And I know for sure that you're wrong. Personal flash drives have been banned on DOD systems, but government-purchased flash drives were perfectly okay to use.
Maybe. But you've left "100-percent preventable" territory when you start guessing about whether someone should have noticed something at the right time.
What people can do to prevent fatal accidents are (1) don't drink, (2) don't try to multitask (e.g., talking on a cellphone, eating a bowl of soup -- and yes, I've seen someone trying to eat soup while driving), (3) don't drive tired, (4) be patient (it's really not worth riding someone's ass at 75mph to get to your dentist's appointment two minutes earlier), and (5) use a seatbelt (it's amazing that anyone in this day and age wouldn't use one, but about one in 10 don't).
So explain to me then how Dick Cheny and Robert Novak conspired to "leak" the name of a CIA operative that was actively engaged in operations, compromised her and everyone she had contact with, but that wasn't treason?
In the U.S., rich people don't commit treason (or any other crimes) unless they're caught with the cocaine straws up their noses.
Even if we made the drunk driving limit a strict 0.0 blood alcohol level, we'd only remove a third of fatalities.
That one-third of fatalities is 100-percent preventable. Forcing someone who's been convicted of DUI to be 100-percent sober before driving again does not, in my eyes, constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
How do you figure it's misuse? It was used in that headline to separate two items on a list. Since there are still a few print-edition papers here and there, it still makes sense to use commas in place of "and" for headlines.
Other than that, single player games are a little sad, and never as challenging as multiplayer.
I play single-player games exclusively. I don't always want "challenging." What I do want from a game is to be immersed in it. For example, after I bought Mass Effect 2, I played that shit for almost five months straight. Yeah, I know, I don't get out much.
Another nice quality about single player games is that, well, I don't have to put up with total fuckwads.
You could not copyright the following description: There was an auto accident at the corner of A and B streets today. One of the cars was speeding and ran a red light. Minor injuries were reported.
Hi, journalist writing here, and yes, you can copyright the above description precisely because it's a description. What you can't do is copyright the facts of what happened.
So let's say Journalist A writes the description you provided. Journalist B writes, "One person was injured today when a car ran a red light at the intersection of A and B streets." They're both in the clear.
Now, let's make things a bit muddier. Journalist C writes almost the exact same thing as Journalist B. Does that mean Journalist C violated Journalist B's copyright. Not necessarily -- maybe the two journalists both follow the rule, "If it bleeds, it leads": if someone was killed, you lead with the death; if someone was injured, you lead with the injury. But the kicker is the word almost -- if two reports are identical, Journalist C could be in trouble, not so much for violating Journalist B's copyright but for plagiarism. Successive paragraphs would give you more evidence one way or the other: did both stories give the same information in the same order? Were the same direct and indirect quotes used in both articles?
Anyway, tl;dr: You're right that you can't copyright a fact, but any description, which is by definition a creative retelling of facts, can be copyrighted.
If your secretaries are saving documetns to My Documents on the C: drive, you need to change the My Documents to point to the network drive. You need to basically start eliminating/changing the way the users do things that are improper..
And if you've been in the military, you know how chronically unreliable their computer networks are at most installations. I work at one of the military service academies, and the network here goes down about once a week on average, usually for 20-30 minutes but sometimes for two or three hours. Downrange, it's even worse: I was lucky to have dialup speed when I was deployed to Iraq in '08.
So sooner or later, your network is going to go down, and when that happens, you have one of two possible outcomes. If users have local Documents folders, they can at least do some stuff while they wait for the network to come back online. If you've forced them to use network storage for their Documents folders, then they're completely dead in the water, and you may as well send them home.
Every attempt I've seen at goatse-ing someone was calculated to make the context and URL innocuous.
And yet, hovering over the link generally gives you ye olde Goatse web address. At least, that was the case before URL shorteners became common. And when I see a bit.ly URL on Slashdot, I don't even go near it, because it's liable to (a) log me out, (b) goatse me or (c) RickRoll me.
It's a matter of context and making a judgment call. To use the ubiquitous car analogy, clicking a URL you don't recognize is somewhat like running a yellow light: 99.9 percent of the time, it's perfectly fine, but there's going to be the one time that it isn't, and then you're fucked. If you're not sure about a particular URL, Google it (car analogy: stop and wait for the light to turn green).
Grandma doesn't care what a URL is, only that she can get to the sites she needs. If Firefox 4 is intuitive to her, then it doesn't owe me any apology.
The short: When in a foreign country, do not violate their laws. They 'purchased' something in a country where it was illegal. That illegal property was seized. Their fault for violating local laws.
Granting exceptions for countries like China that operate Great Firewalls, how do you suppose to determine where a "property" on the Internet begins and ends? Let's say I'm in the U.S. and surf to your site, hosted in Finland, that contains content in violation of U.S. laws -- do the Feds have the authority to seize your domain name or have U.S.-based DNS servers reroute your site's traffic to a "We have pwned this site?" Web page? I don't know how you'll answer, but I know the right answer is "no."
Slashdot Mirror
Well, testing of surface to LEO missiles will probably not happen - it endangers everything else up there with all the debris.
China did it in 2007, and the United States destroyed a satellite with a surface-to-LEO missile in 2008.
Do they also plan to sue the U.S. Air Force?
Anonymous is not your army.
Be there and be square!
That would be the rational approach. Who cares about the two quadrillionth digit??
I see what you did there.
Could you post your date of birth and mother's maiden name, too? Thanks!
Yes.
I think "exersize" is what you call someone who doesn't exercise. :)
And I know for sure that you're wrong. Personal flash drives have been banned on DOD systems, but government-purchased flash drives were perfectly okay to use.
Right, people can do all of those things... but why is the penalty for "don't drink" so disproportionately higher than the penalty for the rest?
Because eliminating that one behavior can reduce driving fatalities by a third. It's a low-hanging fruit, in terms of reducing deaths on the road.
Maybe. But you've left "100-percent preventable" territory when you start guessing about whether someone should have noticed something at the right time.
What people can do to prevent fatal accidents are (1) don't drink, (2) don't try to multitask (e.g., talking on a cellphone, eating a bowl of soup -- and yes, I've seen someone trying to eat soup while driving), (3) don't drive tired, (4) be patient (it's really not worth riding someone's ass at 75mph to get to your dentist's appointment two minutes earlier), and (5) use a seatbelt (it's amazing that anyone in this day and age wouldn't use one, but about one in 10 don't).
So explain to me then how Dick Cheny and Robert Novak conspired to "leak" the name of a CIA operative that was actively engaged in operations, compromised her and everyone she had contact with, but that wasn't treason?
In the U.S., rich people don't commit treason (or any other crimes) unless they're caught with the cocaine straws up their noses.
Even if we made the drunk driving limit a strict 0.0 blood alcohol level, we'd only remove a third of fatalities.
That one-third of fatalities is 100-percent preventable. Forcing someone who's been convicted of DUI to be 100-percent sober before driving again does not, in my eyes, constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
How do you figure it's misuse? It was used in that headline to separate two items on a list. Since there are still a few print-edition papers here and there, it still makes sense to use commas in place of "and" for headlines.
I play single-player games exclusively. I don't always want "challenging." What I do want from a game is to be immersed in it. For example, after I bought Mass Effect 2, I played that shit for almost five months straight. Yeah, I know, I don't get out much.
Another nice quality about single player games is that, well, I don't have to put up with total fuckwads.
I drive a hybrid, and I find I get just the right noise level by wedging a playing card between my tire and the wheel well.
Hi, journalist writing here, and yes, you can copyright the above description precisely because it's a description. What you can't do is copyright the facts of what happened.
So let's say Journalist A writes the description you provided. Journalist B writes, "One person was injured today when a car ran a red light at the intersection of A and B streets." They're both in the clear.
Now, let's make things a bit muddier. Journalist C writes almost the exact same thing as Journalist B. Does that mean Journalist C violated Journalist B's copyright. Not necessarily -- maybe the two journalists both follow the rule, "If it bleeds, it leads": if someone was killed, you lead with the death; if someone was injured, you lead with the injury. But the kicker is the word almost -- if two reports are identical, Journalist C could be in trouble, not so much for violating Journalist B's copyright but for plagiarism. Successive paragraphs would give you more evidence one way or the other: did both stories give the same information in the same order? Were the same direct and indirect quotes used in both articles?
Anyway, tl;dr: You're right that you can't copyright a fact, but any description, which is by definition a creative retelling of facts, can be copyrighted.
FTFY.
And if you've been in the military, you know how chronically unreliable their computer networks are at most installations. I work at one of the military service academies, and the network here goes down about once a week on average, usually for 20-30 minutes but sometimes for two or three hours. Downrange, it's even worse: I was lucky to have dialup speed when I was deployed to Iraq in '08.
So sooner or later, your network is going to go down, and when that happens, you have one of two possible outcomes. If users have local Documents folders, they can at least do some stuff while they wait for the network to come back online. If you've forced them to use network storage for their Documents folders, then they're completely dead in the water, and you may as well send them home.
And yet, hovering over the link generally gives you ye olde Goatse web address. At least, that was the case before URL shorteners became common. And when I see a bit.ly URL on Slashdot, I don't even go near it, because it's liable to (a) log me out, (b) goatse me or (c) RickRoll me.
It's a matter of context and making a judgment call. To use the ubiquitous car analogy, clicking a URL you don't recognize is somewhat like running a yellow light: 99.9 percent of the time, it's perfectly fine, but there's going to be the one time that it isn't, and then you're fucked. If you're not sure about a particular URL, Google it (car analogy: stop and wait for the light to turn green).
And how frequently do you click on random URLs from people you don't know now that you've had that experience?
Grandma doesn't care what a URL is, only that she can get to the sites she needs. If Firefox 4 is intuitive to her, then it doesn't owe me any apology.
The short: When in a foreign country, do not violate their laws. They 'purchased' something in a country where it was illegal. That illegal property was seized. Their fault for violating local laws.
Granting exceptions for countries like China that operate Great Firewalls, how do you suppose to determine where a "property" on the Internet begins and ends? Let's say I'm in the U.S. and surf to your site, hosted in Finland, that contains content in violation of U.S. laws -- do the Feds have the authority to seize your domain name or have U.S.-based DNS servers reroute your site's traffic to a "We have pwned this site?" Web page? I don't know how you'll answer, but I know the right answer is "no."
Just like any other career field, there's how it works in an academic setting, i.e., how it should work; and then there's how it actually works.
She's 16. I think that might be important, too.