Lol.. did you miss the part where I said raise prices? Ok- so $25 a month now, what if that jumps to $50 or $75 or more just to make the road energy scheme viable?
I bet you noticed that I was trying to be facetious but you missed the entire premise.
The link is in the article submission As i said. If you want to see more, you are going to have to at least click on the links in the summary.
I have no clue about the motor or battery. The video is in a foreign language and I more or less read the actions of the people and watched what they pointed to and came to a conclusion. This is why I said "appears".
I'm sure that can be achieved by raising the price of energy. This can be done by law or some rogue regulation. It will have the added benefit of making energy use go down. The poorer Will likely have to choose between using electric or eating or medical care which might reduce population too. Its a green win win.
Of course every person will hate you for it. But they would already if they realized why the costs of energy is so expensive in some areas.
There is a video on one of the sites linked to from the summery which shows what appears to be someone activating a switch under the weather guard on the left handlebar which spins the rear tire by itself.
Lol.. In a perfect world where we just put some carbon in a replicator and yell computer, create this, I guess you are 100% correct.
Of course there could be potential issues. Those issues just got compounded by a device driver possibly sending errant signals with no notice to the consumer. It would be like you changing a light socket and me coming in without your knowledge and flipping switches and breakers at random. Will you get shocked? Will you fall off the ladder and hurt yourself? Nobody knows but you did take reasonable steps to ensure there was no power before you started. But you cannot begin to understand or plan on what would happen when a third party comes in without your knowledge and does things you never expect them to do.
Nothing and the concept originally imputed as not being safe has nothing to do with machine safety either.
The control input on many industrial machines are rs232 or some other serial interface and it has been a standard for a long time. You use computers to directly control them in most cases and n some cases, it has the ability to store the commands and replay them. In either case, you have to connect directly to diagnose certain aspects. Whether this is getting the boards to do a self check or to manually position parts to be physically examined, it takes control input in much the same way that would cause the machines to actually run. Some machines are connected to others and with a functioning system, you can stop one while the others remain active but if your serial communications send errant messages, it could effect the operation of other machines in the series or even send the one you are working on into an uncontrolled state.
And example of this that I can extrapolate from for instance is where I had a CNC lathe with a bearing going bad in the tail stock which also moved the piece to the holder in the milling process directly after the lathing process. We didn't know it was a bearing but we knew produced products were out of spec so we had to shut down, lock out - tag out everything and inspect it. After not finding anything obvious (the bearing was on a bind), we stepped it through the process to see where the error was happening. During this stepping process, you had to stop the machine and manually rotate the spindle to check the sizes and ensure the sensors were reading properly which is not a problem at all (done all the time on manual lathes). If an errant signal is sent, it could move the tool, start spinning the lathe or a host of other uncontrolled things unexpectedly.
The unexpectedly part is the problem. If you expect something to not have power then all the sudden is does, you do not know you cannot treat it as if there is no power. If your tools are functioning properly, you know the state of the machines. It is not unsafe at all.
This is science! Every fact is fact until it is not fact or the fact means something different that the fact meant previously. If you don't like that fact, stick with your religions. We are dealing with the truth here.
No need to inject liberals or tea party circles into this. No one mentioned them and I would bet you would/could find several people on any side you picked who think there is a problem too.
The US constitution does not place national defense above the US constitution though. This is problematic to the national defense trumps all argument because the 9th amendment specifically spells out that the enumeration in the constitution shall not be used to deny other rights held by the people. While the constitution generically spells out national defense, it specifically places reasonableness and warrant requirements for searches and other things.
but lets explore this a bit. In the name of national security, some say the government can ignore the US constitution and invade a citizen's or local business's network, computer, telephone, whatever. Some say they can hold people without habeas corpus rights or even the right to a trial. Can they also ignore the constitution and just appoint senators and representatives in the name of national security? Can they install judges and such with no congressional oversight so those moves would survive a court challenge? Can they just decree something to be law without congress ever passing it or the president signing it into law? If so or not, I have to ask why and what limits would there be and how do those limits become recognized?
My naive understanding is that the existence of this group is largely limited to pen testing with approval from network owners or law and assisting in law enforcement operations which presumably would already had warrant requirements satisfied. IT might do a lot more than that but I do not know for sure.
How could you sue for violating the first amendment? The case was just made that your first amendment rights don't count because you had to get a business license to do business and the government can put restrictions on your first amendment rights when they make you do something by law.
So you are free to do whatever you want except when you have to deal with the government due to a law they passed? I sure hope they don't pass as law saying you have to be religious to get a business license.
The democrats first implemented the free speech zones. As for Romney care, i do remember hearing a crap ton of people decrying it as worthless and broken.
But censoring politicians should be a complete no no. Not because they have some right to be heard but because the people deserve a right to know who they are. Let them speak candidly and we will know.
Besides, nowadays it'd probably be considered sexist somehow, no matter what the gender ration was.
When I was in school, home ec was not an elective. It was mandatory and you spend half a year cooking and half a year sewing with finance and budgeting in both. I believe this was in 7th or 8th grade though. You only took it one year.
We also had an introduction to computers course with the brand new apple IIe computers replacing our unix mainframe connection. We did a short stent in basic but most no one was able to gain access to the computers outside of copying what the teacher was copying out of a book for the first time.( I hear that the unix classes were the same unless you were in AP classes). I'm not sure computer science for all will end up being much more than something like that. $4 billion isn't really enough to cover competent instructors let alone course work and hardware.
Sigh.. there was no acquittal of the impeachment. It just failed removing Bill from office. While there was smearing involved, it certainly was of the interest of the rule of law where the chief executive of the country wilfully lied in court testimony over a question that was only pertinent because of a law he signed into law giving women (people involved in sexual harassment cases) the right to bring up references outside their specific claim to establish patterns of behavior in support of their claim.
I cannot find disagreement with the rest of your statement. People are making too much out of something that may or may not be present. We do know that with Bill Clinton, he used scandal after scandal to strengthen his support and even earned the nickname slick Willie the Teflon president.
I cannot help but wonder if Hillary isn't trying to manufacture the same. She was the front man of the vast right wing conspiracy theme which turned out to be truthful accusations against Bill. She is not innocent stranger to the game. She was front and center in the bimbo eruption squad where she attempted to discredit the people otherwise making truthful claimababout Bill.
Netcraft died a long time ago. Turns out they were running BSD and all the BSD id dieing stories were actually pleads from the IT department for more resources but the management team was too high on bong farts to understand it.
Bullshit. Bill Clinton was propelled to fandom by being able to skirt all those allegations. He used it to say they were afraid of him. He was even being accused of and sued for sexual harassment which actually helped him among his base and the stupidest portions of society.
This is little more than trying to repeat that. Most of the "this is the nail in Bill Clinton coffin " news stories were started by proclinton sources supposedly concerned about his position. They were always overinflated and underperforming.
All i can say is get used to it again. The only wrench now might be that the sjw crowd will not like a sexual oriented scandal and the millennials might not accept the constant hint of corruption. But this release is all by design.
What did she actually accomplish at the state department that wasn't a failure other than jetting around the world? I understand she was strapped with Obama policy which i think handicapped her enormously but I cannot seem to find any successes from her tenure at the state.
That's yet to be seen. The issue here is that the bulk of the email is so large that it is being sorted and the security classification is being determined in batches. The articles you reference can only speak to the amounts of email processed to date and they are dated before this statement about the yet to be released next batch (it missed the deadline).
The assertion of classification alterations after the fact may well be true. Just as we cannot make the affirmative statement that all the emails were not classified when sent, we cannot make the same that any were classified until it has been processed. Executive order 13526 makes all official communication with foreign nations classified by default until declassified so I find it improbable that all emails were later classified. But I also do not see much in the way of sensitive information being discussed via email in this sense. You would think a more dedicated secure source of communication would be employed for state level negotiations other than "hope you like steak and potatoes " concerning a state dinner or "congratulations on your daughter getting married " good will type communication.
But they can be completely different situations which is the point. Even the argument that if a customer subscribes to a 3 meg budget connection and Netflix gets delivered at 6 meg while nothing else is slowed below 3m, it would be evil. If i wanted to set up a cable like access company and only allow 1 meg http but all streaming video is as fast as it can be served, it is evil because you couldn't torrent at unlimited speeds even though the service is clearly marketed as something other than internet service.
I have made this case from the beginning. It would seem that going above and beyond what the customer pays for is just as taboo as not delivering what was paid for. They don't want any more or less.
Slashdot Mirror
The one i saw showed them pressing on the weather guard on the left handle bar and the rear tire spinning indicating there was a switch .
Nobody is saying it is perpetual motion. Just that a motor was hidden.
Lol.. did you miss the part where I said raise prices? Ok- so $25 a month now, what if that jumps to $50 or $75 or more just to make the road energy scheme viable?
I bet you noticed that I was trying to be facetious but you missed the entire premise.
The link is in the article submission As i said. If you want to see more, you are going to have to at least click on the links in the summary.
I have no clue about the motor or battery. The video is in a foreign language and I more or less read the actions of the people and watched what they pointed to and came to a conclusion. This is why I said "appears".
Tell that to spell checker. Evidently
I'm sure that can be achieved by raising the price of energy. This can be done by law or some rogue regulation. It will have the added benefit of making energy use go down. The poorer Will likely have to choose between using electric or eating or medical care which might reduce population too. Its a green win win.
Of course every person will hate you for it. But they would already if they realized why the costs of energy is so expensive in some areas.
There is a video on one of the sites linked to from the summery which shows what appears to be someone activating a switch under the weather guard on the left handlebar which spins the rear tire by itself.
Lol.. In a perfect world where we just put some carbon in a replicator and yell computer, create this, I guess you are 100% correct.
Of course there could be potential issues. Those issues just got compounded by a device driver possibly sending errant signals with no notice to the consumer. It would be like you changing a light socket and me coming in without your knowledge and flipping switches and breakers at random. Will you get shocked? Will you fall off the ladder and hurt yourself? Nobody knows but you did take reasonable steps to ensure there was no power before you started. But you cannot begin to understand or plan on what would happen when a third party comes in without your knowledge and does things you never expect them to do.
Nothing and the concept originally imputed as not being safe has nothing to do with machine safety either.
The control input on many industrial machines are rs232 or some other serial interface and it has been a standard for a long time. You use computers to directly control them in most cases and n some cases, it has the ability to store the commands and replay them. In either case, you have to connect directly to diagnose certain aspects. Whether this is getting the boards to do a self check or to manually position parts to be physically examined, it takes control input in much the same way that would cause the machines to actually run. Some machines are connected to others and with a functioning system, you can stop one while the others remain active but if your serial communications send errant messages, it could effect the operation of other machines in the series or even send the one you are working on into an uncontrolled state.
And example of this that I can extrapolate from for instance is where I had a CNC lathe with a bearing going bad in the tail stock which also moved the piece to the holder in the milling process directly after the lathing process. We didn't know it was a bearing but we knew produced products were out of spec so we had to shut down, lock out - tag out everything and inspect it. After not finding anything obvious (the bearing was on a bind), we stepped it through the process to see where the error was happening. During this stepping process, you had to stop the machine and manually rotate the spindle to check the sizes and ensure the sensors were reading properly which is not a problem at all (done all the time on manual lathes). If an errant signal is sent, it could move the tool, start spinning the lathe or a host of other uncontrolled things unexpectedly.
The unexpectedly part is the problem. If you expect something to not have power then all the sudden is does, you do not know you cannot treat it as if there is no power. If your tools are functioning properly, you know the state of the machines. It is not unsafe at all.
This is science! Every fact is fact until it is not fact or the fact means something different that the fact meant previously. If you don't like that fact, stick with your religions. We are dealing with the truth here.
But this involves religious freedom not the first amendment on speech.
Can you really not see the problem here?
No need to inject liberals or tea party circles into this. No one mentioned them and I would bet you would/could find several people on any side you picked who think there is a problem too.
The US constitution does not place national defense above the US constitution though. This is problematic to the national defense trumps all argument because the 9th amendment specifically spells out that the enumeration in the constitution shall not be used to deny other rights held by the people. While the constitution generically spells out national defense, it specifically places reasonableness and warrant requirements for searches and other things.
but lets explore this a bit. In the name of national security, some say the government can ignore the US constitution and invade a citizen's or local business's network, computer, telephone, whatever. Some say they can hold people without habeas corpus rights or even the right to a trial. Can they also ignore the constitution and just appoint senators and representatives in the name of national security? Can they install judges and such with no congressional oversight so those moves would survive a court challenge? Can they just decree something to be law without congress ever passing it or the president signing it into law? If so or not, I have to ask why and what limits would there be and how do those limits become recognized?
My naive understanding is that the existence of this group is largely limited to pen testing with approval from network owners or law and assisting in law enforcement operations which presumably would already had warrant requirements satisfied. IT might do a lot more than that but I do not know for sure.
How could you sue for violating the first amendment? The case was just made that your first amendment rights don't count because you had to get a business license to do business and the government can put restrictions on your first amendment rights when they make you do something by law.
So you are free to do whatever you want except when you have to deal with the government due to a law they passed? I sure hope they don't pass as law saying you have to be religious to get a business license.
The democrats first implemented the free speech zones. As for Romney care, i do remember hearing a crap ton of people decrying it as worthless and broken.
But censoring politicians should be a complete no no. Not because they have some right to be heard but because the people deserve a right to know who they are. Let them speak candidly and we will know.
You are correct. I was thinking of the lawsuit that brought the impeachment up in the first place.
When I was in school, home ec was not an elective. It was mandatory and you spend half a year cooking and half a year sewing with finance and budgeting in both. I believe this was in 7th or 8th grade though. You only took it one year.
We also had an introduction to computers course with the brand new apple IIe computers replacing our unix mainframe connection. We did a short stent in basic but most no one was able to gain access to the computers outside of copying what the teacher was copying out of a book for the first time.( I hear that the unix classes were the same unless you were in AP classes). I'm not sure computer science for all will end up being much more than something like that. $4 billion isn't really enough to cover competent instructors let alone course work and hardware.
Sigh.. there was no acquittal of the impeachment. It just failed removing Bill from office. While there was smearing involved, it certainly was of the interest of the rule of law where the chief executive of the country wilfully lied in court testimony over a question that was only pertinent because of a law he signed into law giving women (people involved in sexual harassment cases) the right to bring up references outside their specific claim to establish patterns of behavior in support of their claim.
I cannot find disagreement with the rest of your statement. People are making too much out of something that may or may not be present. We do know that with Bill Clinton, he used scandal after scandal to strengthen his support and even earned the nickname slick Willie the Teflon president.
I cannot help but wonder if Hillary isn't trying to manufacture the same. She was the front man of the vast right wing conspiracy theme which turned out to be truthful accusations against Bill. She is not innocent stranger to the game. She was front and center in the bimbo eruption squad where she attempted to discredit the people otherwise making truthful claimababout Bill.
A GOP witch hunt orchestrated by the democrats? In case you failed to read the article, it is about Obama making the claim not republicans.
Netcraft died a long time ago. Turns out they were running BSD and all the BSD id dieing stories were actually pleads from the IT department for more resources but the management team was too high on bong farts to understand it.
Bullshit. Bill Clinton was propelled to fandom by being able to skirt all those allegations. He used it to say they were afraid of him. He was even being accused of and sued for sexual harassment which actually helped him among his base and the stupidest portions of society.
This is little more than trying to repeat that. Most of the "this is the nail in Bill Clinton coffin " news stories were started by proclinton sources supposedly concerned about his position. They were always overinflated and underperforming.
All i can say is get used to it again. The only wrench now might be that the sjw crowd will not like a sexual oriented scandal and the millennials might not accept the constant hint of corruption. But this release is all by design.
What did she actually accomplish at the state department that wasn't a failure other than jetting around the world? I understand she was strapped with Obama policy which i think handicapped her enormously but I cannot seem to find any successes from her tenure at the state.
That's yet to be seen. The issue here is that the bulk of the email is so large that it is being sorted and the security classification is being determined in batches. The articles you reference can only speak to the amounts of email processed to date and they are dated before this statement about the yet to be released next batch (it missed the deadline).
The assertion of classification alterations after the fact may well be true. Just as we cannot make the affirmative statement that all the emails were not classified when sent, we cannot make the same that any were classified until it has been processed. Executive order 13526 makes all official communication with foreign nations classified by default until declassified so I find it improbable that all emails were later classified. But I also do not see much in the way of sensitive information being discussed via email in this sense. You would think a more dedicated secure source of communication would be employed for state level negotiations other than "hope you like steak and potatoes " concerning a state dinner or "congratulations on your daughter getting married " good will type communication.
If it is far enough out to sea, there shouldn't be to many birds in the first place.
But they can be completely different situations which is the point. Even the argument that if a customer subscribes to a 3 meg budget connection and Netflix gets delivered at 6 meg while nothing else is slowed below 3m, it would be evil. If i wanted to set up a cable like access company and only allow 1 meg http but all streaming video is as fast as it can be served, it is evil because you couldn't torrent at unlimited speeds even though the service is clearly marketed as something other than internet service.
I have made this case from the beginning. It would seem that going above and beyond what the customer pays for is just as taboo as not delivering what was paid for. They don't want any more or less.