My thought exactly. If I were teaching such a course, I'd only allow the students to use a desktop computer with no network connection, and forbid them to use their cellphones during the test so that they can't use them to research things on the net.
That may have been true when it started out, but it hasn't been for a long, long time. The whole point of Facebook now is to get more and more people to give them more and more personal information that they can sell to advertisers. That's how they make money and that's all that they really care about.
Congress was banned from writing any laws to do with speech...
You have a very strange idea of what the First Amendment says and what it means. Maybe you should learn a little more about it before putting your other foot in your mouth.
The FBI getting involved in something as benign as copyright violation is absurd.
In the US, copyright is an enumerated power of the Federal Government, as listed in the Copyright Clause. This makes any criminal copyright charges quite literally a federal offense. As there is no federal agency specifically assigned to investigating such cases, it would seem to fall under the FBI's jurisdiction by default. If not, who would you suggest to be more appropriate?
The suspect was killed when a bomb he was carrying exploded. TFA doesn't say that the police were responsible for the explosion. It may have been triggered by the suspect and it may have gone off unintentionally, but I see nothing in TFA that implies that the police were responsible. Generally speaking, the expression, "killed while resisting arrest" implies that the suspect was killed, either directly or indirectly by the police. Unless you have evidence showing that the police were responsible for the explosion, my statement stands.
At least this time, the suspect wasn't killed while resisting arrest. We may never know his motives or if the victims were targeted or random and if the bombings stop, we may never really know for sure if he was guilty, but nobody will be able to claim that the cops killed an innocent man.
Back in the '70s and '80s, This type of ad was the mainstay of numerous local tabloid "newspapers," that had just enough articles to qualify for the term. Almost all of them were for women, and many of them were looking for "generous men." There was a special section of personals for men, and I'd presume that at least some of them used the same wording, but I never bothered looking at them because that kind of thing never interested me. Back then, you could tell which ones were from services because they all had the same phone number. I'd presume that the current websites are similar, but I've never bothered looking to find out.
Shouldn't the vehicle avoid collisions with any object?
Yes, it should. And, it should also stop as soon as it detects that it's collided with something. I think we should also be asking why it didn't stop once it had hit the woman.
My understanding is that the FCC rule in question presumed that anybody using a cellphone was guilty of making robocalls until the accused proved that he wasn't. This is in direct contradiction of The Presumption of Innocence, one of the cornerstones of American law. IANAL, but I can't see how any case based on it would possibly hold up in court. Now, if the rule required there to be autodialing software on the phone, that would be different.
The best you could have hoped for from Clinton was maintenance of the status quo, and the status quo is that more and more households in America are failing so that is clearly not a desirable outcome.
And that, in a nutshell, is the biggest reason she lost: she offered nothing new, just four more years of President Obama's failed policies, and enough voters in enough states wanted change, so that's what she got. (The other reason, of course, is that she spent most of the campaign in states that she couldn't lose if she tried instead of fighting for those that she could have won if she'd bothered to campaign there.)
While it is true some variant of these are available everywhere, just like pico/nano, they can't be relied on to be an iteration of the application you know how to use.
That may be so, but nano, at least, puts the most common commands on the bottom of the screen, including the all-important keystroke that gets you into the rest of the help system. Of course, you need to know that ^X means what most people would write as CTRL+X, but anybody who's expecting to need to use an editor in a CLI shouldn't have any trouble with that.
I'm a diabetic. LADA to be exact. If I cut out all (or almost all) carbs from my diet, I'd be dead. I have to have some, and it's a balancing act: not to many, not too little. I may not be an expert on the subject, but I'm writing from personal experience.
The train porters may have been black, but there were lots of servants in Victorian times, and except for the American South, there were very few blacks.
Not the best example. Many people who now work as flight attendants would have been doing very similar work on trains or passenger ships and others would have been working in hotels. (Remember, back before there were planes, you couldn't fly several hundred miles, attend one business meeting then fly back home the same day.) And, up into the early 20th Century, there was no social stigma attached to "being in service," and a career as a servant in a wealthy family's home was considered quite respectable. Commercial air transportation didn't create a new category of job so much as changed where people did basically the same kind of work.
Wake up and smell the cordite! Nobody's saying that the cops aren't responsible for their actions. I'm saying that calling out the SWAT team isn't a dumb phone prank when you know in advance that somebody might get killed, and if a few stupid fools get thrown in the slammer for it, the number of prank calls will go down. Way, way down.
Really? You think hard time and a ruined life is too much of a punishment for what could easily be considered to be attempted murder? What do you consider appropriate? Community service?
Charging them isn't enough. it needs, as you suggest, both convictions and prison time, both highly publicized, to have any real effect. Stupid people need to learn that making fake SWAT calls will, in every case, lead to hard time in a maximum security facility and a ruined life.
And how do you prevent whoever installed the OS in the first place from using it, especially if the installation program won't let you install without setting it? And, it's my home computer, nobody else uses it so why shouldn't I know it? (Yes, I understand that you're talking about work computers, especially servers, but there are cases where having somebody know the root password isn't a problem.)
Slashdot Mirror
My thought exactly. If I were teaching such a course, I'd only allow the students to use a desktop computer with no network connection, and forbid them to use their cellphones during the test so that they can't use them to research things on the net.
The point of Facebook *is* to "connect people".
That may have been true when it started out, but it hasn't been for a long, long time. The whole point of Facebook now is to get more and more people to give them more and more personal information that they can sell to advertisers. That's how they make money and that's all that they really care about.
OK, you use Windows for a living; I don't. Tell me, do you find this report surprising, or is it what you expect from Microsoft?
Congress was banned from writing any laws to do with speech...
You have a very strange idea of what the First Amendment says and what it means. Maybe you should learn a little more about it before putting your other foot in your mouth.
The FBI getting involved in something as benign as copyright violation is absurd.
In the US, copyright is an enumerated power of the Federal Government, as listed in the Copyright Clause. This makes any criminal copyright charges quite literally a federal offense. As there is no federal agency specifically assigned to investigating such cases, it would seem to fall under the FBI's jurisdiction by default. If not, who would you suggest to be more appropriate?
The suspect wasn't killed while resisting arrest?
The suspect was killed when a bomb he was carrying exploded. TFA doesn't say that the police were responsible for the explosion. It may have been triggered by the suspect and it may have gone off unintentionally, but I see nothing in TFA that implies that the police were responsible. Generally speaking, the expression, "killed while resisting arrest" implies that the suspect was killed, either directly or indirectly by the police. Unless you have evidence showing that the police were responsible for the explosion, my statement stands.
At least this time, the suspect wasn't killed while resisting arrest. We may never know his motives or if the victims were targeted or random and if the bombings stop, we may never really know for sure if he was guilty, but nobody will be able to claim that the cops killed an innocent man.
Guys looking for you to be "generous"
Back in the '70s and '80s, This type of ad was the mainstay of numerous local tabloid "newspapers," that had just enough articles to qualify for the term. Almost all of them were for women, and many of them were looking for "generous men." There was a special section of personals for men, and I'd presume that at least some of them used the same wording, but I never bothered looking at them because that kind of thing never interested me. Back then, you could tell which ones were from services because they all had the same phone number. I'd presume that the current websites are similar, but I've never bothered looking to find out.
Quite honestly, the description I read made me think that it didn't stop right away. I sit corrected.
Shouldn't the vehicle avoid collisions with any object?
Yes, it should. And, it should also stop as soon as it detects that it's collided with something. I think we should also be asking why it didn't stop once it had hit the woman.
My understanding is that the FCC rule in question presumed that anybody using a cellphone was guilty of making robocalls until the accused proved that he wasn't. This is in direct contradiction of The Presumption of Innocence, one of the cornerstones of American law. IANAL, but I can't see how any case based on it would possibly hold up in court. Now, if the rule required there to be autodialing software on the phone, that would be different.
The best you could have hoped for from Clinton was maintenance of the status quo, and the status quo is that more and more households in America are failing so that is clearly not a desirable outcome.
And that, in a nutshell, is the biggest reason she lost: she offered nothing new, just four more years of President Obama's failed policies, and enough voters in enough states wanted change, so that's what she got. (The other reason, of course, is that she spent most of the campaign in states that she couldn't lose if she tried instead of fighting for those that she could have won if she'd bothered to campaign there.)
While it is true some variant of these are available everywhere, just like pico/nano, they can't be relied on to be an iteration of the application you know how to use.
That may be so, but nano, at least, puts the most common commands on the bottom of the screen, including the all-important keystroke that gets you into the rest of the help system. Of course, you need to know that ^X means what most people would write as CTRL+X, but anybody who's expecting to need to use an editor in a CLI shouldn't have any trouble with that.
He is very couscous about making sure the aquifers are sustainable and will recharge.
This man is a Middle-Eastern grain dish?
Asked and answered. And I was first diagnosed with Type II (now LADA) sixteen years ago.
I've lived with it for sixteen years. How much experience do you have?
I'm a diabetic. LADA to be exact. If I cut out all (or almost all) carbs from my diet, I'd be dead. I have to have some, and it's a balancing act: not to many, not too little. I may not be an expert on the subject, but I'm writing from personal experience.
And you are an expert on this because...
The train porters may have been black, but there were lots of servants in Victorian times, and except for the American South, there were very few blacks.
Not the best example. Many people who now work as flight attendants would have been doing very similar work on trains or passenger ships and others would have been working in hotels. (Remember, back before there were planes, you couldn't fly several hundred miles, attend one business meeting then fly back home the same day.) And, up into the early 20th Century, there was no social stigma attached to "being in service," and a career as a servant in a wealthy family's home was considered quite respectable. Commercial air transportation didn't create a new category of job so much as changed where people did basically the same kind of work.
...basic core functionality shouldn't depend on a pile of third-party add-ons.
Tell that to the Gnome 3 devs and watch them laugh at you.
Wake up and smell the cordite! Nobody's saying that the cops aren't responsible for their actions. I'm saying that calling out the SWAT team isn't a dumb phone prank when you know in advance that somebody might get killed, and if a few stupid fools get thrown in the slammer for it, the number of prank calls will go down. Way, way down.
Really? You think hard time and a ruined life is too much of a punishment for what could easily be considered to be attempted murder? What do you consider appropriate? Community service?
Charging them isn't enough. it needs, as you suggest, both convictions and prison time, both highly publicized, to have any real effect. Stupid people need to learn that making fake SWAT calls will, in every case, lead to hard time in a maximum security facility and a ruined life.
No one should know the root password...
And how do you prevent whoever installed the OS in the first place from using it, especially if the installation program won't let you install without setting it? And, it's my home computer, nobody else uses it so why shouldn't I know it? (Yes, I understand that you're talking about work computers, especially servers, but there are cases where having somebody know the root password isn't a problem.)