The usual solution is for there to be a mail-in option to get a "gamepiece", the majority of which will say "You lose!", but have an equal chance as any can does of saying "You win!".
More likely than not, that gamepiece will also be bundled with the specially marked can to confirm the non-winningness, the GPS device will just be a fancy way to either plot winners on a map quickly or so they can claim "There are 7 winning cans still unclaimed somewhere in Boston."
Furthermore, if this gets in front of a sane judge, they risk any evidence obtained by this scheme being declared "fruit from a posionous tree" and thrown out of court, even though they would have obtained it fairly just by asking nicely.
There are certain kinds of relationships that are specifically exempt from being used to get evidence.
Attorney-client priviledge exists because a fair trial depends on the defense lawyer being trusted by the defendant.
Doctor-patient priviledge exists because if we'd rather sick people seek treatment than be affraid to due to risk of incrimination.
Journalist-source priviledge isn't quite as strong, but it does exist in some cases, where the annonymous source would be in danger if their identity was revealed, and their credibility isn't really important because what they tipped off lead to other undeniable truths. It really doesn't matter who called the local TV reporter to say that the factory was dumping illegal chemicals in the river if the reporter caught factory employees on tape dumping the chemicals. The fact they were caught in the act is good enough for proof, why the reporter decided to look is not important.
I think the difference here is that Lamo worked closely with his favorite reporters to put out word of his successful hacks, so they might have some evidence from the man himself that the feds want. If they were just asking for that I'd be fine with it... but why do they want so broad of a fishing net?
It's one thing to have a fight over journalists' notes, typically it's something that the court can legally demand and the journalist who refuses goes to jail for a few days until the whole thing becomes moot anyway by getting the info another way or caves in their integrity.
But, what does the Patriot Act change about things here? Is it just me, or are they trying to scare journalists into giving up their notes, because they're that desperate for any leads?
Computer programs put people out of work. Always have and always will.
The main function of most business software is automating a task that used to be done by a person. As soon as the program is put to use, less manhours are needed to do the same work, and then the layoffs come. Any questions?
HDTV on a 13 inch monitor is rather pointless from the distance most people watch it. That's why you only see HDTVs in "big-screen" models in stores, a small screen HDTV would be too hard to make and not worth the effort.
So, how big of a screen is it going to take for the difference between this resolution and HDTV to be perceptable to the human eye?
Because their contract says that they're not responsible for the occasional failure of service. Switching providers won't get you an insurance policy against this happening again because they all have similar don't-blame-us language in their contracts.
Many of Cingulars "GSM Network" sites also speak TDMA for legacy compatibility with their older customers. It seems that a problem of this scale would be among the networking between the towers moreso than the tower sites themselves, so TDMA users talking to the "GSM Network" sites would also get hit.
If you need a router, then clearly this protocol isn't for you and you should use iSCSI. The whole point of this is performance gain because in most SCSI setups, the parts are all right next to each other and can live on their own single-switch network...
Yeah, this looks like the results of the kind of factory who lays off its QC department since they only find a problem with 1 out of every 200,000 units the place makes.
Yeah, it's five-nines reliablity, for a factory that makes 1,000,000 units a day, those 5 mistakes a day are gonna add up...
Re:If it's raw ethernet, then it's not "IP based"
on
HyperSCSI Examined
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes but "raw ethernet" is exclusive to mean you're not getting as far as IP... that's a physical first-layer protocol and that's it.
He who controls the kernal controls all on the system. Wonder if the Department of Homland Security can do an OS upgrade using a sneak-and-peak warrent?
I'd rather see all Oscar voters reqired to sign a statement saying that they have seen all of the nominated movies in each category they wish to vote for at their own expense.
Second, VeriSign is handling the.com/.net domain on good faith really. No one has the power to remove them from handling these domains. There is no true law up to this point on who owns them and what guidelines they HAVE to follow. Even the RFC's don't contain any insight on how something like this should be handeled..com and.net are really properties of the US Dept. of Commerce. DoC has a contract with ICANN to provide this service, and ICANN has a contract that makes VeriSign the authoritative servers for.com and.net. VeriSign once upon a time had control of.edu, but they lost that. The same thing can happen to.com and.net if they act too stupid.
Register.com simply put up a test patern page by default when somebody registered a domain but failed to come up with with valid nameservers. That was annoying to those who paid for domains they weren't using, but then again its also their fault for not having one of the reqirements it takes to operate a domain.
This is different because Verisign isn't limiting their actions to domains registered through them. In fact, SiteFinder replaces every domain in.net and.com that hasn't been registered, which is something only VeriSign could possibly do.
Basically, SiteFinder's IP address is being returned any time a.com or.net query is supposed to return "NXDOMAIN", an indication that the domain doesn't exist and therefore the request is no good. That was an error that used to be handled by the user's software, now Verisign has overtaken that.
This breaks any application that depended on "NXDOMAIN" accurately being reported. One key application was an important spam defense... if the domain in the from field returns an "NXDOMAIN" when somebody tries to look it up, trash the message because the from line must be bogus. Now, nothing returns "NXDOMAIN" when queried, so that test always returns a negative.
ICANN hired VeriSign to run the DNS system according to the protocols. This is something that's not in the protocols, and VeriSign is just doing with a "You can't stop us!" attitude. ICANN nicely asked VeriSign to suspend the service, and got a defensive reply. It's time for either ICANN to fire VeriSign, or for the US Dept. of Commerce to fire ICANN...
2. Verisign is running a search engine on SiteFinder, which they control. I don't believe they do it now, but they could very easily commercialize this search engine: ads, charging for high results in the search.
SiteFinder is already commericalized. Gambling isn't one of the most popularly looked for areas on the Internet, but it is one of the highest paying for redirections. The search engine also features Overture-like (if not powered by Overture already) paid placements...
SiteFinder isn't being done out of kindness, it's a search for dollars...
One thing you might not realize... if you enter a query into Amazon and either drill through the results or get no results, you eventually wind up with a powered-by-Google web results set.
and the telco should be required to provide dialtone to every house, no matter their ability to pay. But it doesn't work that way.
What part of "Universial Service" don't you understand? The state Universal Service Funds are also used to pay for phone service for those who are too poor to afford phone service. Here's info about it from the AARP. Qualifying low-income people can get their phone service for as little as $3 a month if they don't make a lot of outgoing local calls, and only pay about half the price for the usual unlimited local calling, plus have a working connection to the long distance service of their choice.
The Universal Service Fund is there in all 50 states to assure that everybody who wants phone service can get it. If you can prove you can't afford the going rates, the rates suddenly drop to next to nothing for you. (And you're also likely poor enough to be able to spare that money from whatever other government handouts you're getting.)
Even if you don't pay your bill, the phone company can only block your phone service in restricted ways, and calls to 911 must always be honored. You've gotta work really hard to lose your 911 access...
When a bill loses 412 to 8, those remaining votes can almost be considered protest votes. That is to say, they're going on record with a "no" vote to oppose either a piece of pork that got snuck into otherwise popular legislation, or that they think that this is going to be a bad thing for their district... like those who have 1000 people working as telemarketers in their district.
I'm not as concerned about the 8 "no" votes because they got washed by 412 votes going the other way. I'm more concerned about the 15 represntatives who didn't bother to show up and take a position on this issue.
I love that circular argument. "Your" money is worth something because the governing power of the United States of America says so. If there were no taxes, there'd be no government, and therefore your money wouldn't be worth the paper its printer on.
Slashdot Mirror
The usual solution is for there to be a mail-in option to get a "gamepiece", the majority of which will say "You lose!", but have an equal chance as any can does of saying "You win!".
More likely than not, that gamepiece will also be bundled with the specially marked can to confirm the non-winningness, the GPS device will just be a fancy way to either plot winners on a map quickly or so they can claim "There are 7 winning cans still unclaimed somewhere in Boston."
Furthermore, if this gets in front of a sane judge, they risk any evidence obtained by this scheme being declared "fruit from a posionous tree" and thrown out of court, even though they would have obtained it fairly just by asking nicely.
But moreover, it's a questionable threat that threatens that it's illegal to disclose the sending of the threat....
There are certain kinds of relationships that are specifically exempt from being used to get evidence.
Attorney-client priviledge exists because a fair trial depends on the defense lawyer being trusted by the defendant.
Doctor-patient priviledge exists because if we'd rather sick people seek treatment than be affraid to due to risk of incrimination.
Journalist-source priviledge isn't quite as strong, but it does exist in some cases, where the annonymous source would be in danger if their identity was revealed, and their credibility isn't really important because what they tipped off lead to other undeniable truths. It really doesn't matter who called the local TV reporter to say that the factory was dumping illegal chemicals in the river if the reporter caught factory employees on tape dumping the chemicals. The fact they were caught in the act is good enough for proof, why the reporter decided to look is not important.
I think the difference here is that Lamo worked closely with his favorite reporters to put out word of his successful hacks, so they might have some evidence from the man himself that the feds want. If they were just asking for that I'd be fine with it... but why do they want so broad of a fishing net?
It's one thing to have a fight over journalists' notes, typically it's something that the court can legally demand and the journalist who refuses goes to jail for a few days until the whole thing becomes moot anyway by getting the info another way or caves in their integrity.
But, what does the Patriot Act change about things here? Is it just me, or are they trying to scare journalists into giving up their notes, because they're that desperate for any leads?
Computer programs put people out of work. Always have and always will.
The main function of most business software is automating a task that used to be done by a person. As soon as the program is put to use, less manhours are needed to do the same work, and then the layoffs come. Any questions?
HDTV on a 13 inch monitor is rather pointless from the distance most people watch it. That's why you only see HDTVs in "big-screen" models in stores, a small screen HDTV would be too hard to make and not worth the effort. So, how big of a screen is it going to take for the difference between this resolution and HDTV to be perceptable to the human eye?
Because their contract says that they're not responsible for the occasional failure of service. Switching providers won't get you an insurance policy against this happening again because they all have similar don't-blame-us language in their contracts.
Many of Cingulars "GSM Network" sites also speak TDMA for legacy compatibility with their older customers. It seems that a problem of this scale would be among the networking between the towers moreso than the tower sites themselves, so TDMA users talking to the "GSM Network" sites would also get hit.
Do you also charge your Segway as soon as the Low Batt light turns on?
If you need a router, then clearly this protocol isn't for you and you should use iSCSI. The whole point of this is performance gain because in most SCSI setups, the parts are all right next to each other and can live on their own single-switch network...
Yeah, this looks like the results of the kind of factory who lays off its QC department since they only find a problem with 1 out of every 200,000 units the place makes.
Yeah, it's five-nines reliablity, for a factory that makes 1,000,000 units a day, those 5 mistakes a day are gonna add up...
Yes but "raw ethernet" is exclusive to mean you're not getting as far as IP... that's a physical first-layer protocol and that's it.
He who controls the kernal controls all on the system. Wonder if the Department of Homland Security can do an OS upgrade using a sneak-and-peak warrent?
I'd rather see all Oscar voters reqired to sign a statement saying that they have seen all of the nominated movies in each category they wish to vote for at their own expense.
Second, VeriSign is handling the .com/.net domain on good faith really. No one has the power to remove them from handling these domains. There is no true law up to this point on who owns them and what guidelines they HAVE to follow. Even the RFC's don't contain any insight on how something like this should be handeled. .com and .net are really properties of the US Dept. of Commerce. DoC has a contract with ICANN to provide this service, and ICANN has a contract that makes VeriSign the authoritative servers for .com and .net. VeriSign once upon a time had control of .edu, but they lost that. The same thing can happen to .com and .net if they act too stupid.
Register.com simply put up a test patern page by default when somebody registered a domain but failed to come up with with valid nameservers. That was annoying to those who paid for domains they weren't using, but then again its also their fault for not having one of the reqirements it takes to operate a domain.
.net and .com that hasn't been registered, which is something only VeriSign could possibly do.
.com or .net query is supposed to return "NXDOMAIN", an indication that the domain doesn't exist and therefore the request is no good. That was an error that used to be handled by the user's software, now Verisign has overtaken that.
This is different because Verisign isn't limiting their actions to domains registered through them. In fact, SiteFinder replaces every domain in
Basically, SiteFinder's IP address is being returned any time a
This breaks any application that depended on "NXDOMAIN" accurately being reported. One key application was an important spam defense... if the domain in the from field returns an "NXDOMAIN" when somebody tries to look it up, trash the message because the from line must be bogus. Now, nothing returns "NXDOMAIN" when queried, so that test always returns a negative.
ICANN hired VeriSign to run the DNS system according to the protocols. This is something that's not in the protocols, and VeriSign is just doing with a "You can't stop us!" attitude. ICANN nicely asked VeriSign to suspend the service, and got a defensive reply. It's time for either ICANN to fire VeriSign, or for the US Dept. of Commerce to fire ICANN...
2. Verisign is running a search engine on SiteFinder, which they control. I don't believe they do it now, but they could very easily commercialize this search engine: ads, charging for high results in the search.
SiteFinder is already commericalized. Gambling isn't one of the most popularly looked for areas on the Internet, but it is one of the highest paying for redirections. The search engine also features Overture-like (if not powered by Overture already) paid placements...
SiteFinder isn't being done out of kindness, it's a search for dollars...
The Internet was founded as an academic and research universe, then it went commercial...
One thing you might not realize... if you enter a query into Amazon and either drill through the results or get no results, you eventually wind up with a powered-by-Google web results set.
and the telco should be required to provide dialtone to every house, no matter their ability to pay. But it doesn't work that way.
What part of "Universial Service" don't you understand? The state Universal Service Funds are also used to pay for phone service for those who are too poor to afford phone service. Here's info about it from the AARP. Qualifying low-income people can get their phone service for as little as $3 a month if they don't make a lot of outgoing local calls, and only pay about half the price for the usual unlimited local calling, plus have a working connection to the long distance service of their choice.
The Universal Service Fund is there in all 50 states to assure that everybody who wants phone service can get it. If you can prove you can't afford the going rates, the rates suddenly drop to next to nothing for you. (And you're also likely poor enough to be able to spare that money from whatever other government handouts you're getting.)
Even if you don't pay your bill, the phone company can only block your phone service in restricted ways, and calls to 911 must always be honored. You've gotta work really hard to lose your 911 access...
Nice to see a bill with no irrelavant spending provisions. That's such a throwback to simpler times.
There's actually 20 reps who didn't vote for it. 12 reps didn't vpte on this issue.
When a bill loses 412 to 8, those remaining votes can almost be considered protest votes. That is to say, they're going on record with a "no" vote to oppose either a piece of pork that got snuck into otherwise popular legislation, or that they think that this is going to be a bad thing for their district... like those who have 1000 people working as telemarketers in their district. I'm not as concerned about the 8 "no" votes because they got washed by 412 votes going the other way. I'm more concerned about the 15 represntatives who didn't bother to show up and take a position on this issue.
I love that circular argument. "Your" money is worth something because the governing power of the United States of America says so. If there were no taxes, there'd be no government, and therefore your money wouldn't be worth the paper its printer on.