The entire left/right scale is a tad silly simply because it stuffs a whole bunch of utterly unrelated ideals into a binary system. You can have a free market capitalist who believes in gay marriage, abortions, and a lack of sex and drug regulation. You can also have someone who advocates socialist economics want to outlaw those very same things.
Interestingly, there's a two-dimensional analysis that works a LOT better than the one-dimensional left-right scale.
Divide issues into "economic behavior" versus "social and private behavior" and measure how much a person things the government should control such behavior versus how much the individual should decide for himself. Correlation is high within each set of issues.
Now sum the opinions on how much freedom versus control the person wants for each of the issues in the groups to create two summary numbers. Plot the numbers as a position on a two-dimensional graph. And the various common ideologies spread out in a clarifying way.
- Conservatives end up near one corner (economic freedom, social.private control).
- Liberals end up near the opposite corner (social/private freedom, economic control).
- Libertarians near a third corner (freedom, freedom).
- Authoritarians near the fourth (control, control). Rotate it 45 degrees so it's a diamond, with liberals on the left and conservatives on the right (libertarians usually put themselves at the top B-) ) and a number of things become much clearer than they do in a left-right analysis:
- Totalitarians end up at the authoritarian point, fascists up the edge a bit toward conservative, communists and then socialists up the other edge toward liberal, but all clustered together.
- Similarly, anarchists end up at the libertarian point, libertarian minarchists near it (and generally a tad down the edge toward "conservative").
- Various flavors of conservatives end up in different spots near the conservative corner, of liberals/progressives near the liberal corner.
- And the wishy-washy sheep end up in the "centerist" region near (of course) the center.
Thus it becomes clear why you hear things like "I'm so far right I'm coming back from the left" or vice-versa from libertarians, who aren't anywhere near the middle of the line between the liberal and conservative corners. And why communists and fascists seem so much alike.
The analysis has been independently discovered/invented a number of times. But the most widespread version is called "The Nolan Chart" after the person who is arguably the earliest inventor to formalize it and give it wide disclosure.
Wikipedia has a fine article on the Nolan Chart. Search for "The World's Smallest Political Quiz" to find a do-it-yourself tool for finding your own ideology's place on it. Or go to nolanchart.com to see blogs by a number of commentators (mainly, but not all, in the libertarian section) who have chosen to take the test and display their results along with their commentaries as a form of full disclosure.
It is obsurd to think that the car came into existance through millions of random design mutations that somehow did not cause it to blow up. The only reasonable explanation for the existance of the car is that it was designed and created by some intelligent being. Therefore God exists.
What's doubly funny is that cars, trains, and (especially) planes, DID "come into existence through [a large number of semi-]random design mutations, some of which did indeed cause them to fail in spectacular ways. (Motion picture cameras were rolling for some of the more spectacular early aircraft foulups, which are interesting viewing.) This despite their designs being planned by intelligent beings.
So evolution and a creator (or set of them) are not mutually exclusive.
Of course you won't find any religions going with that (even if some of them admit to evolution AFTER "the creation"). To do so would be inconsistent with the omniscient/omnipotent claims about the nature of God.
And I suppose "the programmer whose entire system design works right the first time" is as good a definition of God as any other I've heard.
As one of my colleagues once remarked: "If God created life, and DNA is the program for it, are introns the comments? And if so, are they 'holy writ'?"
The life-extension movement has been asking for this approach for at LEAST a half-century.
By the way: Watch for the government to try to restrict this research, or use of its results, to "save social security".
Which shouldn't really be an issue: A good set of treatments for aging would lead to people of larger calendar age not just hanging in there in a sickly state consuming large amounts of medical treatment - but retaining (or being restored to) good health and able to return to work and create the resources needed to support them (and in style).
The network MUST be neutral EXACTLY for this reason - the ISP cannot prioritize Movie service provider 1 above Movie service provider 2, or VoIP provider 1 above VoIP provider 2.
Agreed.
However the ISP MUST prioritize stream traffic (such as VoIP) above traffic such as file transfers (which can be slowed down but will crank itself up until it clogs the narrowest bottleneck) for both to work well on a common transport.
Also: It's good for him to apply other, compensating, penalties to streams: Bandwidth limits are OK (they won't hurt streams but will keep file transfers from masquerading as streams to get better service). Drop packets that had been delayed until they're no longer timely. Etc. This keeps streams from interfering too much with file transfers and the like.
My point is that you can't implement "neutrality" by treating all PACKETS the same if you want diverse services to all work on a converged infrastructure.
I've tried to use Wine to run some windows-only applications and for some I ran into a snag: They use Windows DLLs which are not shipped with the Wine distribution.
In a recent case I had to hunt down several DLLs - from different sites - to get an application to install and then to get it to run. And at that point I hit a wall: It used the Jet database. Though I had a DLL that implemented the interface, I was unable to figure out how to get it the database to operate. I'm still not sure whether I got an inconsistent set of DLLs or missed an install step.
What I would have liked was a set of pages on the WineHQ web site giving:
- A list of what DLLs satisfy what dangling linkages.
- A pointer to a place, or set of places, where a consistent set of DLLs that work with Wine could be downloaded.
- Instructions on installing DLLs.
- Instructions on installing and/or initializing any support packages (such as Jet?) that need more setup than just stashing the DLLs in the appropriate directory.
Unfortunately I could not find such a handy reference.
Q: Is there such a reference? If so, what is the URL? If not, could the project please create one?
If you can afford it... 18 USC 922(o) prohibits the transfer or possession of a machinegun which was not grandfathered, i.e. legally possessed before 1986. Scalia's opinion suggests that this ban would likely be upheld by the court.
However machineguns (along with a number of other things - noise suppressors, cane guns, wallet guns, etc.) WERE in common use before the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. That act put a confiscatory tax on them which was implemented with draconian red tape.
It was the law that took them out of common use.
Seems to me that the law could be challenged on that basis, at least for a sufficient time to find out whether citizens would again put them into common use absent such a law.
Making "in common use" a test for whether a type of weapon can be banned has a number of flaws. In particluar:
- When a class of weapons becomes unpopular for a time the government can ban it, preventing it from coming back into favor. This creates a ratchet effect, allowing progressively more weapon types to be banned.
- It lets the government block the adoption of improved weapon types, preventing their adoption as a "common use" weapon. (Could the founders have intended the amendment to allow that? After they'd just fought a war where their use of ultra-modern rifled guns gave them a range advantage over the British smoothbores?) New weapon types could only "come into common use" by massive scofflaw activity by the population.
So this part of the decision has several weak spots where it can be attacked, and the recognition of the right broadened, in future cases.
And Bryer's dissent makes it clear that this is not a deep secret, but that the legal community is already aware of the inconsistency.
Meanwhile, though the decision is not all that could have been hoped for, the basic issue has been decided: There IS an individual right to own and carry weapons for self defense. Now we can proceed with figuring out exactly how far that right extends.
Breyer... uses the machine gun as an example. However, machine guns have no place in self-defense.
Wrong.
In fact they were in common use for self-defense at the time they were banned. For instance: A lone rider on a ranch would often be armed with a Thompson. It was ideal for taking on a pack of wolves - for which a shotgun, rifle, and/or handgun were chancy. (Also groups of rustlers - who would generally kill anyone who witnessed their activities.)... cop-killer bullets. The purpose of such bullets is not to defend oneself, but to kill or severely maim.
I presume you're talking about the Teflon-coated rounds that were labeled with that term at the time the were banned.
In fact:
- They were only sold to police.
- Their purpose was to penetrate armored glass, not bullet-proof vests.
- The Teflon coat was not to ease penetration. (It was unnecessary for that purpose - and in fact didn't help such bullets go through body armor at all.) What it did is protect the barrel from wear from the very hard bullet material - something that would be good in general, not just for specialized rounds.
- They had never killed even one cop. (I think this is still true today.)
- And the police REALLY wanted the anti-gunners to SHUT UP about this. The campaign against this non-problem is what brought to the criminals' attention that police were now routinely wearing Kevlar body armor. Result: Crooks switched to head shots and a LOT of cops got killed who otherwise would have had a black-and-blue spot.
I live in a country with strict gun control. Its surprising how often we manage to not get robbed by anyone with a gun.... Do people get robbed? Yes of course they do, but strangely seldom with a gun - usually its a knife being wielded.
And in the US the stats show that you're MUCH less likely to be hurt or killed when robbed by a gun-wielding robber than when robbed by a knife-wielder.
Some of that is because victims are more likely to knuckle under to a gun-wielder and some is that even psychopaths usually understand that shooting the victim brings the cops down on them and raises the penalties. But a non-trivial chunk is that it takes a lot of cutting to incapacitate a victim - and once the cutting starts it's unlikely to stop until they're down. So even if you're shot you're more likely to survive and, when surviving, likely to make a fuller recovery than if you're stabbed.
By the way: The third amendment wasn't just about being required to be a motel for an army.
One of the purposes of housing the soldiers in the civilians' houses was so they could act as spies to find out where the resistance was being organized and who was involved.
(This brings up the possibility of using a third amendment argument against government spyware resident on a citizen's computer.)
Trust me, if you had the military start to invade Small Town USA, you'd probably have plenty of people in the surrounding area exercising their right to keep and bear arms.
And you'd also have a significant part of the military helping out the population - both with providing arms and fighting the encroachment. (Not to mention that the classic way for a civilian population under attack or occupation to obtain military arms is to take them from the occupiers.)
Members of the US military take an oath to the Constitution, not to the people operating the government. And they average a much better idea of what the Constitution says than the general public. If the situation is one where armed resistance to the government is justified by the civilians, it's also one where laws supersede orders and a significant fraction of the military can be expected to do their duty rather than the politicians' bidding.
And the civilian population of the US includes a lot of ex-military people, too. Military skills will not be lacking among the non-uniformed portion of the people.
Once you're past the router you'll also have the problem that your ISP may not be honoring the QoS tagging of the VoIP traffic or otherwise identifying it and giving it priority. (In fact they may chose to identify it and give it LOWER priority if it's not theirs.)
So fixing your router may only be half the solution: It may throttle back your BitTorrent traffic to keep from stepping on the VoIP packets on the way to your ISP's first box, only to have it stomped by somebody ELSE's BitTorrent (or whatever) traffic on the next hop.
This, by the way, illustrates both halves of why "network neutrality" can't be just "treat all packets the same". You have to give the VoIP packets priority in scheduling over the BitTorrent packets to get them to work well (which doesn't do anything but slightly slow BitTorrent). But the tools to do that also give an ISP the ability to give the VoIP packets for their high-dollar service priority over BitTorrent while letting their competitors' VoIP packets fight it out, or even be handicapped further. Now try writing legislation to mandate the first while forbidding the second.
OR maybe it means that criminals just get better guns.... but i'm sure your hand gun will protect you.... definitly... right.
You can't stop a bullet with a bigger bullet.
Or with more of them.
The transition from no-gun to nontrivial gun essentially levels the playing field, regardless of the relative size and capabilities of the guns on both sides. A bigger or faster gun is not a shield. It doesn't matter how big the gun is if the guy with the little (but big enough) gun fires his.
A bad-guy in a gun-on-gun confrontation is in a world of disadvantage: Fire (first) and he loses: He's now escalated from armed robbery (or whatever) to attempted murder, and called attention of bystanders and authorities to the confrontation. The ordinary citizen, on the other hand, is in reasonable fear for life and limb and may fire.
Usual result: The bad guy retreats to hunt for less-toothy prey, with no shots fired on either side.
Occasional result: Bad guy makes one more threatening move, good guy fires, police sort it out in a few hours or weeks or courts do after a few years.
VERY occasional result: Bad guy fires. Bad guy becomes subject of manhunt (progressively moreso if he makes a practice of this) and is eventually run down and removed from circulation (either by a victim who did fire first or by the authorities).
Jeez. We're supposed to be techies here, not a clueless advertising department.
There are proper terms for this:
- If the AI provides energy to make the circuitry of the camera run, it's POWERing it.
- If the AI provides processing to control the camera's operation and/or reducing the data it produces, it's DRIVing it.
So unless this camera has a REALLY SMART power supply the headline is flat-out bogus.
It isn't known if this ruling will affect anything more than DC itself.... Part of what makes this case is DC's status, not being part of any state, so that the governing body directly above the mayor is the US congress. The ruling could therefore not apply to Chicago and suburbs, the only other major suppressor of the 2nd Amendment.
However, they explicitly decided to rule on whether the 2nd enumerates and protects an individual right that is infringed by the DC law. While the direct application of the ruling may only affect that law, a decision that declares the 2nd is an individual, rather than a "collective", right would kick the props out from under the bulk of the state and local gun regulations.
Courtwatchers of all persuasions (including the anti-gunners) think they've telegraphed enough of their opinion that they're going to declare it's an individual right and that the only thing uncertain is the degree of scrutiny to be applied (i.e. how much public interest is necessary to make a law that might restrict gun owning/carrying pass constitutional muster and/or if that can be done at all.) If they're right, the Supremes are about to push over the first of more than 30,000 dominoes.
Stay tuned: They've told us they WILL release the ruling tomorrow morning in the session starting at 10:00 AM eastern time.
Maybe I misunderstand how this works -- I'm a hardware person, after all -- but I thought TLD's had IP addresses?
Nope.
A domain (TL or otherwise) has name service entries on at least two nameservers. These name service entries may assign one or more IP addresses to any desired names within it - including the top level name itself (and may delegate subdomains to other nameservers). But there is no requirement that ANY name in the domain have an IP address associated with it, nor is there a requirement that a given IP address be associated with only one name, - or even with only names within one TLD.
(Indeed, I hear some web hosting companies have multiple domains served at a single IP address, disambiguating by the name given in the HTTP request.)
Email is even less tightly coupled: The name service entries for a domain or subdomain point, by NAME, to a set of mail exchange servers. These MAY have names within the domain. But typically they don't - having instead the name of an ISP's servers.
Seems to me that the current holders of legacy names in the flat namespace of UUCP Mailnet, who have retained their legacyname.tld counterparts in.com,.edu,.net, or.gov, should be able to get them as TLDs, and free of charge, as a continuation of the legacy.
Failing that they should have first refusal.
These names in this flat namespace predate the ICANN. They were also transferred intact into the electronic mail routing during the conversion to domain-style addressing. (Indeed, at some sites you can still get mail to them by addressing it to user@legacyname, and at many more by addressing it to legacyname!user.)
1) 0F - the stable temperature of ice, water, and NH_4Cl 2) 32F - where water freezes 3) 96F - average body temperature
Actually it was based on setting zero as the lowest stable temperature he could make in the lab (your 1) ) and setting 100 as the INTERNAL temperature of a healthy, awake, human body (something close to your 3) ).
Rectal temperature is about 99.6F, so he came pretty close.
In the US that's the middle of the 20th century. The "powers that be" tried to switch us to C and km around the '70s or so. But we just ignored 'em and eventually they gave up.
(Might have been different if they hadn't picked about the same time to switch it "Celsius" from "Centigrade". But probably not. B-) )
So as a matter of practical application of law, I'd have to [say:] If it's open, it's open and you can reasonably assume you are invited to utilize resources offered in reasonable ways.
Make that "if it's open and can be configured to be open or closed" and I'm with you 100%.
When a computer system has an explicit permission grant/denial mechanism, it has been both reasonable and traditional to interpret the setting as an expression of the intent of the human in charge of the resource.
It's unfortunate that a number of vendors have shipped product with a permission mechanism set to "locks wide open" and not even informed their customers that there is a lock. That has led the legal system to deviate from the clear intent of the protocol designers.
Perhaps WEP is analogous to locking a car door, with the window down, keys in the ignition and running.
IMHO WEP is analogous to locking the screen door.
It produces a barrier that is trivial to circumvent - but which declares the owner's/occupant's intent to deny access unless permission is explicitly sought and granted by other means. (Ring bell and be admitted, ask for and be given the password, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
The entire left/right scale is a tad silly simply because it stuffs a whole bunch of utterly unrelated ideals into a binary system. You can have a free market capitalist who believes in gay marriage, abortions, and a lack of sex and drug regulation. You can also have someone who advocates socialist economics want to outlaw those very same things.
Interestingly, there's a two-dimensional analysis that works a LOT better than the one-dimensional left-right scale.
Divide issues into "economic behavior" versus "social and private behavior" and measure how much a person things the government should control such behavior versus how much the individual should decide for himself. Correlation is high within each set of issues.
Now sum the opinions on how much freedom versus control the person wants for each of the issues in the groups to create two summary numbers. Plot the numbers as a position on a two-dimensional graph. And the various common ideologies spread out in a clarifying way.
- Conservatives end up near one corner (economic freedom, social.private control).
- Liberals end up near the opposite corner (social/private freedom, economic control).
- Libertarians near a third corner (freedom, freedom).
- Authoritarians near the fourth (control, control).
Rotate it 45 degrees so it's a diamond, with liberals on the left and conservatives on the right (libertarians usually put themselves at the top B-) ) and a number of things become much clearer than they do in a left-right analysis:
- Totalitarians end up at the authoritarian point, fascists up the edge a bit toward conservative, communists and then socialists up the other edge toward liberal, but all clustered together.
- Similarly, anarchists end up at the libertarian point, libertarian minarchists near it (and generally a tad down the edge toward "conservative").
- Various flavors of conservatives end up in different spots near the conservative corner, of liberals/progressives near the liberal corner.
- And the wishy-washy sheep end up in the "centerist" region near (of course) the center.
Thus it becomes clear why you hear things like "I'm so far right I'm coming back from the left" or vice-versa from libertarians, who aren't anywhere near the middle of the line between the liberal and conservative corners. And why communists and fascists seem so much alike.
The analysis has been independently discovered/invented a number of times. But the most widespread version is called "The Nolan Chart" after the person who is arguably the earliest inventor to formalize it and give it wide disclosure.
Wikipedia has a fine article on the Nolan Chart. Search for "The World's Smallest Political Quiz" to find a do-it-yourself tool for finding your own ideology's place on it. Or go to nolanchart.com to see blogs by a number of commentators (mainly, but not all, in the libertarian section) who have chosen to take the test and display their results along with their commentaries as a form of full disclosure.
It is obsurd to think that the car came into existance through millions of random design mutations that somehow did not cause it to blow up. The only reasonable explanation for the existance of the car is that it was designed and created by some intelligent being. Therefore God exists.
What's doubly funny is that cars, trains, and (especially) planes, DID "come into existence through [a large number of semi-]random design mutations, some of which did indeed cause them to fail in spectacular ways. (Motion picture cameras were rolling for some of the more spectacular early aircraft foulups, which are interesting viewing.) This despite their designs being planned by intelligent beings.
So evolution and a creator (or set of them) are not mutually exclusive.
Of course you won't find any religions going with that (even if some of them admit to evolution AFTER "the creation"). To do so would be inconsistent with the omniscient/omnipotent claims about the nature of God.
And I suppose "the programmer whose entire system design works right the first time" is as good a definition of God as any other I've heard.
As one of my colleagues once remarked: "If God created life, and DNA is the program for it, are introns the comments? And if so, are they 'holy writ'?"
The life-extension movement has been asking for this approach for at LEAST a half-century.
By the way: Watch for the government to try to restrict this research, or use of its results, to "save social security".
Which shouldn't really be an issue: A good set of treatments for aging would lead to people of larger calendar age not just hanging in there in a sickly state consuming large amounts of medical treatment - but retaining (or being restored to) good health and able to return to work and create the resources needed to support them (and in style).
The network MUST be neutral EXACTLY for this reason - the ISP cannot prioritize Movie service provider 1 above Movie service provider 2, or VoIP provider 1 above VoIP provider 2.
Agreed.
However the ISP MUST prioritize stream traffic (such as VoIP) above traffic such as file transfers (which can be slowed down but will crank itself up until it clogs the narrowest bottleneck) for both to work well on a common transport.
Also: It's good for him to apply other, compensating, penalties to streams: Bandwidth limits are OK (they won't hurt streams but will keep file transfers from masquerading as streams to get better service). Drop packets that had been delayed until they're no longer timely. Etc. This keeps streams from interfering too much with file transfers and the like.
My point is that you can't implement "neutrality" by treating all PACKETS the same if you want diverse services to all work on a converged infrastructure.
I've tried to use Wine to run some windows-only applications and for some I ran into a snag: They use Windows DLLs which are not shipped with the Wine distribution.
In a recent case I had to hunt down several DLLs - from different sites - to get an application to install and then to get it to run. And at that point I hit a wall: It used the Jet database. Though I had a DLL that implemented the interface, I was unable to figure out how to get it the database to operate. I'm still not sure whether I got an inconsistent set of DLLs or missed an install step.
What I would have liked was a set of pages on the WineHQ web site giving:
- A list of what DLLs satisfy what dangling linkages.
- A pointer to a place, or set of places, where a consistent set of DLLs that work with Wine could be downloaded.
- Instructions on installing DLLs.
- Instructions on installing and/or initializing any support packages (such as Jet?) that need more setup than just stashing the DLLs in the appropriate directory.
Unfortunately I could not find such a handy reference.
Q: Is there such a reference? If so, what is the URL? If not, could the project please create one?
If you can afford it... 18 USC 922(o) prohibits the transfer or possession of a machinegun which was not grandfathered, i.e. legally possessed before 1986. Scalia's opinion suggests that this ban would likely be upheld by the court.
However machineguns (along with a number of other things - noise suppressors, cane guns, wallet guns, etc.) WERE in common use before the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. That act put a confiscatory tax on them which was implemented with draconian red tape.
It was the law that took them out of common use.
Seems to me that the law could be challenged on that basis, at least for a sufficient time to find out whether citizens would again put them into common use absent such a law.
Making "in common use" a test for whether a type of weapon can be banned has a number of flaws. In particluar:
- When a class of weapons becomes unpopular for a time the government can ban it, preventing it from coming back into favor. This creates a ratchet effect, allowing progressively more weapon types to be banned.
- It lets the government block the adoption of improved weapon types, preventing their adoption as a "common use" weapon. (Could the founders have intended the amendment to allow that? After they'd just fought a war where their use of ultra-modern rifled guns gave them a range advantage over the British smoothbores?) New weapon types could only "come into common use" by massive scofflaw activity by the population.
So this part of the decision has several weak spots where it can be attacked, and the recognition of the right broadened, in future cases.
And Bryer's dissent makes it clear that this is not a deep secret, but that the legal community is already aware of the inconsistency.
Meanwhile, though the decision is not all that could have been hoped for, the basic issue has been decided: There IS an individual right to own and carry weapons for self defense. Now we can proceed with figuring out exactly how far that right extends.
The first domino has fallen.
Breyer ... uses the machine gun as an example. However, machine guns have no place in self-defense.
Wrong.
In fact they were in common use for self-defense at the time they were banned. For instance: A lone rider on a ranch would often be armed with a Thompson. It was ideal for taking on a pack of wolves - for which a shotgun, rifle, and/or handgun were chancy. (Also groups of rustlers - who would generally kill anyone who witnessed their activities.) ... cop-killer bullets. The purpose of such bullets is not to defend oneself, but to kill or severely maim.
I presume you're talking about the Teflon-coated rounds that were labeled with that term at the time the were banned.
In fact:
- They were only sold to police.
- Their purpose was to penetrate armored glass, not bullet-proof vests.
- The Teflon coat was not to ease penetration. (It was unnecessary for that purpose - and in fact didn't help such bullets go through body armor at all.) What it did is protect the barrel from wear from the very hard bullet material - something that would be good in general, not just for specialized rounds.
- They had never killed even one cop. (I think this is still true today.)
- And the police REALLY wanted the anti-gunners to SHUT UP about this. The campaign against this non-problem is what brought to the criminals' attention that police were now routinely wearing Kevlar body armor. Result: Crooks switched to head shots and a LOT of cops got killed who otherwise would have had a black-and-blue spot.
I live in a country with strict gun control. Its surprising how often we manage to not get robbed by anyone with a gun. ... Do people get robbed? Yes of course they do, but strangely seldom with a gun - usually its a knife being wielded.
And in the US the stats show that you're MUCH less likely to be hurt or killed when robbed by a gun-wielding robber than when robbed by a knife-wielder.
Some of that is because victims are more likely to knuckle under to a gun-wielder and some is that even psychopaths usually understand that shooting the victim brings the cops down on them and raises the penalties. But a non-trivial chunk is that it takes a lot of cutting to incapacitate a victim - and once the cutting starts it's unlikely to stop until they're down. So even if you're shot you're more likely to survive and, when surviving, likely to make a fuller recovery than if you're stabbed.
By the way: The third amendment wasn't just about being required to be a motel for an army.
One of the purposes of housing the soldiers in the civilians' houses was so they could act as spies to find out where the resistance was being organized and who was involved.
(This brings up the possibility of using a third amendment argument against government spyware resident on a citizen's computer.)
Trust me, if you had the military start to invade Small Town USA, you'd probably have plenty of people in the surrounding area exercising their right to keep and bear arms.
And you'd also have a significant part of the military helping out the population - both with providing arms and fighting the encroachment. (Not to mention that the classic way for a civilian population under attack or occupation to obtain military arms is to take them from the occupiers.)
Members of the US military take an oath to the Constitution, not to the people operating the government. And they average a much better idea of what the Constitution says than the general public. If the situation is one where armed resistance to the government is justified by the civilians, it's also one where laws supersede orders and a significant fraction of the military can be expected to do their duty rather than the politicians' bidding.
And the civilian population of the US includes a lot of ex-military people, too. Military skills will not be lacking among the non-uniformed portion of the people.
Once you're past the router you'll also have the problem that your ISP may not be honoring the QoS tagging of the VoIP traffic or otherwise identifying it and giving it priority. (In fact they may chose to identify it and give it LOWER priority if it's not theirs.)
So fixing your router may only be half the solution: It may throttle back your BitTorrent traffic to keep from stepping on the VoIP packets on the way to your ISP's first box, only to have it stomped by somebody ELSE's BitTorrent (or whatever) traffic on the next hop.
This, by the way, illustrates both halves of why "network neutrality" can't be just "treat all packets the same". You have to give the VoIP packets priority in scheduling over the BitTorrent packets to get them to work well (which doesn't do anything but slightly slow BitTorrent). But the tools to do that also give an ISP the ability to give the VoIP packets for their high-dollar service priority over BitTorrent while letting their competitors' VoIP packets fight it out, or even be handicapped further. Now try writing legislation to mandate the first while forbidding the second.
OR maybe it means that criminals just get better guns. ... but i'm sure your hand gun will protect you.... definitly... right.
You can't stop a bullet with a bigger bullet.
Or with more of them.
The transition from no-gun to nontrivial gun essentially levels the playing field, regardless of the relative size and capabilities of the guns on both sides. A bigger or faster gun is not a shield. It doesn't matter how big the gun is if the guy with the little (but big enough) gun fires his.
A bad-guy in a gun-on-gun confrontation is in a world of disadvantage: Fire (first) and he loses: He's now escalated from armed robbery (or whatever) to attempted murder, and called attention of bystanders and authorities to the confrontation. The ordinary citizen, on the other hand, is in reasonable fear for life and limb and may fire.
Usual result: The bad guy retreats to hunt for less-toothy prey, with no shots fired on either side.
Occasional result: Bad guy makes one more threatening move, good guy fires, police sort it out in a few hours or weeks or courts do after a few years.
VERY occasional result: Bad guy fires. Bad guy becomes subject of manhunt (progressively moreso if he makes a practice of this) and is eventually run down and removed from circulation (either by a victim who did fire first or by the authorities).
Jeez. We're supposed to be techies here, not a clueless advertising department.
There are proper terms for this:
- If the AI provides energy to make the circuitry of the camera run, it's POWERing it.
- If the AI provides processing to control the camera's operation and/or reducing the data it produces, it's DRIVing it.
So unless this camera has a REALLY SMART power supply the headline is flat-out bogus.
Lets get real. EVERY candidate that runs is simply out for the president's job. That is the nature of these beast.
Two words in counterexample: Ron Paul.
Sometimes the Presidency or the run for it is a tool for something else.
It isn't known if this ruling will affect anything more than DC itself. ... Part of what makes this case is DC's status, not being part of any state, so that the governing body directly above the mayor is the US congress. The ruling could therefore not apply to Chicago and suburbs, the only other major suppressor of the 2nd Amendment.
However, they explicitly decided to rule on whether the 2nd enumerates and protects an individual right that is infringed by the DC law. While the direct application of the ruling may only affect that law, a decision that declares the 2nd is an individual, rather than a "collective", right would kick the props out from under the bulk of the state and local gun regulations.
Courtwatchers of all persuasions (including the anti-gunners) think they've telegraphed enough of their opinion that they're going to declare it's an individual right and that the only thing uncertain is the degree of scrutiny to be applied (i.e. how much public interest is necessary to make a law that might restrict gun owning/carrying pass constitutional muster and/or if that can be done at all.) If they're right, the Supremes are about to push over the first of more than 30,000 dominoes.
Stay tuned: They've told us they WILL release the ruling tomorrow morning in the session starting at 10:00 AM eastern time.
... by The Invisible Hand.
Adam Smith strikes.
And as a gardener I have only one word to say about that.
Darn!
Maybe I misunderstand how this works -- I'm a hardware person, after all -- but I thought TLD's had IP addresses?
Nope.
A domain (TL or otherwise) has name service entries on at least two nameservers. These name service entries may assign one or more IP addresses to any desired names within it - including the top level name itself (and may delegate subdomains to other nameservers). But there is no requirement that ANY name in the domain have an IP address associated with it, nor is there a requirement that a given IP address be associated with only one name, - or even with only names within one TLD.
(Indeed, I hear some web hosting companies have multiple domains served at a single IP address, disambiguating by the name given in the HTTP request.)
Email is even less tightly coupled: The name service entries for a domain or subdomain point, by NAME, to a set of mail exchange servers. These MAY have names within the domain. But typically they don't - having instead the name of an ISP's servers.
Seems to me that the current holders of legacy names in the flat namespace of UUCP Mailnet, who have retained their legacyname.tld counterparts in .com, .edu, .net, or .gov, should be able to get them as TLDs, and free of charge, as a continuation of the legacy.
Failing that they should have first refusal.
These names in this flat namespace predate the ICANN. They were also transferred intact into the electronic mail routing during the conversion to domain-style addressing. (Indeed, at some sites you can still get mail to them by addressing it to user@legacyname, and at many more by addressing it to legacyname!user.)
1) 0F - the stable temperature of ice, water, and NH_4Cl
2) 32F - where water freezes
3) 96F - average body temperature
Actually it was based on setting zero as the lowest stable temperature he could make in the lab (your 1) ) and setting 100 as the INTERNAL temperature of a healthy, awake, human body (something close to your 3) ).
Rectal temperature is about 99.6F, so he came pretty close.
... 10.476 feet per gallon
GP must drive a Hummer... perhaps only in reverse, like Mother Goose.
Reminds me of a cartoon in a hot rod magazine several decades ago.
Hot rod at the gas pump with a couple guys in it while it idles. The third guy, at the pump, is yelling "Shut it down! It's gaining on me!".
That's 21C for anyone living in the 21st century.
In the US that's the middle of the 20th century. The "powers that be" tried to switch us to C and km around the '70s or so. But we just ignored 'em and eventually they gave up.
(Might have been different if they hadn't picked about the same time to switch it "Celsius" from "Centigrade". But probably not. B-) )
I thought I was only six degrees away from Kevin Bacon?
I thought it was Kelvin bakin'.
So as a matter of practical application of law, I'd have to [say:] If it's open, it's open and you can reasonably assume you are invited to utilize resources offered in reasonable ways.
Make that "if it's open and can be configured to be open or closed" and I'm with you 100%.
When a computer system has an explicit permission grant/denial mechanism, it has been both reasonable and traditional to interpret the setting as an expression of the intent of the human in charge of the resource.
It's unfortunate that a number of vendors have shipped product with a permission mechanism set to "locks wide open" and not even informed their customers that there is a lock. That has led the legal system to deviate from the clear intent of the protocol designers.
Perhaps WEP is analogous to locking a car door, with the window down, keys in the ignition and running.
IMHO WEP is analogous to locking the screen door.
It produces a barrier that is trivial to circumvent - but which declares the owner's/occupant's intent to deny access unless permission is explicitly sought and granted by other means. (Ring bell and be admitted, ask for and be given the password, etc.)