may fail en route? Send a dozen or so, and hope at least one survives. If more do, set them up as array antennas, or risk attempting planetary orbit with one.
The probe would have to be autonomous, anything beyond orbit of the star would have to be achievable by the probe's own logic. It might take intrasolar readings of the planet, which while remote would be far better than anything we could do from Earth.
Attempting planetary orbit would probably be too risky. Better to leave it in solar orbit sending back data.
You'll get better coffee, and they won't try to give you the vocabulary of a corporate whore.
The people paying money for commercial Linux distributions aren't Uncle Ed and Aunt Martha. They're corporate or government IT departments, and they don't need every setting available to the GUI.
What you want requires a commercial distribution target for pre install on low end consumer grade equipment. Even ignoring the Microsoft tax, such a proposition is a bit shakey, financially.
Definition is determined by consensus. England and English now have nothing to do with each other. People from England are now known as British.
Unless by that you mean the defendant hasn't enough money to mount a defence. In most jurisdictions, truth is a defence and the burden is on the plaintiff to prove untruth. Given that, statements of opinion can never be libel, because they can never be disproven and are easily proven.
In general speech, we do not call our languages Canadian French or Canadian English. We only do so when distinguishing it from British English or American English.
English does not belong to the UK.
Sure I can. English (the language) is not English (the region).
Words mean what we decide they mean.
I think they would have to appeal the warrant separately (to the issuing judge, not the trial judge). There would probably have to be something significantly wrong for this to go forward.
Otherwise, regardless of how wide the warrant was, the trial judge could only throw out things definitely outside that warrant. I think. IANAL et al.
It only stipulates what they are looking for as a reason for the search in the first place. If they find anything else along the way, they're perfectly entitled to use it. If the warrant is for the house, and there's a dead body in the shed, the warrant doesn't give them the right to search the shed (but probable cause from the smell would).
Now, they still have to have a reason to seize anything not listed on the warrant. If it isn't immediately suspicious, they probably can't do anything about it (besides get another warrant). A bag of weed would be fair game, even if you had it hidden inside the couch, so long as a reasonable argument could be made that they were searching the couch for something that was listed on the warrant. The gun you used to shoot your mother in the ravine with wouldn't be (presuming you own it legally).
A warrant stipulates *where* they may search. Any evidence they find is fair game, regardless of whether they knew they wanted it beforehand or not.
If I leave my keys in my car for anyone to use, that means I can't use it. Which is why you never see cars with keys left in them. If I leave my AP open for anyone to use, I can still use it. At worst, I have to close it if someone over uses the bandwidth, but even then it's immediately back under my control.
The fact that "my" IP is used for something illegal does not constitute probably cause.
Construction crews could warn people of their presence around corners or hills, neighbourhoods could set up a "children playing" zone, et cetera.
But he's already said they can't afford to hire someone new, since they are legally required to maintain her employment through maternity.
If it can't accommodate someone being out of the office for a few weeks due to injury, how would it accommodate one being out for months on maternity leave?
6 billion people alive on the planet, more than the combined total of all who have died, and yet you think we're going to run out.
Ignorance like that doesn't just happen. You must have worked very hard at it.
I've recently surveyed a sample of wireless networks in my city. 74% of the 3000 or so networks in the sample used at least WEP. The general public can and does set up basic security in most cases. Sure, 1610 of those encrypted networks were basic WEP, but we're not talking about cracking into wireless networks, we're talking about legitimately connecting to them.
As a human making the ultimate decision whether to use the http server at slashdot.org, what human visible indication do you have that it is public before you connect to it.
The client sends an association request, and access points respond with an acknowledgement if they are public. You have as much right to connect to them as you do the http server on slashdot.org.
Several requests to use the network are made by the client which must be either acknowledged or denied before the client is attached to a network. The access point explicitly grants permission to use the network. There is no reasonable objection to this point.
Now, that may not be what the owner intended, but that is not relevant.
You would see a sequence like this:
Access Point: There is a network with the name $SSID on Access Point $MAC_ADDRESS. (repeated about 10 times a second)
Piggybacker: My MAC address is $MAC_ADDRESS. May I join the network?
Access Point: Request acknowledged, you may join.
Piggybacker: May I have an IP address on this network?
DHCP Server: Yes, you may use $IP_ADDRESS. Use $GATEWAY for external traffic, and $DNS_SERVERS for name resolution.
Ie, on your average open access point, two requests to use the network would be made by the piggybacker, and two confirmations of permission would be given. Clearly, permission is explicitly granted to use such an AP.
I've been told that men are strongly encouraged in skilled professions where women dominate, such as nursing.
I don't think it particularly matters much in non-skilled professions such as hairdressing.
If there is in fact any systematic discrimination against women in CS departments, deal with it there. Treat the disease, not the symptoms. Have you considered that perhaps 30 years ago women weren't motivated to become lawyers? Remember, people don't spontaneously form at age 18; there is a significant generational lag. Women entering college in 1970 would have been born about 1950. I think it's quite reasonable to conclude that the socialization of people born in 1950 would be somewhat different from that of people born in 1970, and they would have different views of their gender roles.
Further, overall women are earning degrees at a higher rate then men. Shouldn't that be a higher priority than the gender balance of individual departments? Especially given that correcting the CS imbalance will further skew the overall graduation rate even further to women.
I tell firefox to treat all cookies as session cookies, with a whitelist of sites I trust or don't care if they track me. I stay logged in where I need to, and dump bad cookies without having the problems associated with not accepting cookies in the first place.