Since you're such an expert on the law, I'm sure you'll be able to link me to the relevant article that prohibits piece-built computers from be used in American workplaces.
You can not build a computer for sale without FCC certification of the entire machine. Just because the parts passed does not mean the whole thing passes.
You can not build a computer for sale without testing by a certified testing agency (CSA/UL/CE, etc) for electrical safety. Its not enough that the parts (power supply, mother board, etc) pass. The whole computer has to be certified.
I worked for a manufacturer. Certification was my area. Your local neighborhood builder will one day get a call from your State authorities (occupational safety bunch, usually under department of labor for your state).
You simply can not sell anything you want in the US if it has a 110v input unless it is certified by OSHA.
What the hobby builder does is his business, right up to the point that he sells it, or uses it in the work place with employees.
And, BTW, the regulations in the EU are even stricter.
Its probably not illegal for you to buy it, but I assure you it is illegal for them to sell it.
State and Federal laws require that these things be certified by the FCC for radio emissions, and by UL/CSA for electrical safety (OSHA). And, no, its not sufficient that the components were individually certified.
This pertains to USA and probably Canada has similar regs. In Icelant? Who knows.
Other than the hard drive, none of those serial numbers are tracked by computer vendors. Serials are tracked by manufacturers only for parts likely to fail, and only for parts which the vendor has a RMA agreement with the supplier.
Even mac addresses are usually not on record for any longer than it takes to print the required label.
If that information isn't on the order and shipping documents, chances are very good that the manufacturer has no clue what MAC is in what Computer, and the best you get is that it was in a particular batch of 300 computers which were sold to the Reykjavik Radio Shack.
Given that most computers do not have serial numbers but the ones procurement gives them, it could have been a system that was decommissioned and the sticker peeled off.
I haven't seen a single computer without a factory serial number except for the ones I built myself.
But but planting a computer on someone's network is pretty much amateur hour don't you think? Unless it was done for "once you find this you will stop looking" purposes.
There is a single paragraph on the internet, which ends with a single sentence on net neutrality:
True net neutrality is necessary for people to flourish in a democratic society.
In the context of the previous sentence it sounds as though they want both internet access for the poor and for all who want to use the internet to publish material to have the opportunity. The latter is implies network neutrality.
I suspect that those bishops who understand the issue are in favour of network neutrality. They probably pushed for the inclusion of that sentence while those who did not understand the issue would not have had any reason to oppose it.
I agree with your reasoning as to the method of inclusion, but that method (dumbing it down to the point of obscurity) does not leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling about the level of commitment here.
Look, you and I both know that those opposed to net neutrality are not out to suppress anyone's desire to publish material on the internet. The carriers and major ISPs don't give a rats ass about your web page, your blog, your ranting email news letter. Ok, the knock at the door will happen when you send child porn, but it won't be the carriers that are shutting you down.
Net neutrality is almost solely about traffic prioritization to preferentially handle OWN-Company Voip, and let OTHER-company voip languish in the slow lane. Its about your ISP deciding its own streaming media gets faster service than some other source. Its slowing down your download of that latest Ubuntu DVD via bittorrent.
Yet the church is couching this argument in terms of not denying email to rural residents, and making sure their own web sites, streaming services, news letters are not blocked by the big bad media companies.
But this was never an issue. If the church gave one hint in their statement that they knew what the real issue was I would feel better about it.
When the non-technical Bishops realize they just came down squarely on the side of streaming porn getting equal treatment with a Church podcast will they stand fast by this announcement?
The Church is all for your ability to get email. Read web pages. Update your Facebook.
But don't expect them to be in your corner when Comcast wants to stream NBC at a faster rate than ABC shows. Or when your ISP wants to throttle your Netflix downloads or block your streaming Amsterdam sex shows.
This isn't an "Access" issue, as so many respondents on this thread like to assert. Net Neutrality is an equal treatment issue.
The Bishops championing of an issue that they do not understand does not give me the impression of a strong ally. The statement gives me the clear impression they may have been sold a bill of goods by an easy-to-abandon minority.
I may be totally wrong here. But that is the impression the statement left me with.
On the other hand, it seems doubtful a bankrupt state will pursue a spammer beyond its borders.
This might stop spam originating is California. But realistically, how much actually originates from any easily identifiable location other than Aunt Sally's powned windows machine?
Peeking out from under my tinfoil hat I've always suspected Pfizer of being behind the pill-spam and the dodgy pharmacies that have sprouted up to mail all the Viagra.
To the extent it actually is Viagra, it had to come from somewhere, and Pfizer has to know that the places it is shipping to couldn't possibly consume that much.
Some how I doubt the investigation will ever get close to them.
Or it could mean that since Yahoo Mail alone has 300M registered users (never mind their other services) then 1M having a problem is statistically insignificant.
The industry is full of fads, new names for old concepts, and hucksters selling the same snake oil. All too often the new kid comes in all gosh and golly about something the old fart has known under a different name since the Pleistocene.
Still you have to lean about these things to even make that assessment. The older programmers have to at least be conversant with the newer languages, IDEs, file systems, databases, or platforms to be able to exercise all of that accumulated experience. You can't judge what you refuse to learn about. You can't delegate the acquisition of knowledge.
It is virtually NEVER worth while changing programming languages via a re-write. More bugs will be introduced in the re-write than utility gained. But the same can not be said about platforms or database technology.
If the senior staff have an education allowance in the company budget, and fail to use it, shame on them.
If on the other hand the company is just getting the latest techniques and theories by hiring kids with no real world experience, then they will probably pay dearly for the privilege.
Someone else paid for that whipersnapper's education. It looks cheaper to HR. But the company already paid for the old goat's experience, scars and all. He walks, and the kid is at sea.
Experience is all too often undervalued. Inertia has its place. Its the older staff that can distinguish opportunity from pitfalls. But opportunity does knock. Softly.
Not if its already in is pre filed trading plan. Even those are not necessarily written with clarity in mind. But they do let you report after the trade just like everybody else.
Trades by insiders are here? http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=AAPL+Insider+Transactions And yes, they are all routinely cashing in shares, as are all insiders from all companies. Its part of their compensation, and you can't buy a Yacht or a Liver transplant with shares.
That being said, Jobs does not appear on that list.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you're such an expert on the law, I'm sure you'll be able to link me to the relevant article that prohibits piece-built computers from be used in American workplaces.
29 CFR 1910 Subpart S.
Wrong on both counts.
Other than for hobby use:
You can not build a computer for sale without FCC certification of the entire machine. Just because the parts passed does not mean the whole thing passes.
You can not build a computer for sale without testing by a certified testing agency (CSA/UL/CE, etc) for electrical safety. Its not enough that the parts (power supply, mother board, etc) pass. The whole computer has to be certified.
I worked for a manufacturer. Certification was my area. Your local neighborhood builder will one day get a call from your State authorities (occupational safety bunch, usually under department of labor for your state).
You simply can not sell anything you want in the US if it has a 110v input unless it is certified by OSHA.
What the hobby builder does is his business, right up to the point that he sells it, or uses it in the work place with employees.
And, BTW, the regulations in the EU are even stricter.
FCC certified?
OSHA (UL/CSA) certified?
No?
Illegal. Read the law son.
Its probably not illegal for you to buy it, but I assure you it is illegal for them to sell it.
State and Federal laws require that these things be certified by the FCC for radio emissions, and by UL/CSA for electrical safety (OSHA). And, no, its not sufficient that the components were individually certified.
This pertains to USA and probably Canada has similar regs. In Icelant? Who knows.
Oooooh, sorry Mr Chief Technology Officer, I guess I've been schooled.
So 12 illegal computers probably running 12 pirated OSs?
I tend to agree. I doubt Iceland was the target.
It would be a haven, more than a target.
Having a machine on a network beyond the reach of any interested government that you could remotely access would be useful.
Just as likely to be a spammer or a bot net controller, or a disgruntled employee as a wikileaks plant if you ask me.
You find me one Dell computer without a serial number.
(Hint: They are required by FCC regulation).
But what of their friends, assistants, and political hangers-on?
Really? Does 30 years count?
I've also worked for a computer manufacturer.
They all go out the door with serial numbers.
Its probably gone thru three sets of hands since purchased.
Other than the hard drive, none of those serial numbers are tracked by computer vendors. Serials are tracked by manufacturers only for parts likely to fail, and only for parts which the vendor has a RMA agreement with the supplier.
Even mac addresses are usually not on record for any longer than it takes to print the required label.
If that information isn't on the order and shipping documents, chances are very good that the manufacturer has no clue what MAC is in what Computer, and the best you get is that it was in a particular batch of 300 computers which were sold to the Reykjavik Radio Shack.
Given that most computers do not have serial numbers but the ones procurement gives them, it could have been a system that was decommissioned and the sticker peeled off.
I haven't seen a single computer without a factory serial number except for the ones I built myself.
Certainly possible.
But but planting a computer on someone's network is pretty much amateur hour don't you think? Unless it was done for "once you find this you will stop looking" purposes.
Go read the full article.
Supporters of wikileaks had access to the office because it was occupied by "WL friendly" MPs previously.
A subpoena does not plant a computer.
You need feet on the ground for that. And if you have a planted computer you wouldn't need a subpoena.
Unfortunately, I suspect they do.
There is a single paragraph on the internet, which ends with a single sentence on net neutrality:
True net neutrality is necessary for people to flourish in a democratic society.
In the context of the previous sentence it sounds as though they want both internet access for the poor and for all who want to use the internet to publish material to have the opportunity. The latter is implies network neutrality.
I suspect that those bishops who understand the issue are in favour of network neutrality. They probably pushed for the inclusion of that sentence while those who did not understand the issue would not have had any reason to oppose it.
I agree with your reasoning as to the method of inclusion, but that method (dumbing it down to the point of obscurity) does not leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling about the level of commitment here.
Look, you and I both know that those opposed to net neutrality are not out to suppress anyone's desire to publish material on the internet. The carriers and major ISPs don't give a rats ass about your web page, your blog, your ranting email news letter. Ok, the knock at the door will happen when you send child porn, but it won't be the carriers that are shutting you down.
Net neutrality is almost solely about traffic prioritization to preferentially handle OWN-Company Voip, and let OTHER-company voip languish in the slow lane. Its about your ISP deciding its own streaming media gets faster service than some other source. Its slowing down your download of that latest Ubuntu DVD via bittorrent.
Yet the church is couching this argument in terms of not denying email to rural residents, and making sure their own web sites, streaming services, news letters are not blocked by the big bad media companies.
But this was never an issue. If the church gave one hint in their statement that they knew what the real issue was I would feel better about it.
When the non-technical Bishops realize they just came down squarely on the side of streaming porn getting equal treatment with a Church podcast will they stand fast by this announcement?
The Church is all for your ability to get email. Read web pages. Update your Facebook.
But don't expect them to be in your corner when Comcast wants to stream NBC at a faster rate than ABC shows. Or when your ISP wants to throttle your Netflix downloads or block your streaming Amsterdam sex shows.
This isn't an "Access" issue, as so many respondents on this thread like to assert. Net Neutrality is an equal treatment issue.
The Bishops championing of an issue that they do not understand does not give me the impression of a strong ally. The statement gives me the clear impression they may have been sold a bill of goods by an easy-to-abandon minority.
I may be totally wrong here. But that is the impression the statement left me with.
Sad, very sad and ironic. In this day and age, having to defend Technology with the help of Religion.
Even sadder that this story suggests the Church is actually FOR net neutrality as we understand it today.
They are pontificating (sorry) about net ACCESS.
They totally miss the main points of net neutrality such as traffic shaping, throttling, or prioritizing your own traffic over competitive traffic.
I don't see this as a strong statement at all, simply lip service leaving me wondering if they truly understand the issue.
On the other hand, it seems doubtful a bankrupt state will pursue a spammer beyond its borders.
This might stop spam originating is California. But realistically, how much actually originates from any easily identifiable location other than Aunt Sally's powned windows machine?
Holds the advertisers accountable?
Well, maybe.
Peeking out from under my tinfoil hat I've always suspected Pfizer of being behind the pill-spam and the dodgy pharmacies that have sprouted up to mail all the Viagra.
To the extent it actually is Viagra, it had to come from somewhere, and Pfizer has to know that the places it is shipping to couldn't possibly consume that much.
Some how I doubt the investigation will ever get close to them.
Lots of "long pig" wading around in the flood waters I suppose.
The article says the sharks swam PAST the McDonald's, so apparently they are more discriminating than people give them credit for.
Or it could mean that since Yahoo Mail alone has 300M registered users (never mind their other services) then 1M having a problem is statistically insignificant.
To whom?
not all of the changes are permanent or important
So true.
The industry is full of fads, new names for old concepts, and hucksters selling the same snake oil. All too often the new kid comes in all gosh and golly about something the old fart has known under a different name since the Pleistocene.
Still you have to lean about these things to even make that assessment. The older programmers have to at least be conversant with the newer languages, IDEs, file systems, databases, or platforms to be able to exercise all of that accumulated experience. You can't judge what you refuse to learn about. You can't delegate the acquisition of knowledge.
It is virtually NEVER worth while changing programming languages via a re-write. More bugs will be introduced in the re-write than utility gained. But the same can not be said about platforms or database technology.
If the senior staff have an education allowance in the company budget, and fail to use it, shame on them.
If on the other hand the company is just getting the latest techniques and theories by hiring kids with no real world experience, then they will probably pay dearly for the privilege.
Someone else paid for that whipersnapper's education. It looks cheaper to HR. But the company already paid for the old goat's experience, scars and all. He walks, and the kid is at sea.
Experience is all too often undervalued. Inertia has its place. Its the older staff that can distinguish opportunity from pitfalls. But opportunity does knock. Softly.
Not if its already in is pre filed trading plan. Even those are not necessarily written with clarity in mind. But they do let you report after the trade just like everybody else.
Trades by insiders are here?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=AAPL+Insider+Transactions
And yes, they are all routinely cashing in shares, as are all insiders from all companies. Its part of their compensation, and you can't buy a Yacht or a Liver transplant with shares.
That being said, Jobs does not appear on that list.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that with Facebook and other so called free stuff that they are the product that is being sold.
Because Google doesn't sell user information (they instead use it to sell you shit) everyone thinks FB is the same.
Then again selling ones self has been a big part of the Facebook culture since its inception.