GWB hasn't vetoed ONE BILL despite threatening to do so several times. He's not about to start now. Plus, as I saw it on CSPAN (tuned in a bit late), this amendment was attached to a spending bill. If Bush vetoed a big spending bill, there would be some larger problems than the PATRIOT ACT being just a hair weaker. Also, amendments cannot be attached to spending bills in the Senate, as they can be in the House. The Democrats would have to come up with another way to get the issue on the table, perhaps as an amendment to a non-spending bill. However, the purpose of putting amendments onto spending bills is generally to force a vote on them. If spending bills don't pass, the government must eventually shutdown as occurred during the Clinton-Gingrich era. See here for more info on the 'Germaneness Rule': GPOAccess.gov
If he's been on 25+ shows, he's probably already been through a tough bible category. Though, in the past 5 years or so (since Millionaire), Jeopardy has been a little less difficult. It's always great watching the old ones on GSN, even if I'm rarely there to watch it, since it only comes on when the moons are in alignment.
...a man is getting respect for his intelligence, on daytime TV.
What moron station puts Jeopardy on during the day? How the hell are you supposed to watch it then? 7 PM, WABC. Jeopardy. It's more important than Wapner.
Open container laws are a way to prevent passengers from drinking. The idea is that if passengers are drinking, the driver is more likely to drink. My German friend found this incredulous.. when we jokingly asked "Well, what's to stop the driver from drinking in Germany?" he replied, ".... not drinking!"
A URL is really just a filetype determinied by the file extension (.htm,.html, etc.)
URLs in Windows are done on a protocol, not extension basis. In explorer file type options, you'll see them listed under extension "(NONE)" or "N/A" as something like URL:HTTP, URL:RTSP, URL:FTP, etc, except with the acronyms expanded. However, they are not able to be modified through the explorer file types dialog (that I know of). They can be manually edited in the registry, and some can be modified through Windows XPs "Set Program Access and Defaults" (you can at least modify HTTP through this one).
Hmm.. just tried this, but noticed a problem. How do you use the minimize/maximize(restore)/close buttons on the top right of the windows? Either you're not running apps maximized, or are using the keyboard shortcuts? It does look like there's a small range where you can hit the buttons but not trigger the task bar, maybe it just takes some getting used to, since I'm used to just jabbing the mouse in the upper right and clicking to close things.
Back at the turn of the century wasting time on a train was the only way to get anywhere. I'll happily take my 6 hour plane ride from FL to CA, thanks.
We also didn't have to go as far to have vacations. For example, the Jersey shore had rail running all up and down, to every town, all the way to Cape May. Some of this still exists as the New Jersey Coast Line of NJ Transit, but most is gone forever. My point is that we didn't used to have to go thousands of miles for vacation. I reckon it would have taken about 3-4 hours to get from NYC to Cape May by rail (It is about the same by car, with little traffic). That's not a huge waste of time.
You can have a theme while mostly avoiding politics. E.g., probably the most obvious example is SimCity. Even though you're playing a political figure (a mayor), the game is actually not about politics, and doesn't try to convince you that one political side is better than the other.
I disagree. I think SimCity does show some bias, but probably not intentional. Most of my references are SimCity 3000 based, since that is the one I most recently played, but some go all the way back to SimCity Classic.
The game is clearly in support of mass transit. The game's goal may not be to get you to 'believe' in the idea, but you can't deny that the game has a message of "mass transit good" since it is impossible to grow beyond a certain size without it. Yes, it can also be explained as "That's just being realistic/gameplay," but the game still has the clear message: big cities need mass transit.
The game is also anti-corporation, very much so in SimCity 3000. There are no good business deals you can make. IIRC, they're all bad. Toxic dump, Prison, MegaMall, Casino, Defense research. They're always objected to by the citizens, and the business people are slimy caracatures. Some of them will blantantly lie to you.
There are other minor points: Smart growth and green power are featured, and pollution from industry is greatly exaggerated. Again, some of these are gameplay related. It would be silly to have to wait 50 years (half of a normal game) to go by before pollution started having effects on your city. Also, the game does not force you as much into some of these other items, but there are subtle hints here and there.
The thing that matters here is the intent. Pretty much any city simulator you come up with will have little biases built into based on what you believe and to spice up gameplay. I agree that the designers of SimCity have done a good job of not being overtly political, but it is still my opinion that SimCity doesn't, and couldn't, avoid politics.
If you can undercut your competitors and still be in the black, you get more profits.
Not necessarily. If one can make more money through fees than through (cheaper rates + more customers), then why have cheaper rates? More customers means more risk in insurance. Providing auto insurance does not make much money, at least in New Jersey, where I live. Population density is ridiculously high and public transit is deficient in most places. This results in very dense traffic where accidents are frequent. Medical costs are also quite high. In fact, there was a period of time a few years ago where companies would not do business here, and were actively trying to dump their customers. It has improved slightly, with one new company coming into the state, but any of those cheap auto insurance commercials you see on TV will always say on the bottom "Not offered in New Jersey". The insurance companies want all the money they can get, and if they can do that without assuming any additional risk, they will. It's simply the path of least resistance.
While an autox test would increase spatial awareness and give drivers more experience making more aggressive maneuvers, I'm unsure of how many accidents it would prevent. Highway accident data (specifically the NY Thruway just west of the Tappan Zee) lists 'following too close' as the cause of somewhere around 75-80% of accidents. Now, I realize that the accident data only has a small area for accident cause, and that some of these listed as 'following too close' will have other factors involved. However, based on this emprical data and my anectodal driving experince, it is my opinion that a vast majority of accidents are caused by a combination of three factors, in decreasing order of importance: following distance/spatial awareness, lack of operator attention, speed.
While an autox type driving training will assist drivers somewhat in the first and third areas, it would be done with no traffic. Add in a few hundred cars a minute and it becomes a whole different situation. IMO, a large problem is that most drivers are only looking in front of them, if at all. Then, they are fiddling with the phone, the radio, the kid, the a/c, don't notice that the car up ahead has slowed, and slam into that vehicle, or swerve into another lane and hit a vehicle, or perhaps swerve off the road into the ditch. A majority of accidents I see, both accidents I've seen occur and accidents where I've only seen the aftermath, are rear-end accidents. An additional factor in this is that in some metropolitan areas, there is so much traffic that maintaining a proper following distance is nearly impossible. In these cases, it is still possible to drive safely, provided that more attention is paid to the road, in all directions. When the traffic gets that dense, I will tend to look 2 or 3 cars up in traffic to see when I will need to slow down. Another thing I never try to do is use the middle lane for a long amount of time in traffic. When in the outside lanes, there is always the shoulder as a last resort to smacking into the car in front of you. In fact, I used it just last week, though I probably could have stopped in time if I wanted to slam on the brakes. I didn't really want to find out, though.
The incentive? If speeding is made out to be ultra-dangerous, then the insurance companies have a 'good reason' to charge you out the ass when you get a 10 mph speeding ticket. You're right, the actuarial tables don't lie. It's simply easier to make money from fees and surcharges than from legitimate insurance business.
FYI, "Click it or Ticket" is a federal program. But, the purpose of the program is not because we care about other people getting hurt, per se. When an accident occurs where one or more participants is not wearing a seatbelt, the likelihood of serious injury or death goes way up. An accident with serious injury or a fatality will take more time, manpower, and money to clean up and investigate. These bills are paid by all taxpayers, not by the people that 'cause' the accident (many states have 'no-fault' laws, so no one legally causes the accident, it just happens). The purpose of the program is twofold: Make money through increased citations, and, save money through a decrease in fatal and serious accidents.
Not really. Judges are very busy and have calendars of cases. They can't just be taking time to look at something for a day, because there are other cases ahead of it. This TRO was probably issued at a preliminary hearing where the judge decided it would be best to issue a temporary order and revisit it when time is available to make arguments and pass a final judgement. In the legal sense, the judge did need to issue the order right away to prevent any possible further damage from occurring.
Your doom and gloom shows your ignorance as well. You didn't RTFA or comments to see that this is a temporary order only meant to last until final judgement is passed on this matter. This order only affects the parties in question and will not cause any lasting damage to the internet, if any.
While IP addresses can be portable, they are not under any circumstances like telephone numbers, land line or cell.
There is nothing in the TRO that shows this was the court's thinking, despite the assertions of slashdot. The court merely wanted to prevent further damage from taking place until arguments and judgement can be made.
I imagine the thought process was something like: "Hey, if we can have cell number portability, why can't we have IP address portability? Same thing, right?"
Why does everyone keep saying this, and why does it keep getting modded up? I know it seems like this was the case, since everyone but us is stupid. However, the judge issued a temporary order. The thought process was probably more like "Hey, I have no idea what I'm dealing with here, so I'll make the parties abide by the previous agreement and do some work." If the final judgement comes back and says in there somewhere "If we can do it with cell phones, why not IPs," then maybe I'll agree with what you're saying. Until then, it's just silly elitism and downright wrong. We're talking about someone who has been through law school and is now a judge. Let's have a little more respect.
Sounds to me like someone took the concept of phone number portability and tried to apply it to another problem domain.
No, that's probably not what happened. More likely:
<Judge> Hmm.. a case involving the internet. Well I don't really know too much about that, so I'll force the parties to abide by the previous agreement until I can sort things out.
Now, this still may mean that he has crafted a technically infeasible or difficult solution. However, I don't think that was simply because he thought "Oh I saw them durn cell numbers being moved, let's do it here too."
The TRO only prevents NAC from further damaging the client in this case. If there is a final judgement for the client, I think another arrangement would have to be worked out. The TRO actually orders NAC to *not* move the IPs, or change any routing that would affect the usability of those IPs. It maintains the status quo of their business arrangement until the court can fully consider the matter.
Not really. The order only forces NAC to continue providing the IPs to the client or a service hired by the client, and forbids them from changing router entries to block access. The order is only meant to prevent any possible further damage from taking place until the judge can fully look at the merits of the case, it is not meant to setup a portability system for IPs. The order is in no way a precedent.
That's true, I didn't really word my post correctly. In matters of determining guilt or damages, the burden is on the complainant. However, in the matter of temporary orders, victims and complainants are frequently favored to prevent any further possible damage. For example, Spike TV was temporarily stopped from changing their name. However, in the end, the judge realized it was stupid to allow a man who calls himself Spike Lee to stop a TV station from using the word Spike in their name. I'm fairly sure there will be a similar outcome in this case.
It's still ridiculous that the judge doesn't have enough brains to toss the case right out.
Everyone here is saying this because it seems so simple to us. However, most judges don't just make snap decisions. Sure, we look at the issue and say "Oh that's ARINs IP space, you can't touch it," and then we act like we've proved Fermat's Last Theorem. Well, it isn't that simple in the real world. The judge must look into the applicable laws and contracts and determine who legally owns the entities in question. I have little doubt that the judge will find that ARIN owns the IP space and that NAC does not have the authority or ability to transfer the IPs. For the time being, the judge has chosen to force NAC to continue providing the IP space to the client until the matters are sorted out.
Research? How much research did you do on it? 2 seconds of reading comments on Slashdot? I know that's all I've done, and I'm willing to admit it, and give the judge the benefit of the doubt. S/He's issued a temporary restraining order in this case. Are you ignorant to the fact this means that the case is still open and under review? Would the judge not also be ignorant if he just threw the case out without looking at it closely enough? Generally, a restraining order prevents any further damage from being committed while the case is under review. Yes, it may be true that the complainant has no legal argument, but in our legal system we give a benefit of the doubt to victims and complainants. The judge in this case took a quick look at the facts, thought the case had some merit, and decided to take a closer look at it.
The business transaction in question took place in the State of New Jersey and is subject to the laws of that jurisdiction. I didn't get a chance to look at the details yet, but this is probably a contractual matter. If no local judges can rule on the internet, who can? Only national judges? But the internet crosses international borders, as you say. We can barely set up an international court to deal with war crimes, and you think we can make one for the internet? Even if it was possible, they would be ruling on every petty contractual matter that happens to involve the internet?
No, judges are not simply ignorant because they haven't been studying computers and using the internet for the past 10 years. Judges must work within the boundaries of the law, and in many cases, the law is not equipped to deal with modern circumstances such as IP addresses. I didn't get a chance to look into the details of this yet, but neither did the judge. That's why he issued a temporary restraining order, and not a permanent decision.
Slashdot Mirror
GWB hasn't vetoed ONE BILL despite threatening to do so several times. He's not about to start now. Plus, as I saw it on CSPAN (tuned in a bit late), this amendment was attached to a spending bill. If Bush vetoed a big spending bill, there would be some larger problems than the PATRIOT ACT being just a hair weaker. Also, amendments cannot be attached to spending bills in the Senate, as they can be in the House. The Democrats would have to come up with another way to get the issue on the table, perhaps as an amendment to a non-spending bill. However, the purpose of putting amendments onto spending bills is generally to force a vote on them. If spending bills don't pass, the government must eventually shutdown as occurred during the Clinton-Gingrich era. See here for more info on the 'Germaneness Rule': GPOAccess.gov
If he's been on 25+ shows, he's probably already been through a tough bible category. Though, in the past 5 years or so (since Millionaire), Jeopardy has been a little less difficult. It's always great watching the old ones on GSN, even if I'm rarely there to watch it, since it only comes on when the moons are in alignment.
...a man is getting respect for his intelligence, on daytime TV.
What moron station puts Jeopardy on during the day? How the hell are you supposed to watch it then? 7 PM, WABC. Jeopardy. It's more important than Wapner.
Open container laws are a way to prevent passengers from drinking. The idea is that if passengers are drinking, the driver is more likely to drink. My German friend found this incredulous.. when we jokingly asked "Well, what's to stop the driver from drinking in Germany?" he replied, ".... not drinking!"
Oh, if only things were so simple here...
A URL is really just a filetype determinied by the file extension (.htm, .html, etc.)
URLs in Windows are done on a protocol, not extension basis. In explorer file type options, you'll see them listed under extension "(NONE)" or "N/A" as something like URL:HTTP, URL:RTSP, URL:FTP, etc, except with the acronyms expanded. However, they are not able to be modified through the explorer file types dialog (that I know of). They can be manually edited in the registry, and some can be modified through Windows XPs "Set Program Access and Defaults" (you can at least modify HTTP through this one).
Taskbar grouping on XP will add new windows to the top of the group. The order is still preserved.
Hmm.. just tried this, but noticed a problem. How do you use the minimize/maximize(restore)/close buttons on the top right of the windows? Either you're not running apps maximized, or are using the keyboard shortcuts? It does look like there's a small range where you can hit the buttons but not trigger the task bar, maybe it just takes some getting used to, since I'm used to just jabbing the mouse in the upper right and clicking to close things.
Back at the turn of the century wasting time on a train was the only way to get anywhere. I'll happily take my 6 hour plane ride from FL to CA, thanks.
We also didn't have to go as far to have vacations. For example, the Jersey shore had rail running all up and down, to every town, all the way to Cape May. Some of this still exists as the New Jersey Coast Line of NJ Transit, but most is gone forever. My point is that we didn't used to have to go thousands of miles for vacation. I reckon it would have taken about 3-4 hours to get from NYC to Cape May by rail (It is about the same by car, with little traffic). That's not a huge waste of time.
You can have a theme while mostly avoiding politics. E.g., probably the most obvious example is SimCity. Even though you're playing a political figure (a mayor), the game is actually not about politics, and doesn't try to convince you that one political side is better than the other.
I disagree. I think SimCity does show some bias, but probably not intentional. Most of my references are SimCity 3000 based, since that is the one I most recently played, but some go all the way back to SimCity Classic.
The game is clearly in support of mass transit. The game's goal may not be to get you to 'believe' in the idea, but you can't deny that the game has a message of "mass transit good" since it is impossible to grow beyond a certain size without it. Yes, it can also be explained as "That's just being realistic/gameplay," but the game still has the clear message: big cities need mass transit.
The game is also anti-corporation, very much so in SimCity 3000. There are no good business deals you can make. IIRC, they're all bad. Toxic dump, Prison, MegaMall, Casino, Defense research. They're always objected to by the citizens, and the business people are slimy caracatures. Some of them will blantantly lie to you.
There are other minor points: Smart growth and green power are featured, and pollution from industry is greatly exaggerated. Again, some of these are gameplay related. It would be silly to have to wait 50 years (half of a normal game) to go by before pollution started having effects on your city. Also, the game does not force you as much into some of these other items, but there are subtle hints here and there.
The thing that matters here is the intent. Pretty much any city simulator you come up with will have little biases built into based on what you believe and to spice up gameplay. I agree that the designers of SimCity have done a good job of not being overtly political, but it is still my opinion that SimCity doesn't, and couldn't, avoid politics.
If you can undercut your competitors and still be in the black, you get more profits.
Not necessarily. If one can make more money through fees than through (cheaper rates + more customers), then why have cheaper rates? More customers means more risk in insurance. Providing auto insurance does not make much money, at least in New Jersey, where I live. Population density is ridiculously high and public transit is deficient in most places. This results in very dense traffic where accidents are frequent. Medical costs are also quite high. In fact, there was a period of time a few years ago where companies would not do business here, and were actively trying to dump their customers. It has improved slightly, with one new company coming into the state, but any of those cheap auto insurance commercials you see on TV will always say on the bottom "Not offered in New Jersey". The insurance companies want all the money they can get, and if they can do that without assuming any additional risk, they will. It's simply the path of least resistance.
While an autox test would increase spatial awareness and give drivers more experience making more aggressive maneuvers, I'm unsure of how many accidents it would prevent. Highway accident data (specifically the NY Thruway just west of the Tappan Zee) lists 'following too close' as the cause of somewhere around 75-80% of accidents. Now, I realize that the accident data only has a small area for accident cause, and that some of these listed as 'following too close' will have other factors involved. However, based on this emprical data and my anectodal driving experince, it is my opinion that a vast majority of accidents are caused by a combination of three factors, in decreasing order of importance: following distance/spatial awareness, lack of operator attention, speed.
While an autox type driving training will assist drivers somewhat in the first and third areas, it would be done with no traffic. Add in a few hundred cars a minute and it becomes a whole different situation. IMO, a large problem is that most drivers are only looking in front of them, if at all. Then, they are fiddling with the phone, the radio, the kid, the a/c, don't notice that the car up ahead has slowed, and slam into that vehicle, or swerve into another lane and hit a vehicle, or perhaps swerve off the road into the ditch. A majority of accidents I see, both accidents I've seen occur and accidents where I've only seen the aftermath, are rear-end accidents. An additional factor in this is that in some metropolitan areas, there is so much traffic that maintaining a proper following distance is nearly impossible. In these cases, it is still possible to drive safely, provided that more attention is paid to the road, in all directions. When the traffic gets that dense, I will tend to look 2 or 3 cars up in traffic to see when I will need to slow down. Another thing I never try to do is use the middle lane for a long amount of time in traffic. When in the outside lanes, there is always the shoulder as a last resort to smacking into the car in front of you. In fact, I used it just last week, though I probably could have stopped in time if I wanted to slam on the brakes. I didn't really want to find out, though.
The incentive? If speeding is made out to be ultra-dangerous, then the insurance companies have a 'good reason' to charge you out the ass when you get a 10 mph speeding ticket. You're right, the actuarial tables don't lie. It's simply easier to make money from fees and surcharges than from legitimate insurance business.
FYI, "Click it or Ticket" is a federal program. But, the purpose of the program is not because we care about other people getting hurt, per se. When an accident occurs where one or more participants is not wearing a seatbelt, the likelihood of serious injury or death goes way up. An accident with serious injury or a fatality will take more time, manpower, and money to clean up and investigate. These bills are paid by all taxpayers, not by the people that 'cause' the accident (many states have 'no-fault' laws, so no one legally causes the accident, it just happens). The purpose of the program is twofold: Make money through increased citations, and, save money through a decrease in fatal and serious accidents.
Nothing. The judicial system is already equipped to deal with this case. Courts deal with technical issues all the time. It just takes time.
Not really. Judges are very busy and have calendars of cases. They can't just be taking time to look at something for a day, because there are other cases ahead of it. This TRO was probably issued at a preliminary hearing where the judge decided it would be best to issue a temporary order and revisit it when time is available to make arguments and pass a final judgement. In the legal sense, the judge did need to issue the order right away to prevent any possible further damage from occurring.
Your doom and gloom shows your ignorance as well. You didn't RTFA or comments to see that this is a temporary order only meant to last until final judgement is passed on this matter. This order only affects the parties in question and will not cause any lasting damage to the internet, if any.
While IP addresses can be portable, they are not under any circumstances like telephone numbers, land line or cell.
There is nothing in the TRO that shows this was the court's thinking, despite the assertions of slashdot. The court merely wanted to prevent further damage from taking place until arguments and judgement can be made.
I imagine the thought process was something like: "Hey, if we can have cell number portability, why can't we have IP address portability? Same thing, right?"
Why does everyone keep saying this, and why does it keep getting modded up? I know it seems like this was the case, since everyone but us is stupid. However, the judge issued a temporary order. The thought process was probably more like "Hey, I have no idea what I'm dealing with here, so I'll make the parties abide by the previous agreement and do some work." If the final judgement comes back and says in there somewhere "If we can do it with cell phones, why not IPs," then maybe I'll agree with what you're saying. Until then, it's just silly elitism and downright wrong. We're talking about someone who has been through law school and is now a judge. Let's have a little more respect.
Sounds to me like someone took the concept of phone number portability and tried to apply it to another problem domain.
No, that's probably not what happened. More likely:
<Judge> Hmm.. a case involving the internet. Well I don't really know too much about that, so I'll force the parties to abide by the previous agreement until I can sort things out.
Now, this still may mean that he has crafted a technically infeasible or difficult solution. However, I don't think that was simply because he thought "Oh I saw them durn cell numbers being moved, let's do it here too."
The TRO only prevents NAC from further damaging the client in this case. If there is a final judgement for the client, I think another arrangement would have to be worked out. The TRO actually orders NAC to *not* move the IPs, or change any routing that would affect the usability of those IPs. It maintains the status quo of their business arrangement until the court can fully consider the matter.
Not really. The order only forces NAC to continue providing the IPs to the client or a service hired by the client, and forbids them from changing router entries to block access. The order is only meant to prevent any possible further damage from taking place until the judge can fully look at the merits of the case, it is not meant to setup a portability system for IPs. The order is in no way a precedent.
That's true, I didn't really word my post correctly. In matters of determining guilt or damages, the burden is on the complainant. However, in the matter of temporary orders, victims and complainants are frequently favored to prevent any further possible damage. For example, Spike TV was temporarily stopped from changing their name. However, in the end, the judge realized it was stupid to allow a man who calls himself Spike Lee to stop a TV station from using the word Spike in their name. I'm fairly sure there will be a similar outcome in this case.
It's still ridiculous that the judge doesn't have enough brains to toss the case right out.
Everyone here is saying this because it seems so simple to us. However, most judges don't just make snap decisions. Sure, we look at the issue and say "Oh that's ARINs IP space, you can't touch it," and then we act like we've proved Fermat's Last Theorem. Well, it isn't that simple in the real world. The judge must look into the applicable laws and contracts and determine who legally owns the entities in question. I have little doubt that the judge will find that ARIN owns the IP space and that NAC does not have the authority or ability to transfer the IPs. For the time being, the judge has chosen to force NAC to continue providing the IP space to the client until the matters are sorted out.
Research? How much research did you do on it? 2 seconds of reading comments on Slashdot? I know that's all I've done, and I'm willing to admit it, and give the judge the benefit of the doubt. S/He's issued a temporary restraining order in this case. Are you ignorant to the fact this means that the case is still open and under review? Would the judge not also be ignorant if he just threw the case out without looking at it closely enough? Generally, a restraining order prevents any further damage from being committed while the case is under review. Yes, it may be true that the complainant has no legal argument, but in our legal system we give a benefit of the doubt to victims and complainants. The judge in this case took a quick look at the facts, thought the case had some merit, and decided to take a closer look at it.
The business transaction in question took place in the State of New Jersey and is subject to the laws of that jurisdiction. I didn't get a chance to look at the details yet, but this is probably a contractual matter. If no local judges can rule on the internet, who can? Only national judges? But the internet crosses international borders, as you say. We can barely set up an international court to deal with war crimes, and you think we can make one for the internet? Even if it was possible, they would be ruling on every petty contractual matter that happens to involve the internet?
No, judges are not simply ignorant because they haven't been studying computers and using the internet for the past 10 years. Judges must work within the boundaries of the law, and in many cases, the law is not equipped to deal with modern circumstances such as IP addresses. I didn't get a chance to look into the details of this yet, but neither did the judge. That's why he issued a temporary restraining order, and not a permanent decision.