From what I understand, when a search is conducted of your home and the police want to get into, for instance, a safe, you do not have to give them the key or combination. If you don't, they'll simply get in using whatever means necessary (bolt cutters, torch, etc). Giving them the means to get in is simply for your benefit - otherwise they'll likely severely damage your property.
Encrypted files, on the other hand, can't be accessed using a brute force method like this. It will take a very long time to get into them using a brute force decryption method. I'm not sure how the courts would come down on this. I suspect the same way they would have dealt with written documents that had been encoded, though IANAL.
Honestly, aren't we to the point where we can just assume that anything Gonzales says is the true reason isn't, and that the purpose is to rob us of our civil rights, or give money to some crony corporation, or otherwise screw the population at large over?
I'm sure Bush would have created an American Foreign Legion and filled it with people who would have become illegal aliens if not for the fact that American businesses rely so heavily on that labor.
My solution? Well, if I was self-employed, I'd go with a catastrophic health insurance plan- one were the yearly deductable is a hard $3000-5000. Until I reach that limit, I would pay everything. Over it, insurance pays.
Things that increase the cost of (rather than the demand for) health care:
4) Lack of preventative care. Due to high prices for health care, people put off visits to the doctor until the condition gets much worse, and therefore more expensive to treat.
5) Health insurance companies. A large part of their costs, as well as the costs of doctors and hospitals, are used arguing over what will and what will not be covered, and at what cost (if the company will continue to insure the patient: this story suggests that sometimes they just drop people when they get sick.)
I've had students hand in work where they had the exact same spelling mistakes in their answers, and several were pretty uncommon mistakes - not like misspelling "the" as "teh".
Mostly what I was going for was for local elections to use this, to give people a taste of how things could be different. Pretty much any of the various voting systems would be better than First Past the Post. Then it could be pushed higher - state legislators, governors, US legislators, etc. None of these would require an amendment to the US constitution, because they're all done in a single state.
This would have to happen in several states, and hopefully the example of one state would push other states to try it. They could use the different types of voting schemes in different states. After that happens, a critical mass would demand that Congress change things for the presidential election.
I'm not saying it's particularly likely, but it's more likely than just demanding that everything be switched over immediately.
Though your idea to work within the electoral college would be useful too.
Only solution to the spoiler problem is to change to approval voting. That way, those who are worried about "throwing their vote away" will vote for the third party plus their main party choice.
Approval voting is the least complicated of all the voting systems that gives a fair result. IRV is far too complicated for the type of people who will accidentally vote for Buchanan.
To implement it, we have to get the local races to use it first. So go to a town hall meeting once in a while and bring up approval voting. It's the only way it will ever happen.
Actually, the Founding Fathers created a system where only white adult males who owned land could vote, and individual states were free to create and enforce their own religions. I won't get into slavery.
Because they can just make a new variety every 20 years, contaminate other farmers' crops with them, and then force them to shut down. It doesn't have to better or even significantly different - it just has to be patented and new.
In the article, he says he doesn't know why China would block Wikipedia, given their position on neutrality.
I'm not if he's being intentionally dense, or if he honestly belives that the Chinese government is interested in neutrality.
It's rhetoric. He doesn't think he's going to change the minds of the Chinese government. He's trying to change the minds of any people in this debate who are undecided. That's how most arguments work - two people talking past each other, trying to persuade the audience.
Let HR departments keep doing stuff like this and you'll see more and more "for immediate consideration, please send your resume to this address" where the address in question is not someone in HR.
I'm sure plenty of managers would love to bypass HR entirely NOW, let alone if they start this nonsense. Of course, most companies require all job ads to go through their HR department first, so I don't think that's possible.
Threatening to sue someone unless they do what you want isn't illegal. It's the whole point of having a court system - you use it instead of vigilante justice.
I actually agree with you on this, copyright terms are extortionate. We need a life plus nothing term for all copyright. After all, an author can only benefit from the fruits of his labour while he's actually alive.
Am I the only one that thinks this would encourage people to whack competing artists?
Slashdot Mirror
From what I understand, when a search is conducted of your home and the police want to get into, for instance, a safe, you do not have to give them the key or combination. If you don't, they'll simply get in using whatever means necessary (bolt cutters, torch, etc). Giving them the means to get in is simply for your benefit - otherwise they'll likely severely damage your property.
Encrypted files, on the other hand, can't be accessed using a brute force method like this. It will take a very long time to get into them using a brute force decryption method. I'm not sure how the courts would come down on this. I suspect the same way they would have dealt with written documents that had been encoded, though IANAL.
Honestly, aren't we to the point where we can just assume that anything Gonzales says is the true reason isn't, and that the purpose is to rob us of our civil rights, or give money to some crony corporation, or otherwise screw the population at large over?
Does he have even a shred of credibility left?
Except we're dumping tons of poison in the oceans as well, preventing the CO2 from being absorbed there as well.
There is.
I'm sure Bush would have created an American Foreign Legion and filled it with people who would have become illegal aliens if not for the fact that American businesses rely so heavily on that labor.
Anyone who tried would be shot by the Secret Service before they got anywhere near Bush.
Things that increase the cost of (rather than the demand for) health care:
4) Lack of preventative care. Due to high prices for health care, people put off visits to the doctor until the condition gets much worse, and therefore more expensive to treat.
5) Health insurance companies. A large part of their costs, as well as the costs of doctors and hospitals, are used arguing over what will and what will not be covered, and at what cost (if the company will continue to insure the patient: this story suggests that sometimes they just drop people when they get sick.)
I've had students hand in work where they had the exact same spelling mistakes in their answers, and several were pretty uncommon mistakes - not like misspelling "the" as "teh".
Mostly what I was going for was for local elections to use this, to give people a taste of how things could be different. Pretty much any of the various voting systems would be better than First Past the Post. Then it could be pushed higher - state legislators, governors, US legislators, etc. None of these would require an amendment to the US constitution, because they're all done in a single state.
This would have to happen in several states, and hopefully the example of one state would push other states to try it. They could use the different types of voting schemes in different states. After that happens, a critical mass would demand that Congress change things for the presidential election.
I'm not saying it's particularly likely, but it's more likely than just demanding that everything be switched over immediately.
Though your idea to work within the electoral college would be useful too.
The First Amendment would likely shoot this down. There's too much intermingling of speech and money.
Only solution to the spoiler problem is to change to approval voting. That way, those who are worried about "throwing their vote away" will vote for the third party plus their main party choice.
Approval voting is the least complicated of all the voting systems that gives a fair result. IRV is far too complicated for the type of people who will accidentally vote for Buchanan.
To implement it, we have to get the local races to use it first. So go to a town hall meeting once in a while and bring up approval voting. It's the only way it will ever happen.
Actually, the Founding Fathers created a system where only white adult males who owned land could vote, and individual states were free to create and enforce their own religions. I won't get into slavery.
Because they can just make a new variety every 20 years, contaminate other farmers' crops with them, and then force them to shut down. It doesn't have to better or even significantly different - it just has to be patented and new.
By the time the trial gets that far, the punishment has been dished out - money paid to lawyers, days of work missed, etc.
Likely not. They want someone they can control, and you can't control entrepreneurs. Just look at Enron and Worldcom.
Nah, eventually you'll become homeless and drop off the radar entirely. For the company, it's a win/win.
Threatening to sue someone unless they do what you want isn't illegal. It's the whole point of having a court system - you use it instead of vigilante justice.
It's better than snakes on a muthaf***in' space elevator!
I get bored having to sit and pretend to be interested in something. Some people would even prefer work over that.