You seem to be saying that the trained police get to be impulsive and act out of fear, while untrained civilians are required to act responsibly and intelligently, and obey orders regardless of whether they can hear or perform them. Do you think this is rational?
You do have a right to build up to 500' on your property (zoning laws permitting). In that case, you're using the airspace up to 500'. If you have an ordinary house, you're not using the airspace up to 100', so by FAA regs that's usable airspace under certain conditions. Note that there are laws about building things that do not involve FAA regs. The FAA doesn't care whether your structure is legal as long as it's not 500' high.
Clinton did not deliberately put classified information on a system not cleared for it. I don't know the law involved, and am not a lawyer, but nobody's pointed me at some other person who did that and got significant criminal prosecution (there was a case of a misdemeanor charge that was dropped). I'd be interested in any more names of people who negligently got classified material where it wasn't supposed to be.
The point was that violations of that type are not handled through the legal system, and so there was no precedent for prosecuting Clinton. That would be just as applicable to you or me as it is to her.
There was widespread unrest on the day you mentioned, and some may have been caused by the video (and nobody's claimed to me that the video was in any way illegal). The Benghazi attackers used the unrest as cover, so it wouldn't be clear where security forces were needed. As far as anyone's told me, no US citizen broke the law with respect to the attack.
And, of course, all of this is irrelevant to laws about trespassing, drones, and the shooting of drones and/or trespassers. There are places where you'll get in trouble for trespassing, because the laws tend to be different in those places. Not all trespassing is illegal in the same way, and there, as you have pointed out, jerks who are not politicians who will prosecute to the max.
I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy just because I'm at home. Anything I do that's visible from public land doesn't have any expectation of privacy. I have a reasonable expectation when I'm in my home. That's why it's illegal for the police to do an IR scan of my house without a warrant.
I have been a member of the unorganized militia, being male in reasonable health most of the time, and am no longer in it since I'm over 45. I'm not that fond of guns, and never got training with one. I've never had any sort of military training. Any militia with people like me in it is not going to be "well-regulated". I do want to have all my Constitutional rights, even the ones I don't care about in practice (nobody has ever tried to quarter troops on the homes of anyone I know, for example).
How about downloading and running random executables from reputable sites? Most putatively reputable sites display ads from some sort of service, and don't make sure they don't contain malware. There was one incident not too long ago where a lot of people were hit from the New York Times site.
Why does anyone worried about privacy, security, or really "owning" their computer run windows anymore?
Four reasons.
There is no satisfactory replacement. Linux isn't going to be usable until the desktop settles down some, there's a package manager that runs on most versions (perhaps with a converter to translate it into either a.deb or a.rpm), and more applications are available. Mac OSX is limited to a very few computer models, not including low-end ones, and there's limits on the available applications.
Microsoft produces Microsoft Office, and getting off that is difficult, because of the network effect, and some of the more advanced features, which are not duplicated in LibreOffice. There's other Microsoft software that is well designed for large business use, and AFAICT there aren't good F/OS equivalents.
Aside from Microsoft, there's lots of third-party apps written for MS Windows and nothing else. A large number of companies have dependencies on some of these applications. The general rule for selecting an OS is to get what runs the applications you want.
Inertia. Except for security, the issues you list are fairly new. It's going to take a long time to move over. There's lots of applications that would have to be rewritten to run on Linux or Mac OSX. There's really not that much pressure to move as long as large companies can still use W7 or W8.1.
What you're looking for is full understanding (since you don't want to limit English to special forms), which means full human-level intelligence, which is often called "strong AI". Despite many decades of research, we're nowhere near that yet, and we don't even know how to do it.
The hard part of programming is to transform something ambiguous (often written in English) to something formal and unambiguous. Once you can do that, you find that there's lots of better formal languages than English.
Heck, try the average English speaker on legalese, which is a way of using the language to try to be clear and unambiguous. That's the best-case scenario for English as a programming language.
One characteristic of C is that it's designed to write an OS in, including the kernel, so it has some low-level constructs (like pointer arithmetic) that make it much easier to make hard-to-find bugs than most languages. There are languages that are basically extensions to C, perhaps with different syntax, that will run as fast (C++ comes to mind).
What do you mean by different statistics? Java produces JVM instructions, which are typically compiled into the local machine language. C is usually directly compiled into native machine language.
How simple do you want to make it? Many computers have opcodes that don't match up to another computer's opcodes. Dropping back to my early computers, the Motorola 6809 had an 8x8 multiply instruction, which the Z80 needed a routine for. An IBM 370 program had different setup requirements from a CDC Cyber.
Very little that's in the Constitution and applicable today is ignored, although there have been very overreaching interpretations (like the interstate commerce clause).
I'd imagine that the usual response to a systems failure would be to call someone, not have the cashier spend five minutes restoring everything. That would be the crash plan (along with backups and other support). So, until you can get to the business, they're down due to an OS update. This appears to be a lot more common than in previous versions of MS Windows, so I don' see how it could be considered the store's fault.
Microsoft software - it's not just good, it's just good enough! People have relied on this in the past, and Microsoft has generally not screwed them over like this.
von Mellinthin and von Manstein essentially wrote their memoirs without the ability to properly check things, and in particular knew considerably less of the other side of the hill than Seaton. I'm going by what Glantz wrote, which is probably the best current source on Kursk.
The German attack simply bounced on the north side of the salient, but the southern prong was not stopped by the Red Army; instead, it was stopped on German initiative because what could be achieved was no longer worth the cost. That and the loss ratios were in the German favor.
Strategically, as you point out, (a) it was a bad idea to attack there, and (b) the fact that the Germans wore down their mobile forces while badly hurting something around half of the Soviet mobile forces made it a German loss overall.
I'm not seeing why you say "inadequate". I can log into MyATT and cut off data from individual phone numbers, so I had warning and could have stopped it.
Fifty years ago, we had land lines, and about the only charge we had was long distance, which we had control over because it was limited to the phone in the house. All the rest of the shenanigans are more recent.
These religions also tend to pick up temporary or local beliefs and practices and fossilize them in made-up dogma. I know a Muslim who says he didn't realize what Islam was until he came to the US and found it without all the tribal superstitions.
A lot of religious people focus on the joy and love rather than the fear. Religion can be very good for your emotional health and ability to cope. I often think wistfully that it would be very nice to have a church with a theology I could actually believe in. However, I am the person that a possibly existing God hypothetically made, and I'm not going to find such a church.
A lot of people also seem to reject the idea that the Universe is basically more complicated than they can imagine (typically without trying to understand it), and God is a nice convenient three-letter placeholder to prevent the necessity of trying to learn something or appreciate the wonder of the Universe.
What we've really found is that we need to reject the God of the Gaps to make progress in science and engineering. If we call something a miracle, we can't learn anything about the world from it, since a miracle by definition is an exception to the laws of the Universe. If we reject the idea of a miracle and try to figure out what physically happened to create that effect, we might learn something. Over time, those "might learn something"s add up, while the "cant learn anything"s keep summing to zero.
There's still a great many things we don't understand, and undoubtedly a greater number of things we don't know well enough to realize we don't understand them. There's still lots of room for a God of the Gaps. What causes the Universe to expand? We figure what's going on, and make up a label "dark energy" to define what we mean by it if we ever learn anything significant about it. No physicist says that it's just that God wants the Universe to expand for some ineffable purpose, because every physicist realizes, perhaps not consciously, that that sort of reasoning goes nowhere.
Slashdot Mirror
If you mean that people who want to become police officers to help them be bullies don't apply, that alone would solve a lot of the problem.
You seem to be saying that the trained police get to be impulsive and act out of fear, while untrained civilians are required to act responsibly and intelligently, and obey orders regardless of whether they can hear or perform them. Do you think this is rational?
You do have a right to build up to 500' on your property (zoning laws permitting). In that case, you're using the airspace up to 500'. If you have an ordinary house, you're not using the airspace up to 100', so by FAA regs that's usable airspace under certain conditions. Note that there are laws about building things that do not involve FAA regs. The FAA doesn't care whether your structure is legal as long as it's not 500' high.
Clinton did not deliberately put classified information on a system not cleared for it. I don't know the law involved, and am not a lawyer, but nobody's pointed me at some other person who did that and got significant criminal prosecution (there was a case of a misdemeanor charge that was dropped). I'd be interested in any more names of people who negligently got classified material where it wasn't supposed to be.
The point was that violations of that type are not handled through the legal system, and so there was no precedent for prosecuting Clinton. That would be just as applicable to you or me as it is to her.
There was widespread unrest on the day you mentioned, and some may have been caused by the video (and nobody's claimed to me that the video was in any way illegal). The Benghazi attackers used the unrest as cover, so it wouldn't be clear where security forces were needed. As far as anyone's told me, no US citizen broke the law with respect to the attack.
And, of course, all of this is irrelevant to laws about trespassing, drones, and the shooting of drones and/or trespassers. There are places where you'll get in trouble for trespassing, because the laws tend to be different in those places. Not all trespassing is illegal in the same way, and there, as you have pointed out, jerks who are not politicians who will prosecute to the max.
I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy just because I'm at home. Anything I do that's visible from public land doesn't have any expectation of privacy. I have a reasonable expectation when I'm in my home. That's why it's illegal for the police to do an IR scan of my house without a warrant.
I have been a member of the unorganized militia, being male in reasonable health most of the time, and am no longer in it since I'm over 45. I'm not that fond of guns, and never got training with one. I've never had any sort of military training. Any militia with people like me in it is not going to be "well-regulated". I do want to have all my Constitutional rights, even the ones I don't care about in practice (nobody has ever tried to quarter troops on the homes of anyone I know, for example).
How about downloading and running random executables from reputable sites? Most putatively reputable sites display ads from some sort of service, and don't make sure they don't contain malware. There was one incident not too long ago where a lot of people were hit from the New York Times site.
A zero-day exploit might not get root/admin rights on a system. It may be able to use local bugs to get those.
Four reasons.
There is no satisfactory replacement. Linux isn't going to be usable until the desktop settles down some, there's a package manager that runs on most versions (perhaps with a converter to translate it into either a .deb or a .rpm), and more applications are available. Mac OSX is limited to a very few computer models, not including low-end ones, and there's limits on the available applications.
Microsoft produces Microsoft Office, and getting off that is difficult, because of the network effect, and some of the more advanced features, which are not duplicated in LibreOffice. There's other Microsoft software that is well designed for large business use, and AFAICT there aren't good F/OS equivalents.
Aside from Microsoft, there's lots of third-party apps written for MS Windows and nothing else. A large number of companies have dependencies on some of these applications. The general rule for selecting an OS is to get what runs the applications you want.
Inertia. Except for security, the issues you list are fairly new. It's going to take a long time to move over. There's lots of applications that would have to be rewritten to run on Linux or Mac OSX. There's really not that much pressure to move as long as large companies can still use W7 or W8.1.
What you're looking for is full understanding (since you don't want to limit English to special forms), which means full human-level intelligence, which is often called "strong AI". Despite many decades of research, we're nowhere near that yet, and we don't even know how to do it.
The hard part of programming is to transform something ambiguous (often written in English) to something formal and unambiguous. Once you can do that, you find that there's lots of better formal languages than English.
Heck, try the average English speaker on legalese, which is a way of using the language to try to be clear and unambiguous. That's the best-case scenario for English as a programming language.
One characteristic of C is that it's designed to write an OS in, including the kernel, so it has some low-level constructs (like pointer arithmetic) that make it much easier to make hard-to-find bugs than most languages. There are languages that are basically extensions to C, perhaps with different syntax, that will run as fast (C++ comes to mind).
What do you mean by different statistics? Java produces JVM instructions, which are typically compiled into the local machine language. C is usually directly compiled into native machine language.
How simple do you want to make it? Many computers have opcodes that don't match up to another computer's opcodes. Dropping back to my early computers, the Motorola 6809 had an 8x8 multiply instruction, which the Z80 needed a routine for. An IBM 370 program had different setup requirements from a CDC Cyber.
Very little that's in the Constitution and applicable today is ignored, although there have been very overreaching interpretations (like the interstate commerce clause).
Not comparable. Microsoft has been pretty reliable over the years.
I'd imagine that the usual response to a systems failure would be to call someone, not have the cashier spend five minutes restoring everything. That would be the crash plan (along with backups and other support). So, until you can get to the business, they're down due to an OS update. This appears to be a lot more common than in previous versions of MS Windows, so I don' see how it could be considered the store's fault.
Microsoft software - it's not just good, it's just good enough! People have relied on this in the past, and Microsoft has generally not screwed them over like this.
von Mellinthin and von Manstein essentially wrote their memoirs without the ability to properly check things, and in particular knew considerably less of the other side of the hill than Seaton. I'm going by what Glantz wrote, which is probably the best current source on Kursk.
The German attack simply bounced on the north side of the salient, but the southern prong was not stopped by the Red Army; instead, it was stopped on German initiative because what could be achieved was no longer worth the cost. That and the loss ratios were in the German favor.
Strategically, as you point out, (a) it was a bad idea to attack there, and (b) the fact that the Germans wore down their mobile forces while badly hurting something around half of the Soviet mobile forces made it a German loss overall.
I'm not seeing why you say "inadequate". I can log into MyATT and cut off data from individual phone numbers, so I had warning and could have stopped it.
Fifty years ago, we had land lines, and about the only charge we had was long distance, which we had control over because it was limited to the phone in the house. All the rest of the shenanigans are more recent.
These religions also tend to pick up temporary or local beliefs and practices and fossilize them in made-up dogma. I know a Muslim who says he didn't realize what Islam was until he came to the US and found it without all the tribal superstitions.
So what are females of your religion good for? Isn't keeping them out of the priesthood at least a little cruel?
A lot of religious people focus on the joy and love rather than the fear. Religion can be very good for your emotional health and ability to cope. I often think wistfully that it would be very nice to have a church with a theology I could actually believe in. However, I am the person that a possibly existing God hypothetically made, and I'm not going to find such a church.
A lot of people also seem to reject the idea that the Universe is basically more complicated than they can imagine (typically without trying to understand it), and God is a nice convenient three-letter placeholder to prevent the necessity of trying to learn something or appreciate the wonder of the Universe.
For all you or I know, God did do it. It won't stop us from assuming it was a perfectly natural phenomenon and trying to figure what it was.
What we've really found is that we need to reject the God of the Gaps to make progress in science and engineering. If we call something a miracle, we can't learn anything about the world from it, since a miracle by definition is an exception to the laws of the Universe. If we reject the idea of a miracle and try to figure out what physically happened to create that effect, we might learn something. Over time, those "might learn something"s add up, while the "cant learn anything"s keep summing to zero.
There's still a great many things we don't understand, and undoubtedly a greater number of things we don't know well enough to realize we don't understand them. There's still lots of room for a God of the Gaps. What causes the Universe to expand? We figure what's going on, and make up a label "dark energy" to define what we mean by it if we ever learn anything significant about it. No physicist says that it's just that God wants the Universe to expand for some ineffable purpose, because every physicist realizes, perhaps not consciously, that that sort of reasoning goes nowhere.