And thus, the State of New Jersey violated its own laws (and so did Sequoia), and possibly Federal Statutes as well, regarding independent poll observers and independent verification of vote tallies.
You act as if this never happens with multitudes of things in NJ every day.
"You wants ta 'spect dem votin' boxes eh? Well, I tink my associate Vinny here wants ta 'spect yer kneecaps, how 'bout dat? No? Ok, tell ya's what. I like youse. Just sign dis here paper sayin' it's all good, and I'll make sure nuthin bad happens to yer house n family, cuz it's real dangerous these days, no tellin' what might could happen, ya know? An' here's a couple tickets to da game tonight...no no, I insists! Now geddouddahea!"
It has already been proven with laws like the DMCA that congress has no clue how the internet/modern technology works.
Oh, I think they understand plenty well enough if they want to, they have the resources to have advisers, consultants, etc at their disposal to explain it to them in small words.
What is lacking is the _will_ to care. They have all the special interests telling them what laws to write/pass (or not to write/pass) to receive whatever donation, perk, etc that's being offered in exchange for favorable legislation (or lack thereof). Do (or do not do) 'X' to receive 'Y'.
Understanding doesn't enter into it in any significant way. Witness the DMCA and copyright extensions as examples.
I didn't think so. This is business. There's no room for nicities such as ethics, morals, scrupals, or even laws. The RIAA know better than most how the game is played and they'll continue to play it. And win it.
Well, it wouldn't shock me if I read a news report sometime in the near future about Ms. Andersens' or her lawyers' or even the judges' untimely death in some "random" accident or fire, or a "random" drive-by shooting or mugging if things were going badly for the RIAA. It also wouldn't shock me if the cops got an "anonymous tip" about narcotics stashed on her or her lawyers' property or vehicle.
These are thugs...thugs in suits, but still thugs. No tactic they might use including murder would surprise me. With the amounts of money and power involved here, well..many people have been killed for far, far less. If I were Ms. Andersen, I'd definitely be carrying a firearm and taking a serious look at my and my families' entire security situation.
Being in the miority during those years might ahve ahd something to do with it, as well as trusting what our intelligence community had said about WMDs.
At that time, it wasn't unreasonable to believe our intelligence data. Of course, now that we know they were wrong, they should be given the resources to do a better job next time, preferably a better budget more power to operate without the ACLU breathing down their necks demanding to know every single operation that is ongoing. There, made it true for ya and removed the political rhetoric.
Being in the minority during those years might have had something to do with it, as well as trusting what our intelligence community and most of the rest of the worlds' intelligence communities had said about WMDs.
At that time, it wasn't unreasonable to believe our intelligence data, as it was backed up by most of the worlds' intelligence agencies' data. Of course, now that we know they were wrong, they should be given the resources to do a better job next time, preferably a better budget, as well as more power to operate outside the USA without the ACLU breathing down their necks demanding to know every single operation that is ongoing outside the US and/or targeted at foreign nationals' communications that, because of network design/routing, happens to pass through infrastructure located within the US. (I don't mind a little "watchdog-ism" going on with any intelligence operations conducted inside the country/targeted at US citizens.)
There, made it true(er) for ya and removed more political rhetoric (as well as a few typos and grammatical errors).
Or roll your own root. The only reason ICANN is on power is because they control the legacy root zone. If nobody used it any more, they would fade into the sunset where they belong.
And how long do you think it would take them, if this became widespread, to demonize it as a tool of "terrists", "hackers", and pedophiles and outlaw it? The powerful do not relinquish power easily.
Half the people I know use a key card to access/unlock doors at work. Those things have an RFID chip in them. How close do you have to hold those up to the reader? Yup, 3cm.
We must have had RFID-enabled employee badges/pass cards on steroids then. The aircraft service facility I worked at used them, and were required to enter not only the main employee entrance, but also to access doors to various departments. The doors would unlock when someone with an authorized pass/badge would walk within a couple feet.
You could just barely avoid having the doors along a hallway unlock as you passed if you walked along the far wall of the hallway, which would've been about 6 feet. The sensor pads were next to each door. All day long you'd hear "bzzzt...click" as people walked past the door to your department. Annoying at first until one learned to tune it out.
I think the range depends more on the size of the RFID interrogation transceivers' antenna and the sensitivity of the receiver part of the transceivers' front-end (the first signal amplifying stages right after the antenna).
I could easily imagine the tech built into innocuous things like lampposts, store/shop doors, roads and streets, etc. to be able to track an individuals' movements within a city. The range here would only need to be a couple feet, and you wouldn't need to trip a reading on every reader, only a few would still give a basic travel pattern.
And possibly whoever's standing behind (or next to, if using a shotgun) what you're pointing at.
First, you would be less likely to be killed by bullets from a.45 caliber Thompson sub-machinegun or any of the 9mm assault/sub-machinegun type weapons passing through someone in front of you than if the weapon was, for example, a.357 magnum revolver, all things being equal. Most sub-machineguns use relatively low-velocity pistol ammunition. Of course,.223 caliber assault rifle rounds are much higher-velocity than the pistol ammo used in the weapons I mentioned.
As for "..or next to, if using a shotgun", that's a common misunderstanding about the average shotgun. The "spread" of most shotguns is not anywhere near what most people think. Even with very fine (small diameter) shot, the average spread at a target 50 feet away is only 3 to 4 inches max on average. Even 'sawed-off' shotguns don't have near the shot spread many think.
Many people have the mistaken impression that a shotgun can be used in a home defense scenario with little practice thinking that they only need to "point it in the general direction of the bad-guy" and pull the trigger. At ranges of 25 to 30 feet, which are common in home defense scenarios, shot spread is nearly non-existent with common hunting shotguns. At those ranges, it matters little what size/type of shot is used either. Bird-shot or double-ought buck will both blow a hole clean through a non-armored attacker at those minimal distances because there is very little shot-spread.
One major advantage to using a shotgun for home defense though, is that one may use bird-shot and still be lethal to the bad-guy while the small shot size prevents it penetrating through any significant walls, floors, or ceilings to injure or kill people in other apartments or nearby houses.
I keep my 5-shot 12-gauge pump loaded in this order for home defense: 3 rounds of birdshot, 1 round of double-ought buckshot, and one saboted slug. I figure that if I've gone through 3 rounds and am still firing, the situation is desperate, and I may want the ability to penetrate a wall or have a longer range or penetrate/disable a vehicle. A 12-gauge shotgun is a very powerful weapon at short to medium ranges, especially with sabot slug ammo.
If I shoot something with a 12-gauge and it doesn't drop like a rock, I'm running away or giving up because whatever it is, it's most certainly way beyond my means to combat it. Even against a foe wearing body-armor, a 12-gauge shotgun at close or medium range will most likely take him out of the immediate fight, and may well cause multiple broken bones and serious internal injuries, especially with 3-inch magnum sabot-slug shells.
Does anyone else hear that quote from that movie Jurassic Park "Life always finds a way" when they see this? I mean, what could possibly go wrong, huh? Other than a little hemorrhagic(sp?) fever?
Jet fuel is lighter than water. And the tanks feed from the bottom, So if there was water in the fuel, it would have come out first, as they were starting the engines while still on the ramp in China.
Actually, no, they don't feed from the bottom. They feed from a flexible feed-tube inside the tank, so that gravity or G-forces do not affect fuel flow.
It's possible that the pilots had switched over to a different set of tanks that had been filled elsewhere before they landed in China, and only topped off the tanks they had been using up to that point in the flight, and switched to the full tanks that had been topped off in China prior to landing.
Not a commercial aircraft airframe and powerplant mechanic, but I was a senior avionics technician for many years dealing with corporate and private jets.
What I've read is that the pilots observed a relatively gradual loss of power symmetrically on both engines.
Interesting. Do you have a link to the source for that? Not that I doubt you, just curious to parse it myself.
This tells me that I can rule out engine problems with FADEC and fuel.
FADEC, possibly, but fuel? It's quite possible there was either water or crud in the fuel, especially since the aircraft almost certainly took on fuel in China, and China seems to have had problems of late with products being adulterated in some form. The crud could cause blockages in the filters from the tank(s). The water would cause an increasingly-diluted fuel mixture to enter the engines as the level dropped which might also cause the gradual loss of power.
The two most-likely culprits I would examine first are the discrete devices at either end of the control path that send the data and receive it at the other end, and the cables and connectors used to transmit the data.
The next point I'd check would be the power supply that powers the electrical actuators that physically move the actual throttles in each engine. This supply would be separate from the power used for the electronics, as it would be a relatively high-current source. This might also be caused by cabling/connector problems.
Aircraft tend to have many problems with cabling due to high vibration and multiple pinch-points and stress and vibration/abrasion at support points, as well as contact problems at connectors.
Another very major problem is human error. In many cases the turn-to-lock type connectors are in very tight spaces, sometimes so much so that it may only be visible by a small mirror and flashlight held by the tech while he may be laying on his back or nearly standing on his head. I had a whole set of strange-looking pliers of different lengths and weird angles with curved padded jaws for just this purpose in my tool box, along with small hand-held extend-able flexible-tubing-mounted inspection mirrors and flashlights with the head on flexible tubing as well.
It can be very hard to tell, given the above circumstances, if the locking sleeve on these aircraft instrumentation connectors had been twisted far enough to complete the lock. It doesn't take much imagination to see what could happen given time, vibration, and G-forces.
Of course, these are just my rough guesses, and I don't have enough information to really make any informed statements.
Not all information being backed up is vital information even in the white house. There is a lot of mundane information being passed back and forth that should be deleted over time. Email are a very insecure form of communication so (even back in 2003) Keeping Email Backups without hind sight seemed like a waist of time because it was almost all no priority stuff "Meeting at the Oval Office at 3:00pm" or "hey check out this funny joke" Having a year or two backup of this stuff is quite silly. For a considered low priority insecure form of communication... Including getting millions of peoples rants to the president. Back in the old days someone would have written a letter and it would have been destroyed by shredding it and/or incineration. Lets keep politics out of it or any irrational hatred of a person and or his policies, and think of it on an IT level here. Emails back in 2003 were considered junk messages. Backups kept were for cases of system crashes so they can restore data as it was left off, and maybe a year or two back in case something was deleted and needed to be retrieved.
I like how this was modded "Flamebait". I think the act of modding here is more suited to the term "Flamebait" than his post was. His post was reasoned, articulate, and on-topic.
Although I can understand a mod (or several) with a political axe to grind could see fit to mod this way, it does not do anything to improve the perception they might wish to convey of being open-minded, inclusive, and progressive. It smacks more of intolerance of differing points of view, which to me, speaks just as loudly to a fascist-like behavior as anything this administration may have done.
pbhj stated in part: Consider a guy too drunk to drive legally - he can't get the key in the door and fails to get in the car..
To which you reply: In the case of the drunk person, we prosecute him because he has the keys and is legally considered in charge of the vehicle. Not for drink driving.
Am I missing something here? Does this mean that if I get drunk in my home while in possession of my car keys I should be prosecuted? How about the fellow who gets drunk in a bar, but has called a taxi to take him home, yet retains his keys? What if the same fellow just hasn't made the call to the taxi service *yet*? What if the same fellow is drunk in a bar, has his car keys on him, but his car is sitting at home?
They have quiet a problem here. I generate a lot of content which is copyrighted. I distribute various rights to people to my works. I upload and download these works, eg exchange them, with other people.
As someone they are trying to protect, how are they to know which rights I've assigned to which works, and to whom? Hell, they can't even figure out the whom part on the other end of the connection.
Without a major re-write of TCP/IP, the non FUDD description of this is that they just want to stop Bittorrent and the like -- or -- they have no idea how this all works.
That's one of the underlying goals. YOU as an independent content producer are one of the sources they'd like to see disappear. Along with independent musicians and software creators. They want independent content to be collateral damage. They don't want the internet as a two-way data pipe, but as a one-way street, serving up corporate-generated content and services to the masses.
Look for "Trusted Computing" to be offered up as a solution, as that is the only method/system to date that I'm aware of with which there would be any hope of controlling copyrighted works being distributed.
And the Americans, who go through the trouble of trying to disguise themselves, will wrap their passports in foil, or something.
Who wants to lay odds on the chances of the US government making such "obstruction and/or obfuscation, or possession of such obstruction or obfuscation device(s) or material(s)" at any time by such a passport holder highly illegal? It would follow with the rest of the brain-dead security theater "logic" we've seen so far.
At least with a computer, there are LAN gaming options (although some game platforms may have LAN gaming capabilities, they don't seem to be as flexible or easy to set up, or even as well thought-out).
Every xbox game I have ever played that supported any kind of multiplayer also supported LAN based play. In fact early on, before XBL was running, it was all the games supported. Was one of the most painless things you could experience as well. Wire up all the xboxes to a hub, and every xbox that turned on would start talking to each other. Wouldn't even need a dhcp server working. Someone fires up a game and makes a server, everyone else can instantly drop in.
There may be a lot of good arguments to favor PC gaming over console gaming.. but the LAN situation ain't one of them.
I'll concede that point, as I have no practical experience myself with setting up a LAN for XBox. Although I have to point out that while that may be true, finding an XBox LAN party seems to be much harder to do than a computer game LAN party. Maybe in a large city this may not hold as true. For where I am though, a mid-sized town in the midwest/Great Lakes area, I have never heard of or seen any XBox LAN parties, but finding a computer gaming LAN party isn't much problem.
This is one of the reasons I haven't embraced gaming platforms, and prefer to do my gaming on a computer. At least with a computer, there are LAN gaming options (although some game platforms may have LAN gaming capabilities, they don't seem to be as flexible or easy to set up, or even as well thought-out).
This is coupled with the fact that there are many more computer games that have an offline campaign/career/single-player mode, and the newer games for PS3/XBox/etc that even bother to have a single-player offline mode usually do a very poor and limited job of it. Yes, there are exceptions on both sides, but on balance, computer-based gaming does a better job of offline/single-player play, which helps when game servers experience outages.
Multi-player gaming is fun, but I want to be able to play a game I really like after the support for online play from the makers goes away, and also if some snafu with game servers as in this case happens. I know I'd be very very angry that the expensive gaming platform and multi-player service I either bought for myself for Christmas or for some poor kid was basically un-playable for days after the holidays are over.
This is what makes it "art" - not how complicated the structure of the song is, but how the artist can express emotion within the structure.
That reminds me of a conversation I once had with blues legend BB King when I was working the load-in/load-out at one of his shows (he talked to everyone and didn't hide in a hotel or dressing room). As a blues player myself, I asked him what was the most important trait to being a great musician. He told me that the greatest musicians have the ability to make an audience laugh or cry with a single note.
It does depend, somewhat, on your definition of contribution.
I currently contribute somewhere around a third of my labour (in direct PAYE contributions) in the form of tax.
So, then I guess you're OK with the ultra-rich and large corporations having the bulk of the say in government since they "contribute" more? Or are you simply saying: "I'm well-off and spoiled and don't give a rats' about giving the society that allows me the means to be that way anything, I want what I want, now give it to me!"?
Even today, one of the qualifications that many people look for in their elected leaders is previous military service.
Do you live in Iraq or something?
So, I take it you didn't vote in the last presidential election for the war veteran Kerry for president? Or did you choose not to vote? Those that complain about decisions they refuse to participate in when they have the opportunity cry to deaf ears.
Slashdot Mirror
And thus, the State of New Jersey violated its own laws (and so did Sequoia), and possibly Federal Statutes as well, regarding independent poll observers and independent verification of vote tallies.
You act as if this never happens with multitudes of things in NJ every day.
"You wants ta 'spect dem votin' boxes eh? Well, I tink my associate Vinny here wants ta 'spect yer kneecaps, how 'bout dat? No? Ok, tell ya's what. I like youse. Just sign dis here paper sayin' it's all good, and I'll make sure nuthin bad happens to yer house n family, cuz it's real dangerous these days, no tellin' what might could happen, ya know? An' here's a couple tickets to da game tonight...no no, I insists! Now geddouddahea!"
Sorry, couldn't resist. Don't hurt me.
Strat
It has already been proven with laws like the DMCA that congress has no clue how the internet/modern technology works.
Oh, I think they understand plenty well enough if they want to, they have the resources to have advisers, consultants, etc at their disposal to explain it to them in small words.
What is lacking is the _will_ to care. They have all the special interests telling them what laws to write/pass (or not to write/pass) to receive whatever donation, perk, etc that's being offered in exchange for favorable legislation (or lack thereof). Do (or do not do) 'X' to receive 'Y'.
Understanding doesn't enter into it in any significant way. Witness the DMCA and copyright extensions as examples.
Cheers!
Strat
Sorry to reply to my own post, but as I hit the "Submit" button, I glanced down to read the quaote at the bottom of the page:
"The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun. -- Buckminster Fuller"
Scary.
Strat
I didn't think so. This is business. There's no room for nicities such as ethics, morals, scrupals, or even laws. The RIAA know better than most how the game is played and they'll continue to play it. And win it.
Well, it wouldn't shock me if I read a news report sometime in the near future about Ms. Andersens' or her lawyers' or even the judges' untimely death in some "random" accident or fire, or a "random" drive-by shooting or mugging if things were going badly for the RIAA. It also wouldn't shock me if the cops got an "anonymous tip" about narcotics stashed on her or her lawyers' property or vehicle.
These are thugs...thugs in suits, but still thugs. No tactic they might use including murder would surprise me. With the amounts of money and power involved here, well..many people have been killed for far, far less. If I were Ms. Andersen, I'd definitely be carrying a firearm and taking a serious look at my and my families' entire security situation.
Cheers!
Strat
Being in the miority during those years might ahve ahd something to do with it, as well as trusting what our intelligence community had said about WMDs.
At that time, it wasn't unreasonable to believe our intelligence data. Of course, now that we know they were wrong, they should be given the resources to do a better job next time, preferably a better budget more power to operate without the ACLU breathing down their necks demanding to know every single operation that is ongoing.
There, made it true for ya and removed the political rhetoric.
Being in the minority during those years might have had something to do with it, as well
as trusting what our intelligence community and most of the rest of the worlds' intelligence communities had said about WMDs.
At that time, it wasn't unreasonable to believe our intelligence data, as it was backed up by most of the worlds' intelligence agencies' data. Of course, now that we know they were wrong, they should be given the resources to do a better job next time, preferably a better budget, as well as more power to operate outside the USA without the ACLU breathing down their necks demanding to know every single operation that is ongoing outside the US and/or targeted at foreign nationals' communications that, because of network design/routing, happens to pass through infrastructure located within the US. (I don't mind a little "watchdog-ism" going on with any intelligence operations conducted inside the country/targeted at US citizens.)
There, made it true(er) for ya and removed more political rhetoric (as well as a few typos and grammatical errors).
Cheers!
Strat
Just make sure nobody cares about or likes you enough to ever send you something so sappy.
:P
And before anyone says it, yes, yes, I'm in no danger...right.
Cheers!
Strat
Or roll your own root. The only reason ICANN is on power is because they control the legacy root zone. If nobody used it any more, they would fade into the sunset where they belong.
And how long do you think it would take them, if this became widespread, to demonize it as a tool of "terrists", "hackers", and pedophiles and outlaw it? The powerful do not relinquish power easily.
Cheers!
Strat
Half the people I know use a key card to access/unlock doors at work. Those things have an RFID chip in them. How close do you have to hold those up to the reader? Yup, 3cm.
We must have had RFID-enabled employee badges/pass cards on steroids then. The aircraft service facility I worked at used them, and were required to enter not only the main employee entrance, but also to access doors to various departments. The doors would unlock when someone with an authorized pass/badge would walk within a couple feet.
You could just barely avoid having the doors along a hallway unlock as you passed if you walked along the far wall of the hallway, which would've been about 6 feet. The sensor pads were next to each door. All day long you'd hear "bzzzt...click" as people walked past the door to your department. Annoying at first until one learned to tune it out.
I think the range depends more on the size of the RFID interrogation transceivers' antenna and the sensitivity of the receiver part of the transceivers' front-end (the first signal amplifying stages right after the antenna).
I could easily imagine the tech built into innocuous things like lampposts, store/shop doors, roads and streets, etc. to be able to track an individuals' movements within a city. The range here would only need to be a couple feet, and you wouldn't need to trip a reading on every reader, only a few would still give a basic travel pattern.
Cheers!
Strat
... can you copyright a gallon of petrol through the law firm's letterbox?
Sure, but be sure to follow it up with a C&D letter printed on a lit match.
Cheers!
Strat
And possibly whoever's standing behind (or next to, if using a shotgun) what you're pointing at.
.45 caliber Thompson sub-machinegun or any of the 9mm assault/sub-machinegun type weapons passing through someone in front of you than if the weapon was, for example, a .357 magnum revolver, all things being equal. Most sub-machineguns use relatively low-velocity pistol ammunition. Of course, .223 caliber assault rifle rounds are much higher-velocity than the pistol ammo used in the weapons I mentioned.
First, you would be less likely to be killed by bullets from a
As for "..or next to, if using a shotgun", that's a common misunderstanding about the average shotgun. The "spread" of most shotguns is not anywhere near what most people think. Even with very fine (small diameter) shot, the average spread at a target 50 feet away is only 3 to 4 inches max on average. Even 'sawed-off' shotguns don't have near the shot spread many think.
Many people have the mistaken impression that a shotgun can be used in a home defense scenario with little practice thinking that they only need to "point it in the general direction of the bad-guy" and pull the trigger. At ranges of 25 to 30 feet, which are common in home defense scenarios, shot spread is nearly non-existent with common hunting shotguns. At those ranges, it matters little what size/type of shot is used either. Bird-shot or double-ought buck will both blow a hole clean through a non-armored attacker at those minimal distances because there is very little shot-spread.
One major advantage to using a shotgun for home defense though, is that one may use bird-shot and still be lethal to the bad-guy while the small shot size prevents it penetrating through any significant walls, floors, or ceilings to injure or kill people in other apartments or nearby houses.
I keep my 5-shot 12-gauge pump loaded in this order for home defense: 3 rounds of birdshot, 1 round of double-ought buckshot, and one saboted slug. I figure that if I've gone through 3 rounds and am still firing, the situation is desperate, and I may want the ability to penetrate a wall or have a longer range or penetrate/disable a vehicle. A 12-gauge shotgun is a very powerful weapon at short to medium ranges, especially with sabot slug ammo.
If I shoot something with a 12-gauge and it doesn't drop like a rock, I'm running away or giving up because whatever it is, it's most certainly way beyond my means to combat it. Even against a foe wearing body-armor, a 12-gauge shotgun at close or medium range will most likely take him out of the immediate fight, and may well cause multiple broken bones and serious internal injuries, especially with 3-inch magnum sabot-slug shells.
Cheers!
Strat
Does anyone else hear that quote from that movie Jurassic Park "Life always finds a way" when they see this? I mean, what could possibly go wrong, huh? Other than a little hemorrhagic(sp?) fever?
Cheers!
Strat
Jet fuel is lighter than water. And the tanks feed from the bottom, So if there was water in the fuel, it would have come out first, as they were starting the engines while still on the ramp in China.
Actually, no, they don't feed from the bottom. They feed from a flexible feed-tube inside the tank, so that gravity or G-forces do not affect fuel flow.
It's possible that the pilots had switched over to a different set of tanks that had been filled elsewhere before they landed in China, and only topped off the tanks they had been using up to that point in the flight, and switched to the full tanks that had been topped off in China prior to landing.
Cheers!
Strat
Not a commercial aircraft airframe and powerplant mechanic, but I was a senior avionics technician for many years dealing with corporate and private jets.
What I've read is that the pilots observed a relatively gradual loss of power symmetrically on both engines.
Interesting. Do you have a link to the source for that? Not that I doubt you, just curious to parse it myself.
This tells me that I can rule out engine problems with FADEC and fuel.
FADEC, possibly, but fuel? It's quite possible there was either water or crud in the fuel, especially since the aircraft almost certainly took on fuel in China, and China seems to have had problems of late with products being adulterated in some form. The crud could cause blockages in the filters from the tank(s). The water would cause an increasingly-diluted fuel mixture to enter the engines as the level dropped which might also cause the gradual loss of power.
The two most-likely culprits I would examine first are the discrete devices at either end of the control path that send the data and receive it at the other end, and the cables and connectors used to transmit the data.
The next point I'd check would be the power supply that powers the electrical actuators that physically move the actual throttles in each engine. This supply would be separate from the power used for the electronics, as it would be a relatively high-current source. This might also be caused by cabling/connector problems.
Aircraft tend to have many problems with cabling due to high vibration and multiple pinch-points and stress and vibration/abrasion at support points, as well as contact problems at connectors.
Another very major problem is human error. In many cases the turn-to-lock type connectors are in very tight spaces, sometimes so much so that it may only be visible by a small mirror and flashlight held by the tech while he may be laying on his back or nearly standing on his head. I had a whole set of strange-looking pliers of different lengths and weird angles with curved padded jaws for just this purpose in my tool box, along with small hand-held extend-able flexible-tubing-mounted inspection mirrors and flashlights with the head on flexible tubing as well.
It can be very hard to tell, given the above circumstances, if the locking sleeve on these aircraft instrumentation connectors had been twisted far enough to complete the lock. It doesn't take much imagination to see what could happen given time, vibration, and G-forces.
Of course, these are just my rough guesses, and I don't have enough information to really make any informed statements.
Cheers!
Strat
Not all information being backed up is vital information even in the white house. There is a lot of mundane information being passed back and forth that should be deleted over time. Email are a very insecure form of communication so (even back in 2003) Keeping Email Backups without hind sight seemed like a waist of time because it was almost all no priority stuff "Meeting at the Oval Office at 3:00pm" or "hey check out this funny joke" Having a year or two backup of this stuff is quite silly. For a considered low priority insecure form of communication... Including getting millions of peoples rants to the president. Back in the old days someone would have written a letter and it would have been destroyed by shredding it and/or incineration. Lets keep politics out of it or any irrational hatred of a person and or his policies, and think of it on an IT level here. Emails back in 2003 were considered junk messages. Backups kept were for cases of system crashes so they can restore data as it was left off, and maybe a year or two back in case something was deleted and needed to be retrieved.
I like how this was modded "Flamebait". I think the act of modding here is more suited to the term "Flamebait" than his post was. His post was reasoned, articulate, and on-topic.
Although I can understand a mod (or several) with a political axe to grind could see fit to mod this way, it does not do anything to improve the perception they might wish to convey of being open-minded, inclusive, and progressive. It smacks more of intolerance of differing points of view, which to me, speaks just as loudly to a fascist-like behavior as anything this administration may have done.
Cheers!
Strat
...and roll my carton of cigarettes up in my sleeve. I'm a bad man.
You must certainly be a bad man if you have arms large enough to roll an entire carton of 10 packs of smokes up in your T-shirt sleeve!!
Cheers!! (and please don't hurt me!!)
Strat
Of course he was expelled. He was under double-secret probation! Duh!
Sorry, couldn't resist the "Animal House" reference.
Cheers!
Strat
pbhj stated in part: Consider a guy too drunk to drive legally - he can't get the key in the door and fails to get in the car..
To which you reply: In the case of the drunk person, we prosecute him because he has the keys and is legally considered in charge of the vehicle. Not for drink driving.
Am I missing something here? Does this mean that if I get drunk in my home while in possession of my car keys I should be prosecuted? How about the fellow who gets drunk in a bar, but has called a taxi to take him home, yet retains his keys? What if the same fellow just hasn't made the call to the taxi service *yet*? What if the same fellow is drunk in a bar, has his car keys on him, but his car is sitting at home?
Cheers!
Strat
They have quiet a problem here. I generate a lot of content which is copyrighted. I distribute various rights to people to my works. I upload and download these works, eg exchange them, with other people.
As someone they are trying to protect, how are they to know which rights I've assigned to which works, and to whom? Hell, they can't even figure out the whom part on the other end of the connection.
Without a major re-write of TCP/IP, the non FUDD description of this is that they just want to stop Bittorrent and the like -- or -- they have no idea how this all works.
That's one of the underlying goals. YOU as an independent content producer are one of the sources they'd like to see disappear. Along with independent musicians and software creators. They want independent content to be collateral damage. They don't want the internet as a two-way data pipe, but as a one-way street, serving up corporate-generated content and services to the masses.
Look for "Trusted Computing" to be offered up as a solution, as that is the only method/system to date that I'm aware of with which there would be any hope of controlling copyrighted works being distributed.
Cheers!
Strat
And the Americans, who go through the trouble of trying to disguise themselves, will wrap their passports in foil, or something.
Who wants to lay odds on the chances of the US government making such "obstruction and/or obfuscation, or possession of such obstruction or obfuscation device(s) or material(s)" at any time by such a passport holder highly illegal? It would follow with the rest of the brain-dead security theater "logic" we've seen so far.
Cheers!
Strat
At least with a computer, there are LAN gaming options (although some game platforms may have LAN gaming capabilities, they don't seem to be as flexible or easy to set up, or even as well thought-out).
Every xbox game I have ever played that supported any kind of multiplayer also supported LAN based play. In fact early on, before XBL was running, it was all the games supported. Was one of the most painless things you could experience as well. Wire up all the xboxes to a hub, and every xbox that turned on would start talking to each other. Wouldn't even need a dhcp server working. Someone fires up a game and makes a server, everyone else can instantly drop in.
There may be a lot of good arguments to favor PC gaming over console gaming.. but the LAN situation ain't one of them.
I'll concede that point, as I have no practical experience myself with setting up a LAN for XBox. Although I have to point out that while that may be true, finding an XBox LAN party seems to be much harder to do than a computer game LAN party. Maybe in a large city this may not hold as true. For where I am though, a mid-sized town in the midwest/Great Lakes area, I have never heard of or seen any XBox LAN parties, but finding a computer gaming LAN party isn't much problem.
Cheers!
Strat
This is one of the reasons I haven't embraced gaming platforms, and prefer to do my gaming on a computer. At least with a computer, there are LAN gaming options (although some game platforms may have LAN gaming capabilities, they don't seem to be as flexible or easy to set up, or even as well thought-out).
This is coupled with the fact that there are many more computer games that have an offline campaign/career/single-player mode, and the newer games for PS3/XBox/etc that even bother to have a single-player offline mode usually do a very poor and limited job of it. Yes, there are exceptions on both sides, but on balance, computer-based gaming does a better job of offline/single-player play, which helps when game servers experience outages.
Multi-player gaming is fun, but I want to be able to play a game I really like after the support for online play from the makers goes away, and also if some snafu with game servers as in this case happens. I know I'd be very very angry that the expensive gaming platform and multi-player service I either bought for myself for Christmas or for some poor kid was basically un-playable for days after the holidays are over.
Cheers!
Strat
This is what makes it "art" - not how complicated the structure of the song is, but how the artist can express emotion within the structure.
That reminds me of a conversation I once had with blues legend BB King when I was working the load-in/load-out at one of his shows (he talked to everyone and didn't hide in a hotel or dressing room). As a blues player myself, I asked him what was the most important trait to being a great musician. He told me that the greatest musicians have the ability to make an audience laugh or cry with a single note.
'Nuff said.
Cheers!
Strat
It does depend, somewhat, on your definition of contribution.
I currently contribute somewhere around a third of my labour (in direct PAYE contributions) in the form of tax.
So, then I guess you're OK with the ultra-rich and large corporations having the bulk of the say in government since they "contribute" more? Or are you simply saying: "I'm well-off and spoiled and don't give a rats' about giving the society that allows me the means to be that way anything, I want what I want, now give it to me!"?
I suspect it's the latter rather than the former.
Cheers!
Strat
Oops, that should have read "the military veteran Al Gore".
Point still stands though.
Even today, one of the qualifications that many people look for in their elected leaders is previous military service.
Do you live in Iraq or something?
So, I take it you didn't vote in the last presidential election for the war veteran Kerry for president? Or did you choose not to vote? Those that complain about decisions they refuse to participate in when they have the opportunity cry to deaf ears.
Cheers!
Strat