Actually, high-quality gigabit switches can be had for pretty cheap. A basic commercial 24-port managed gigabit switch can be had for $150 all day long. Yeah, it may be off-lease equipment, but they still work flawlessly for years and can be readily replaced if they die.
The labor involved in wiring large, multi-unit buildings would cost far more than the switching and routing equipment. NAT only falls over and dies when you're talking about consumer hardware. It's not an issue when the hardware used for the task is sized for the intended processing load.
you haven't named a single product that I can't live without
The number of people truly capable of living in the US without consuming petroleum-based products is incredibly small. While you could theoretically live without it, in practice I would bet almost anything you do not actually possess the skills and resources to do so. Having the choice to try and do so isn't the same thing. You can choose to try and fly to the moon. Without the proper skills and resources, though, it's a forgone conclusion that having the option to try is not the same thing as actually being able to follow through.
Anyway, if you follow that logic, you also still have the choice to not buy health insurance. It's not like they've made it illegal not to purchase it. It's actually far easier to live free of health insurance after the mandate than it is to live without consuming petroleum products, and neither is illegal. You can't hold an impractical theoretical up as an example for comparison without abstracting what you're comparing it to just as far out. It's intellectually dishonest.
But every online system I've interacted with has an additional line for the address.
Front-end != back-end. Regardless, as multiple others have apparently pointed out in response to your comment, the unit/apt # is a standard part of the first address line in the US. That it is not a part of the street name is irrelevant. Unless it is a business suite (among certain exceptions), it will be appended to the first line when stored because that is the way it is always used in output.
Also your apartment number/letter (or suite or such) is NOT part of the street name. If there is a box for 'unit' or apartment use only it for that.
This is almost universally untrue in the US. Most software is designed to append the unit # field onto the end of the address so that it is formatted correctly. Typically, that format is 123 Street #unit. Invoicing and other automated address systems (and I use a LOT of them) that have a separate unit # field will append it to the first address line in confirmation, database storage, and output. Even if it exists in input, it can be safely ignored since it's irrelevant to the actual data use.
My problem with this suggestion is that it's either already safe and they shouldn't be charging extra for it, or it's already not safe and they shouldn't be allowing it. The program is either corrupt or stupid, depending on which side of the issue you're on.
Well, the one thing that Facebook did contribute to is providing a platform where the stupid can show just how biased they are. Only those smart enough to keep their mouth shut can subvert the jury process.
That's true, but the reasons that they use in most cases are bullshit*. In the case of marijuana, they claim that regulation occurs as a result of their power to tax things. Of course, using that same logic means that they can ban any product or activity at any time simply by taxing it and refusing to issue tax stamps. Technically (though when has Congress respected any boundary for long?), they have no legitimate authority to prevent the possession of anything unless it is related to one of the enumerated powers. If they can prohibit the possession of marijuana, they can prohibit the possession of paper goods, pens, pencils, clothing, water, oxygen, or food products. There is nothing in the Constitution that differentiates those things, which means if the Federal Government can prohibit one, it can prohibit any. There are very few exceptions to scope of the enumerated powers, and none that are specific in that regard.
The Supremacy Clause means laws passed within the scope of powers granted by the Constitution have supremacy over state laws that conflict with them. It does not, not, not mean that any law the Federal Government decides to pass automatically overrides everything else. It still has to be within their enumerated powers. You can't use the Supremacy Clause to justify a law, you have to use some other part of the Constitution. Once you've done that, then you can use the Supremacy Clause to prevent the states from overriding it. Otherwise, the jurisdiction is limited to Federal lands.
* Just look at the individual mandate in the national health care law. The proposed enumerated power authorizing that is the ability to regulate interstate commerce. If you enlarge the scope of the ICC to include indirect involvement, the ICC covers every situation conceivable. The Federal Government might as well have unlimited ability to regulate or mandate anything, at any time, to any degree without any limits. That's the logical extension of claiming indirect links are covered in enumerated powers. Why enumerate limits on governmental power if you really meant "there are actually no limits, just kidding?"
There are a lot of inconsistencies in laws and enforcement. Intrastate trade in marijuana also shouldn't be within the jurisdiction of the Federal government, since they're not granted power over intrastate commerce in the Constitution*, but it's not like that fact stops them from enforcement.
*If you** claim it's because of "some other clause," you're as bad as they are. There's no reason for an explicit interstate commerce clause if they have power over all commerce everywhere.
You've got a router that has 512MB of flash and 512MB RAM for $20? Almost all consumer-grade routers choke on anything more than the most non-demanding tasks. Hell, a good portion of them choke if you actually try to run full-speed traffic on all of their ports in more than small bursts.
Sites and services that prevent long passwords piss me off to no end. Seriously, capping a password at 8 characters? Not allowing non-alphanumeric characters? WTF? Someone had to intentionally write it to say "I'm sorry, your password is far too secure for us to accept. Please enter one that is sufficiently easy to break."
Very true. I didn't mean to imply with my comment that all companies will fail to honor warranties if they can avoid it, just that it's fairly easy for them to legally get away with doing so.
My favorite warranty claim story is through TrippLite. Had one of their high-end surge protectors internal components explode as a result of a transformer blowing up about a mile away. Due to the fact that they use metal casings on those models, the molten electronics didn't melt into the carpet (unlike all of the neighbor's cheap plastic surge protectors). The only electronics in the house that survived were those on the TrippLite and those on a much more expensive Monster Cable home theater unit. MC wanted the unit shipped priority insured with delivery verification, and wouldn't cross-ship. TrippLite said not to bother returning their unit, and sent out a unit with double the capacity as a replacement overnight. Needless to say, TrippLite is the only company I use anymore for surge protection and line conditioning.
In the US, a "lifetime" technology warranty is almost invariably for the lifecycle of that particular manufacturing line. As soon as they are no longer manufacturing replacement parts and run out of comparable stock, the warranty fine print states they no longer have to honor the warranty.
Nope, I wouldn't imagine anyone with two brain cells would use an online service to (attempt to) launder money. That's what bars, restaurants, and other businesses where lots of cash is exchanged and there are lots of "perishable" items that can be lost, destroyed, misdirected, etc. are for.
Unfortunately most people don't have the balls to do things like this. They find the legal system overwhelmingly intimidating.
It's not really (well, not as much as most people seem to think), when you take a good look at it and apply some common sense and a bit of time researching.
The link you might be looking for that could marry up the statistical evidence with the cultural aspect may have to do with 'a culture that is more opposed to violent crime has stronger gun laws than those that don't.'
If football (soccer to Yanks) matches or the eagerness to kick someone while they're down during a bar brawl are any indication, the above is not true. It also doesn't explain why the cities with the most violence don't move around much on the top XX lists for crime, whether you look at them before or after the implementation of restrictive firearm laws.
New York, D.C., Detroit, and Chicago account for much of the inflated per capita violence numbers, and up until recently (in the cases of D.C. and Detroit) had virtual bans on carrying firearms or even owning handguns. None of these cities has ever had anything resembling a culture that is more opposed to violence than the rest of the nation. In fact, a strong case can be made for the exact opposite being true.
The SSH client on a Blackberry doesn't lend itself well to that application, at least not as far as I'm aware. Would be interested in hearing about if someone has set something like that up.
I would agree that the total effect of firearm availability is smaller than either side makes it out to be. It could simply be that rural areas have low crime as a result of being much more culturally homogenized (in general).
They play the utilitarian angle because there are people who don't recognize it as an ethical issue. They simply reject the logic out-of-hand that one should be able to defend themselves instead of relying on the police (whose job can only realistically be described as cleaning up after the fact, not in any sort of meaningful prevention of crime).
So SSH to a secure server outside Saudi Arabia and send/receive email through a CLI mail program. Yeah, it's more of a PITA, but it allows you to still have unreadable communication. Unless they block all SSH traffic...
Ability to carry has nothing to do with increased gun violence. Last I checked, those bent on violent behavior don't typically have much regard for laws saying "you're not supposed to do that."
In addition, violent crime rates are traditionally extraordinarily low in jurisdictions where it is not overly hard to obtain carry permits (or where they don't exist).
People who open-carry are those you probably have the absolute least to worry about. It would be amusing if it wasn't so ignorant. People who open-carry are no different than cops, except that they don't have near-immunity from prosecution if they unholster a weapon in public. So, a little different maybe. You're less likely to be shot by one that you are to be shot by a cop.
A bank full of open-carry customers is not going to be robbed except by a note-carrier. Oh, I get it. You're an armed bank robber. I completely understand your problem with the situation now. Don't worry, your secret is safe with/.
Slashdot Mirror
Or any other organization in the world that has a shared network connection. :)
Actually, high-quality gigabit switches can be had for pretty cheap. A basic commercial 24-port managed gigabit switch can be had for $150 all day long. Yeah, it may be off-lease equipment, but they still work flawlessly for years and can be readily replaced if they die.
The labor involved in wiring large, multi-unit buildings would cost far more than the switching and routing equipment. NAT only falls over and dies when you're talking about consumer hardware. It's not an issue when the hardware used for the task is sized for the intended processing load.
you haven't named a single product that I can't live without
The number of people truly capable of living in the US without consuming petroleum-based products is incredibly small. While you could theoretically live without it, in practice I would bet almost anything you do not actually possess the skills and resources to do so. Having the choice to try and do so isn't the same thing. You can choose to try and fly to the moon. Without the proper skills and resources, though, it's a forgone conclusion that having the option to try is not the same thing as actually being able to follow through.
Anyway, if you follow that logic, you also still have the choice to not buy health insurance. It's not like they've made it illegal not to purchase it. It's actually far easier to live free of health insurance after the mandate than it is to live without consuming petroleum products, and neither is illegal. You can't hold an impractical theoretical up as an example for comparison without abstracting what you're comparing it to just as far out. It's intellectually dishonest.
Pretty much with you on the rest of it.
But every online system I've interacted with has an additional line for the address.
Front-end != back-end. Regardless, as multiple others have apparently pointed out in response to your comment, the unit/apt # is a standard part of the first address line in the US. That it is not a part of the street name is irrelevant. Unless it is a business suite (among certain exceptions), it will be appended to the first line when stored because that is the way it is always used in output.
Also your apartment number/letter (or suite or such) is NOT part of the street name. If there is a box for 'unit' or apartment use only it for that.
This is almost universally untrue in the US. Most software is designed to append the unit # field onto the end of the address so that it is formatted correctly. Typically, that format is 123 Street #unit. Invoicing and other automated address systems (and I use a LOT of them) that have a separate unit # field will append it to the first address line in confirmation, database storage, and output. Even if it exists in input, it can be safely ignored since it's irrelevant to the actual data use.
Lies! Apple puts the second core in the sticker!
My problem with this suggestion is that it's either already safe and they shouldn't be charging extra for it, or it's already not safe and they shouldn't be allowing it. The program is either corrupt or stupid, depending on which side of the issue you're on.
Well, the one thing that Facebook did contribute to is providing a platform where the stupid can show just how biased they are. Only those smart enough to keep their mouth shut can subvert the jury process.
Quite true. The Supreme Court has done a lot of stupid things over the years that don't actually follow logically.
That's true, but the reasons that they use in most cases are bullshit*. In the case of marijuana, they claim that regulation occurs as a result of their power to tax things. Of course, using that same logic means that they can ban any product or activity at any time simply by taxing it and refusing to issue tax stamps. Technically (though when has Congress respected any boundary for long?), they have no legitimate authority to prevent the possession of anything unless it is related to one of the enumerated powers. If they can prohibit the possession of marijuana, they can prohibit the possession of paper goods, pens, pencils, clothing, water, oxygen, or food products. There is nothing in the Constitution that differentiates those things, which means if the Federal Government can prohibit one, it can prohibit any. There are very few exceptions to scope of the enumerated powers, and none that are specific in that regard.
The Supremacy Clause means laws passed within the scope of powers granted by the Constitution have supremacy over state laws that conflict with them. It does not, not, not mean that any law the Federal Government decides to pass automatically overrides everything else. It still has to be within their enumerated powers. You can't use the Supremacy Clause to justify a law, you have to use some other part of the Constitution. Once you've done that, then you can use the Supremacy Clause to prevent the states from overriding it. Otherwise, the jurisdiction is limited to Federal lands.
* Just look at the individual mandate in the national health care law. The proposed enumerated power authorizing that is the ability to regulate interstate commerce. If you enlarge the scope of the ICC to include indirect involvement, the ICC covers every situation conceivable. The Federal Government might as well have unlimited ability to regulate or mandate anything, at any time, to any degree without any limits. That's the logical extension of claiming indirect links are covered in enumerated powers. Why enumerate limits on governmental power if you really meant "there are actually no limits, just kidding?"
There are a lot of inconsistencies in laws and enforcement. Intrastate trade in marijuana also shouldn't be within the jurisdiction of the Federal government, since they're not granted power over intrastate commerce in the Constitution*, but it's not like that fact stops them from enforcement.
*If you** claim it's because of "some other clause," you're as bad as they are. There's no reason for an explicit interstate commerce clause if they have power over all commerce everywhere.
** Not "you" specifically. The general "you." :p
No, no, no!
F) is ???
G) is PROFIT!
Get it right!
Wooooooooosh!
You've got a router that has 512MB of flash and 512MB RAM for $20? Almost all consumer-grade routers choke on anything more than the most non-demanding tasks. Hell, a good portion of them choke if you actually try to run full-speed traffic on all of their ports in more than small bursts.
Sites and services that prevent long passwords piss me off to no end. Seriously, capping a password at 8 characters? Not allowing non-alphanumeric characters? WTF? Someone had to intentionally write it to say "I'm sorry, your password is far too secure for us to accept. Please enter one that is sufficiently easy to break."
Very true. I didn't mean to imply with my comment that all companies will fail to honor warranties if they can avoid it, just that it's fairly easy for them to legally get away with doing so.
My favorite warranty claim story is through TrippLite. Had one of their high-end surge protectors internal components explode as a result of a transformer blowing up about a mile away. Due to the fact that they use metal casings on those models, the molten electronics didn't melt into the carpet (unlike all of the neighbor's cheap plastic surge protectors). The only electronics in the house that survived were those on the TrippLite and those on a much more expensive Monster Cable home theater unit. MC wanted the unit shipped priority insured with delivery verification, and wouldn't cross-ship. TrippLite said not to bother returning their unit, and sent out a unit with double the capacity as a replacement overnight. Needless to say, TrippLite is the only company I use anymore for surge protection and line conditioning.
In the US, a "lifetime" technology warranty is almost invariably for the lifecycle of that particular manufacturing line. As soon as they are no longer manufacturing replacement parts and run out of comparable stock, the warranty fine print states they no longer have to honor the warranty.
Nope, I wouldn't imagine anyone with two brain cells would use an online service to (attempt to) launder money. That's what bars, restaurants, and other businesses where lots of cash is exchanged and there are lots of "perishable" items that can be lost, destroyed, misdirected, etc. are for.
Unfortunately most people don't have the balls to do things like this. They find the legal system overwhelmingly intimidating.
It's not really (well, not as much as most people seem to think), when you take a good look at it and apply some common sense and a bit of time researching.
The link you might be looking for that could marry up the statistical evidence with the cultural aspect may have to do with 'a culture that is more opposed to violent crime has stronger gun laws than those that don't.'
If football (soccer to Yanks) matches or the eagerness to kick someone while they're down during a bar brawl are any indication, the above is not true. It also doesn't explain why the cities with the most violence don't move around much on the top XX lists for crime, whether you look at them before or after the implementation of restrictive firearm laws.
New York, D.C., Detroit, and Chicago account for much of the inflated per capita violence numbers, and up until recently (in the cases of D.C. and Detroit) had virtual bans on carrying firearms or even owning handguns. None of these cities has ever had anything resembling a culture that is more opposed to violence than the rest of the nation. In fact, a strong case can be made for the exact opposite being true.
The SSH client on a Blackberry doesn't lend itself well to that application, at least not as far as I'm aware. Would be interested in hearing about if someone has set something like that up.
I would agree that the total effect of firearm availability is smaller than either side makes it out to be. It could simply be that rural areas have low crime as a result of being much more culturally homogenized (in general).
They play the utilitarian angle because there are people who don't recognize it as an ethical issue. They simply reject the logic out-of-hand that one should be able to defend themselves instead of relying on the police (whose job can only realistically be described as cleaning up after the fact, not in any sort of meaningful prevention of crime).
So SSH to a secure server outside Saudi Arabia and send/receive email through a CLI mail program. Yeah, it's more of a PITA, but it allows you to still have unreadable communication. Unless they block all SSH traffic...
Ability to carry has nothing to do with increased gun violence. Last I checked, those bent on violent behavior don't typically have much regard for laws saying "you're not supposed to do that."
In addition, violent crime rates are traditionally extraordinarily low in jurisdictions where it is not overly hard to obtain carry permits (or where they don't exist).
People who open-carry are those you probably have the absolute least to worry about. It would be amusing if it wasn't so ignorant. People who open-carry are no different than cops, except that they don't have near-immunity from prosecution if they unholster a weapon in public. So, a little different maybe. You're less likely to be shot by one that you are to be shot by a cop.
A bank full of open-carry customers is not going to be robbed except by a note-carrier. /.
Oh, I get it. You're an armed bank robber. I completely understand your problem with the situation now. Don't worry, your secret is safe with