The pen is also huge for what it does. Maybe it has batteries inside and charges them when the power isn't needed for direct heating. The other thing that the claims aren't clear on is the power draw. USB3 can provide 100W. The 4.5W is an assumption based on the chassis holding the USB port. Who says they can't gut a MacBook for a trial? Though the wording in the video says "any USB" not "USB 3.0 capable of 100W operation". The debunk article makes so many assumptions that aren't in evidence that it has no value.
It should be sued for passing it off as a "sport" but "entertainment" is determined by the number of idiots wanting to watch, and of those, UFC apparently doesn't have a shortage. So it is "entertainment" even if you don't find it entertaining.
There are "paid transit" links to the CDNs. Also, many providers have CDN caches on-site, which isn't represented in that diagram. Now, it indicates "paid" links, but doesn't indicate which side is paying.
debts owed to government entities (fines, taxes, court costs, restitution in criminal cases, etc.)
So if it's a civil suit (as it is so far) then he has a chance to discharge it, but the criminal cases would be 100% non-dischargeable, as everything is either costs, fines, or restitution. But yes, looks like the non-fraud civil suits are more dischargeable than I thought.
Sure about which part? I've never seen a state where "distracted driving" wasn't illegal. At best, it's used against people reading the paper while shaving in the driver's seat, but given the number of people I've seen doing that (more than one) I'd expect that isn't heavily enforced, even when blindingly obvious.
CDNs don't use fast lanes. Fast lanes are about preferential treatment at handovers. The Akami and Google CDNs are more about caching, with transmission to them at "slow lane" speeds.
When that happens, the person taking on the extra traffic gets payed to transport it.
It isn't transit when it's going to the ISP's customers. Cogent paying "transit" to an ISP to reach that ISP's customers is the opposite of all agreements before. If the ISP is actually acting as transit for some, then it's a different matter, but the idea of Cogent needing to "pay" an ISP to reach that ISP's customers is the opposite of all agreements I've ever seen.
Did they actively *harm* Cogent? If the original agreement was settlement-free peering and Netflix changed that balance dramatically, who is at fault?
You are presuming a contract breach by Netflix. I've seen nothing to indicate that any "agreement" was changed or not followed. Do you know what the agreement was that you are asserting wasn't followed?
The Internet was "originally" not designed as you describe. Current agreements lean towards ISPs paying for downstreams, not upstreams. In "fairness" the users who paid for Internet Access are the ones paying for the Internet, and the ISP is required to deliver it. Small ISPs solve this by buying transit. Large ISPs have enough content/connections that others pay them for transit. They should have been paying Netflix for transit, as Netflix was generating the content.
If content didn't cost, why do so many ISPs pay Google and Akami to reduce their demands for content?
Someone actually pointed out something I've been saying for a while. My point was that traffic shaping rules don't make any sense if an ISP peers with preferred providers of services. Say they want to provide quality VoIP. They don't need to shape competitors packets, they just need to keep their VoIP traffic off congested links. Duh! Net neutrality rules wouldn't have covered peering.
At least with that, they couldn't target competetor's VoIP. They'd have to sacrifice *all* their peered HTTP etc. just to harm competitor's voice. So long as there was any competition, that would end them.
So now the government is talking about regulating peering.
That's because anyone smart enough to understand the issues is smart enough to stay away from politics. The problem is our democracy is broken. Peering is secondary. The simpler solution is to regulate the customer experience. I don't care how you peer, how you deliver services, how many QoS levels you honor in your network. If you offer a value-add service (like voice or video), then you must ensure that you take no deliberate action to harm the equivalent services from a competitor. Yes, this makes me side with Netflix, who you seem to indicate is the one that made the error. Deliberately harming traffic from Cogent to hamper Netflix is anti-consumer, and in a regulated market, should be illegal.
If nobody buys the fast lanes, then Internet will be neutral. So long as they don't get to block/redirect/attack traffic in the slow lane indiscriminately.
So Adam Lanza didn't kill any children? I didn't read any x-cop report, and I've never seen any report that indicates a lack of children in the school at the time of the shooting.
The "fix" is to generate the need for a militia, and "require" the states tightly regulate the militia. Abolish the standing army. Have national guard only, and only state members make up the force. And restrictions on non-members. Wanna carry? Sure, that right is guaranteed. You just need to join an "official" militia. We've had more unconstitutional things pass without a second thought. It'll save money and increase security, while also decresing the guns in the hands of "I need to shoot all trespassers" gun nuts.
I was bullied as a kid, so I worked on "unfair" techniques. kneeing someone in the groin is a great tactic. Especially if you knee them hard enough to lift them off the ground. Interestingly, it puts people off balance enough that if you hold you knee up, the'll fall off to the side, holding groin and landing on their head. In a gronud fight, I'd try the same. Raise a knee as hard as I can. I imagine most untrained people would spread legs for balance. That'll disable an attacker, male or female.
I don't find advantage in standing over an opponent lunging from the ground (I mean, I can kick... and be on one leg, impressing myself with my elite ability to balance while imagining groin strikes don't exist).
Legs are longer than arms. Someone wouldn't have much force behind it if they were flat on their back and struck at your groin. But a soccer-kick to the head should end a fight in a single blow. Whether the concussion or the neck snapping, I'd have no idea which would be more disabling. I can kick a soccer ball 60 yards (yes, I would get it past half-way before the first bounce for goal-kicks). I imagine I'd break my foot, but I'd try, if I thought that I'd die if I didn't. And someone would be hard pressed to get in a groin shot. The fight from the ground is when the standing person is not going for immediate disabling of the person (kicking the belly for pain, and such). But stomping is more effective than kicking for close quarters anyway.
If you're grappling on the ground you've probably already lost. I know that looks awesome when you see it in "Ultimate Fighting" on TV, but in the real world ground fighting is something you truly want to avoid.
Why is it that I feel that at least one of the people here mentioning the difficulty of fighting that way also backed Zimmerman's story as the probable one? He was on the ground, being beat (fear of death) by a younger stronger taller (but not wider) Martin. And pulled out his gun and got of one clean shot, resulting in a kill. After the assailant saw and grabbed for the gun first.
Must be easy to do, if one is to believe Zimmerman's account of the events.
I will never carry a weapon when I'm out. What if I get jumped? What if a mugger pulls a gun on me? People tell me, "Oh, I'll shoot them." "When a mugger threatens me with his gun, I'll shoot him with my gun." You're grappling on the ground, you reach to pull out a gun... and you don't think you're now grappling for a firearm? The mugger will see you reach for a firearm and shoot you dead with the one already trained on your face.
Must be easy. Poor Innocent Zimmerman managed to get out his gun while the larger and more athletic Martin was over him and beating him to death. One shot one kill, easy.
The people I know that carry everywhere carry in the chance that a lone gunman will go postal in his vicinity. That seems to be the carry-conceal ideal. Of course, it may be different elsewhere, as open carry is (mostly) legal where I've lived. My favorite was always the posse that complained the police didn't patrol their poor neighborhood, so they had 20+ people with guns walking around at night, looking for bad guys. The police increased patrols, anything to get the posse off the streets. Pefectly legal to do in Dallas, so long as nobody points the gun at anyone or fires (regardless of where it's pointed). And if that happened, it'd be legal depending on circumstances.
Funny that the gun nuts claim that the FBI under-reports firearm saves because the FBI don't count brandishing a firearm as a "use" of one in self defense. So the gun nuts assign some massive number to the deliberately uncounted number for the number of saves. But if it comes down to having a gun to brandish that won't work, then a successful use to the gun nut is firing it.
The stance changes depending on the inconsistent argument by the gun-nut flip-flopper.
Sounds like a good gun for the police to use. Get back to us when every police officer in the country has one of these and is forbidden to use a traditional weapon.
Many police deparments (though not in the US) use anti-theft technology. In places where the cops are armed and nobody else is, a cop is more likely to be shot by their own gun than any other. In the US, guns are common, so getting shot is likely by a different gun, so they have different worries.
Slashdot Mirror
The pen is also huge for what it does. Maybe it has batteries inside and charges them when the power isn't needed for direct heating. The other thing that the claims aren't clear on is the power draw. USB3 can provide 100W. The 4.5W is an assumption based on the chassis holding the USB port. Who says they can't gut a MacBook for a trial? Though the wording in the video says "any USB" not "USB 3.0 capable of 100W operation". The debunk article makes so many assumptions that aren't in evidence that it has no value.
It should be sued for passing it off as a "sport" but "entertainment" is determined by the number of idiots wanting to watch, and of those, UFC apparently doesn't have a shortage. So it is "entertainment" even if you don't find it entertaining.
There are "paid transit" links to the CDNs. Also, many providers have CDN caches on-site, which isn't represented in that diagram. Now, it indicates "paid" links, but doesn't indicate which side is paying.
debts owed to government entities (fines, taxes, court costs, restitution in criminal cases, etc.)
So if it's a civil suit (as it is so far) then he has a chance to discharge it, but the criminal cases would be 100% non-dischargeable, as everything is either costs, fines, or restitution. But yes, looks like the non-fraud civil suits are more dischargeable than I thought.
Sure about which part? I've never seen a state where "distracted driving" wasn't illegal. At best, it's used against people reading the paper while shaving in the driver's seat, but given the number of people I've seen doing that (more than one) I'd expect that isn't heavily enforced, even when blindingly obvious.
If he is asked to, he'll have to declare himself bankrupt after paying the court what he can prove he can reasonably afford.
Oh, have the laws changed again? I thought you couldn't wipe court ordered debts with bankruptcy. Those and student loans are with you to the grave.
CDNs don't use fast lanes. Fast lanes are about preferential treatment at handovers. The Akami and Google CDNs are more about caching, with transmission to them at "slow lane" speeds.
When that happens, the person taking on the extra traffic gets payed to transport it.
It isn't transit when it's going to the ISP's customers. Cogent paying "transit" to an ISP to reach that ISP's customers is the opposite of all agreements before. If the ISP is actually acting as transit for some, then it's a different matter, but the idea of Cogent needing to "pay" an ISP to reach that ISP's customers is the opposite of all agreements I've ever seen.
What makes you think the fast lane does not exist?
That it's a non-existent proposal by the FCC. The fast lane, as defined by the FCC, can't exist until the FCC defines it.
Did they actively *harm* Cogent? If the original agreement was settlement-free peering and Netflix changed that balance dramatically, who is at fault?
You are presuming a contract breach by Netflix. I've seen nothing to indicate that any "agreement" was changed or not followed. Do you know what the agreement was that you are asserting wasn't followed?
The Internet was "originally" not designed as you describe. Current agreements lean towards ISPs paying for downstreams, not upstreams. In "fairness" the users who paid for Internet Access are the ones paying for the Internet, and the ISP is required to deliver it. Small ISPs solve this by buying transit. Large ISPs have enough content/connections that others pay them for transit. They should have been paying Netflix for transit, as Netflix was generating the content.
If content didn't cost, why do so many ISPs pay Google and Akami to reduce their demands for content?
So the fast lane doesn't exist yet, and Netlfix already bought it. I'm not sure I follow.
If no providers buy the fast lane, then no harm will come to users or the provider's services.
Someone actually pointed out something I've been saying for a while. My point was that traffic shaping rules don't make any sense if an ISP peers with preferred providers of services. Say they want to provide quality VoIP. They don't need to shape competitors packets, they just need to keep their VoIP traffic off congested links. Duh! Net neutrality rules wouldn't have covered peering.
At least with that, they couldn't target competetor's VoIP. They'd have to sacrifice *all* their peered HTTP etc. just to harm competitor's voice. So long as there was any competition, that would end them.
So now the government is talking about regulating peering.
That's because anyone smart enough to understand the issues is smart enough to stay away from politics. The problem is our democracy is broken. Peering is secondary. The simpler solution is to regulate the customer experience. I don't care how you peer, how you deliver services, how many QoS levels you honor in your network. If you offer a value-add service (like voice or video), then you must ensure that you take no deliberate action to harm the equivalent services from a competitor. Yes, this makes me side with Netflix, who you seem to indicate is the one that made the error. Deliberately harming traffic from Cogent to hamper Netflix is anti-consumer, and in a regulated market, should be illegal.
If nobody buys the fast lanes, then Internet will be neutral. So long as they don't get to block/redirect/attack traffic in the slow lane indiscriminately.
13 pounds on the knee will dislocate it.
And 300 lbs to the knee won't. And generally a soccer ball isn't stationary
Trayvon was a pretty well-trained fighter.
I've never seen anything that indicated he was a "trained" fighter, let alone a "well-trained" one.
More likely, Zimmerman was lying.
So Adam Lanza didn't kill any children? I didn't read any x-cop report, and I've never seen any report that indicates a lack of children in the school at the time of the shooting.
There is nothing in the world more useless than an unreliable firearm.
And all others are 100% reliable? This is the *only* unreliable firearm on the planet.
Oh, and you have data on the unreliability of this, and aren't just lying to present your incorrect opinion as fact, right?
The "fix" is to generate the need for a militia, and "require" the states tightly regulate the militia. Abolish the standing army. Have national guard only, and only state members make up the force. And restrictions on non-members. Wanna carry? Sure, that right is guaranteed. You just need to join an "official" militia. We've had more unconstitutional things pass without a second thought. It'll save money and increase security, while also decresing the guns in the hands of "I need to shoot all trespassers" gun nuts.
They only strangled him out of self defense. Had he just run away or started screaming, they wouldn't have felt threatened.
I don't find advantage in standing over an opponent lunging from the ground (I mean, I can kick... and be on one leg, impressing myself with my elite ability to balance while imagining groin strikes don't exist).
Legs are longer than arms. Someone wouldn't have much force behind it if they were flat on their back and struck at your groin. But a soccer-kick to the head should end a fight in a single blow. Whether the concussion or the neck snapping, I'd have no idea which would be more disabling. I can kick a soccer ball 60 yards (yes, I would get it past half-way before the first bounce for goal-kicks). I imagine I'd break my foot, but I'd try, if I thought that I'd die if I didn't. And someone would be hard pressed to get in a groin shot. The fight from the ground is when the standing person is not going for immediate disabling of the person (kicking the belly for pain, and such). But stomping is more effective than kicking for close quarters anyway.
If you're grappling on the ground you've probably already lost. I know that looks awesome when you see it in "Ultimate Fighting" on TV, but in the real world ground fighting is something you truly want to avoid.
Why is it that I feel that at least one of the people here mentioning the difficulty of fighting that way also backed Zimmerman's story as the probable one? He was on the ground, being beat (fear of death) by a younger stronger taller (but not wider) Martin. And pulled out his gun and got of one clean shot, resulting in a kill. After the assailant saw and grabbed for the gun first.
Must be easy to do, if one is to believe Zimmerman's account of the events.
I will never carry a weapon when I'm out. What if I get jumped? What if a mugger pulls a gun on me? People tell me, "Oh, I'll shoot them." "When a mugger threatens me with his gun, I'll shoot him with my gun." You're grappling on the ground, you reach to pull out a gun... and you don't think you're now grappling for a firearm? The mugger will see you reach for a firearm and shoot you dead with the one already trained on your face.
Must be easy. Poor Innocent Zimmerman managed to get out his gun while the larger and more athletic Martin was over him and beating him to death. One shot one kill, easy.
The people I know that carry everywhere carry in the chance that a lone gunman will go postal in his vicinity. That seems to be the carry-conceal ideal. Of course, it may be different elsewhere, as open carry is (mostly) legal where I've lived. My favorite was always the posse that complained the police didn't patrol their poor neighborhood, so they had 20+ people with guns walking around at night, looking for bad guys. The police increased patrols, anything to get the posse off the streets. Pefectly legal to do in Dallas, so long as nobody points the gun at anyone or fires (regardless of where it's pointed). And if that happened, it'd be legal depending on circumstances.
Funny that the gun nuts claim that the FBI under-reports firearm saves because the FBI don't count brandishing a firearm as a "use" of one in self defense. So the gun nuts assign some massive number to the deliberately uncounted number for the number of saves. But if it comes down to having a gun to brandish that won't work, then a successful use to the gun nut is firing it.
The stance changes depending on the inconsistent argument by the gun-nut flip-flopper.
a gun that might not fire.
That's every gun. "might" includes anything.
Sounds like a good gun for the police to use. Get back to us when every police officer in the country has one of these and is forbidden to use a traditional weapon.
Many police deparments (though not in the US) use anti-theft technology. In places where the cops are armed and nobody else is, a cop is more likely to be shot by their own gun than any other. In the US, guns are common, so getting shot is likely by a different gun, so they have different worries.