I always heard "The exception proves the rule." This makes sense if you use "proves" in a very old-fashioned sense meaning "tests", or if what's important is the existence of the exception. If I run a storefront, and put up a sign saying "Emergency - store closed 1-7 PM today", I'm implying that the store is normally open 1-7 PM on that day.
This appears to have been an action by a very, very large botnet. Blacklisting the IPs would mean identifying them, separating Joe who just wants to read what Krebs has to say from Jim who's part of a botnet.
Michigan can't interfere with the selling of cars from a California company to someone in Michigan. It doesn't matter what else is going on, that's interstate commerce, and the states can't do anything about it.
Lawsuits can be an effective way to find out what the law means. In this case, the question is about laws superior to state statutes and whether they mean it's illegal to ban direct sales.
McDonald's isn't a unified company. The main company sells franchises, which are effectively separate businesses with very extensive contractual ties, which is not that different from how car dealerships work.
Any halfway decent intelligence service will know where enemy installations are. The blurring doesn't hide the fact that they're there, it stops people from getting a detailed map of the installation.
I pay for a real Internet connection (40 Mb/s currently; if that proves insufficient I'll upgrade). It's pretty reliable, but the DSL I had before that wasn't, and there might be a couple of days without home ISP service. Being able to tether during those days was very convenient.
I have an AT&T account, and a family member pushed us over our 15 GB one month. I kept getting notifications: "you're getting close to using your 15 GB" "you've gone over your fifteen GB and we're charging you for another GB", "your'e getting close to using up the GB we just sold you", "you used it up and we're charging you for another one" I don't know how Verizon does it, but AT&T gives me plenty of warning about using excess data in time for me to do something if I want.
The charge for data transit is pure profit for Verizon only if the network infrastructure they spend money on is pure loss. Obviously, Verizon isn't going to take that sort of financial hit without getting something for it, so they're going to have to charge their customers somehow. Verizon has to decide how much bandwidth to build, and the more people use the more Verizon has to supply and pay for.
So, how does Verizon decide how much to build? Mostly, Verizon will estimate what it needs to supply at peak periods, and build for that. If people use more bandwidth in peak hours, Verizon will have to spend more money on infrastructure, so Verizon's costs are based on how much bandwidth people use during peak hours. If you decide you're going to download a gigabyte of stuff every day during peak hours, Verizon has to build enough bandwidth to handle your gigabyte just because of what you do, and it's reasonable to charge you for that - or, to be specific, charge you per gigabyte.
It gets more complicated with nonpeak hours, and as it happens if the network is far from being saturated it doesn't cost Verizon much of anything to give you more bandwidth to use. However, if this bandwidth is available with no charge for data transfer, people who like to move a lot of data will do it at the no-charge times, and they'll likely become peak hours.
The question is how customers are to be billed. If it's a flat rate, then there's no incentive not to download everything on Project Gutenberg at peak times, and Verizon has to raise everybody's rates. It's a classic Tragedy of the Commons. If Verizon charges you for data transfer, that collects more or less what it costs them to service you. It's not necessarily fair to have the same rate for peak vs. non-peak transfers, but it has the advantage of making the billing simpler and more understandable.
GR recognizes time. It's a dimension that's treated differently from space dimensions in certain ways We know of nothing that says that FTL (which is the same thing as time travel in SR) is impossible. There are reasons to believe it might require some form of matter with a negative mass, and while we have no knowledge of such a thing we know how it would behave if it existed, and there's no actual reason that we know why it's impossible.
Ways to travel between stars without going faster than light? There are some, but they're all pretty slow.
A self-sustaining generation ship accelerated to 1% of the speed of light would arrive at the nearest star in a bit over 400 years. This is one way to spread through the galaxy, but you've got to be patient. Variations include some sort of suspended animation or sending genetic material to recreate the species at the other end or just being very long-lived and not easily bored (sufficiently advanced robots may qualify).
Ways to get up to high speeds include using thermonuclear explosions to provide thrust (the 1960s Project Orion), something like solar sails with assist from the launch systems (makes slowing down at the other end a bit hairy), or having an extremely powerful and compact power source to accelerate reaction mass to ridiculous velocities (matter and anti-matter combining could work).
If you can go faster than light, there will be inertial reference frames in which you are traveling backward in time. If Special Relativity holds, you can go FTL in different reference frames and achieve time travel.
Assume two spaceships, each with a properly tuned ansible (instantaneous communicator from LeGuin's science fiction). They pass each other at time T, moving at relative speeds so that the observed time dilation figure is 0.5 (about 88% of the speed of light). This means that, from the point of view of each ship, time is passing half as fast on the other. Both agree on what time T is.
The guy on Ship A spills his coffee onto himself at T + one hour. He's annoyed by this, so he sends a message to Ship B saying what he did. When does Ship B get it? If it's instantaneous, then A should perceive it being sent at the time of transmission, which is T + one hour. He observes ship B as aging one-half as fast, so from his point of view his T+ one hour is Ship B's T + thirty minutes. The guy on ship B echoes the transmission at T plus thirty minutes. From his point of view, it is T plus fifteen minutes on Ship A, so the guy in Ship A receives a message at T plus fifteen minutes describing what will happen at T plus one hour.
The above follows from the basic principles of Special Relativity. It is possible to imagine a Universe that doesn't work that way, but in that case Special Relativity does not hold. Very simply, if you have FTL and Special Relativity, you have time travel.
Sadly, I suspect that isn't true in all jurisdictions that have some Facebook activity, or at least that a misguided prosecutor could misinterpret the law to cover it.
Child porn is defined by what it shows rather than the effects it has on any individual person. Ten-year-olds playing with a slip and slide while wearing minimal swimsuits does not normally count, because neither shows nor hints at sexual activity, and all the important bits are covered.
If the enemy expects an attack at dawn, they'll be ready for it. Then they'll lose alertness and be surprised when you attack an hour and a half later, assuming your preparations won't be spotted in that time. Strategy is odd that way: it's often worthwhile to do things in an inferior but unexpected way. Also, Kursk was in some ways a German victory, although it left the Germans a lot worse off strategically than before. (The Germans smashed roughly half the Soviet mobile forces, at the cost of seriously degrading their own armored forces. This left the Red Army with the only real functioning large mobile forces in the theater.)
Of course, non-criminals generally don't expect a dawn police raid, so this isn't entirely applicable.
In the US, at least, a technology can't be banned because it has illegal uses, as long as it has significant legal uses. Much Tor traffic is legal, just anonymized.
If we start banning things because they have substantial illegal use, how about starting with cars? Syringes? Sure, it will kill a number of diabetics, but that's better than letting junkies use them, right?
The lingo already has adopted a lot of violent terms. Computers can crash or bomb, while remaining physically intact. They can perform illegal operations that aren't against Federal or state law. You kill processes, which aren't actually living things. "Rape" would fit in..
By that definition, no computer is ever bricked. You can always get one back to working by replacing components as necessary, possibly including the motherboard, and making a fresh OS install. I'd happily use "bricked" to describe one that was completely useless and required component-level replacement or wiping the disk.
Slashdot Mirror
I always heard "The exception proves the rule." This makes sense if you use "proves" in a very old-fashioned sense meaning "tests", or if what's important is the existence of the exception. If I run a storefront, and put up a sign saying "Emergency - store closed 1-7 PM today", I'm implying that the store is normally open 1-7 PM on that day.
Any service can be taken down with a DDoS attack from a sufficiently large botnet. Are you contending there are no major players?
This appears to have been an action by a very, very large botnet. Blacklisting the IPs would mean identifying them, separating Joe who just wants to read what Krebs has to say from Jim who's part of a botnet.
Why would you need to spoof IPs when you're using a botnet for a DDoS?
Michigan can't interfere with the selling of cars from a California company to someone in Michigan. It doesn't matter what else is going on, that's interstate commerce, and the states can't do anything about it.
Lawsuits can be an effective way to find out what the law means. In this case, the question is about laws superior to state statutes and whether they mean it's illegal to ban direct sales.
McDonald's isn't a unified company. The main company sells franchises, which are effectively separate businesses with very extensive contractual ties, which is not that different from how car dealerships work.
Any halfway decent intelligence service will know where enemy installations are. The blurring doesn't hide the fact that they're there, it stops people from getting a detailed map of the installation.
I pay for a real Internet connection (40 Mb/s currently; if that proves insufficient I'll upgrade). It's pretty reliable, but the DSL I had before that wasn't, and there might be a couple of days without home ISP service. Being able to tether during those days was very convenient.
I have an AT&T account, and a family member pushed us over our 15 GB one month. I kept getting notifications: "you're getting close to using your 15 GB" "you've gone over your fifteen GB and we're charging you for another GB", "your'e getting close to using up the GB we just sold you", "you used it up and we're charging you for another one" I don't know how Verizon does it, but AT&T gives me plenty of warning about using excess data in time for me to do something if I want.
In other words, if everyone refrains from doing something you personally disapprove of, costs will go down.
The charge for data transit is pure profit for Verizon only if the network infrastructure they spend money on is pure loss. Obviously, Verizon isn't going to take that sort of financial hit without getting something for it, so they're going to have to charge their customers somehow. Verizon has to decide how much bandwidth to build, and the more people use the more Verizon has to supply and pay for.
So, how does Verizon decide how much to build? Mostly, Verizon will estimate what it needs to supply at peak periods, and build for that. If people use more bandwidth in peak hours, Verizon will have to spend more money on infrastructure, so Verizon's costs are based on how much bandwidth people use during peak hours. If you decide you're going to download a gigabyte of stuff every day during peak hours, Verizon has to build enough bandwidth to handle your gigabyte just because of what you do, and it's reasonable to charge you for that - or, to be specific, charge you per gigabyte.
It gets more complicated with nonpeak hours, and as it happens if the network is far from being saturated it doesn't cost Verizon much of anything to give you more bandwidth to use. However, if this bandwidth is available with no charge for data transfer, people who like to move a lot of data will do it at the no-charge times, and they'll likely become peak hours.
The question is how customers are to be billed. If it's a flat rate, then there's no incentive not to download everything on Project Gutenberg at peak times, and Verizon has to raise everybody's rates. It's a classic Tragedy of the Commons. If Verizon charges you for data transfer, that collects more or less what it costs them to service you. It's not necessarily fair to have the same rate for peak vs. non-peak transfers, but it has the advantage of making the billing simpler and more understandable.
GR recognizes time. It's a dimension that's treated differently from space dimensions in certain ways We know of nothing that says that FTL (which is the same thing as time travel in SR) is impossible. There are reasons to believe it might require some form of matter with a negative mass, and while we have no knowledge of such a thing we know how it would behave if it existed, and there's no actual reason that we know why it's impossible.
Ways to travel between stars without going faster than light? There are some, but they're all pretty slow.
A self-sustaining generation ship accelerated to 1% of the speed of light would arrive at the nearest star in a bit over 400 years. This is one way to spread through the galaxy, but you've got to be patient. Variations include some sort of suspended animation or sending genetic material to recreate the species at the other end or just being very long-lived and not easily bored (sufficiently advanced robots may qualify).
Ways to get up to high speeds include using thermonuclear explosions to provide thrust (the 1960s Project Orion), something like solar sails with assist from the launch systems (makes slowing down at the other end a bit hairy), or having an extremely powerful and compact power source to accelerate reaction mass to ridiculous velocities (matter and anti-matter combining could work).
If you can go faster than light, there will be inertial reference frames in which you are traveling backward in time. If Special Relativity holds, you can go FTL in different reference frames and achieve time travel.
Assume two spaceships, each with a properly tuned ansible (instantaneous communicator from LeGuin's science fiction). They pass each other at time T, moving at relative speeds so that the observed time dilation figure is 0.5 (about 88% of the speed of light). This means that, from the point of view of each ship, time is passing half as fast on the other. Both agree on what time T is.
The guy on Ship A spills his coffee onto himself at T + one hour. He's annoyed by this, so he sends a message to Ship B saying what he did. When does Ship B get it? If it's instantaneous, then A should perceive it being sent at the time of transmission, which is T + one hour. He observes ship B as aging one-half as fast, so from his point of view his T+ one hour is Ship B's T + thirty minutes. The guy on ship B echoes the transmission at T plus thirty minutes. From his point of view, it is T plus fifteen minutes on Ship A, so the guy in Ship A receives a message at T plus fifteen minutes describing what will happen at T plus one hour.
The above follows from the basic principles of Special Relativity. It is possible to imagine a Universe that doesn't work that way, but in that case Special Relativity does not hold. Very simply, if you have FTL and Special Relativity, you have time travel.
I'm on several Yahoo groups, although the only ones formed in the past several years are obvious spam that someone enrolled me in.
Sadly, I suspect that isn't true in all jurisdictions that have some Facebook activity, or at least that a misguided prosecutor could misinterpret the law to cover it.
Child porn is defined by what it shows rather than the effects it has on any individual person. Ten-year-olds playing with a slip and slide while wearing minimal swimsuits does not normally count, because neither shows nor hints at sexual activity, and all the important bits are covered.
If the enemy expects an attack at dawn, they'll be ready for it. Then they'll lose alertness and be surprised when you attack an hour and a half later, assuming your preparations won't be spotted in that time. Strategy is odd that way: it's often worthwhile to do things in an inferior but unexpected way. Also, Kursk was in some ways a German victory, although it left the Germans a lot worse off strategically than before. (The Germans smashed roughly half the Soviet mobile forces, at the cost of seriously degrading their own armored forces. This left the Red Army with the only real functioning large mobile forces in the theater.)
Of course, non-criminals generally don't expect a dawn police raid, so this isn't entirely applicable.
In the US, at least, a technology can't be banned because it has illegal uses, as long as it has significant legal uses. Much Tor traffic is legal, just anonymized.
If we start banning things because they have substantial illegal use, how about starting with cars? Syringes? Sure, it will kill a number of diabetics, but that's better than letting junkies use them, right?
I believe the FBI is familiar with Tor, but not every police department is.
Did the other person really agree to the contract, or were they tricked into doing something that implies assent?
The lingo already has adopted a lot of violent terms. Computers can crash or bomb, while remaining physically intact. They can perform illegal operations that aren't against Federal or state law. You kill processes, which aren't actually living things. "Rape" would fit in..
What does qualify as bricking in your case? Blowing the mobo apparently doesn't, since you can order another and install it.
By that definition, no computer is ever bricked. You can always get one back to working by replacing components as necessary, possibly including the motherboard, and making a fresh OS install. I'd happily use "bricked" to describe one that was completely useless and required component-level replacement or wiping the disk.