Think of it this way. You've got a major city to run and one guy - ONLY ONE GUY knows the passwords and he refuses to let ANYONE else know what it is, or even disclose how the network is configured. This is a massive liability and yes he should be forced to share control or be charged.
They didn't "allow this person to get complete control of essentially EVERYTHING", they paid him to do it and not tell anyone the password except the mayor.
I have to disagree. If you read more about the circumstances, it seems Terry Childs is a egomanic trusting no one to have anything to do with the network but himself. This is an extremely dangerous situation and a liability for the city. They have every right to get access to their own equipment, and to not do so would be irresponsible.
I dont own a smartphone or iPhone or anything else that starts with a lower case 'i'.
I don't even have a computer at home. I just hate sensationalist journalism, and some poor guy getting publicly humiliated for ratings.
That and what they did was illegal. Are you saying I shouldn't care? Do you honestly not care about any criminal activity? (Ah the investor just ran off with several hundred peoples' lifes savings. Oh well, good for him. Hey look someone getting raped! Hope they have fun.).
Almost nowhere are you required to report such things to the police. If you find an abandoned item, it's yours.
Completely untrue. Please provide a source for your claim.
Every US state that has enacted a specific 'lost and found' law (20 of them) require you to hand over the find to the police. For states that do not have a law, then it falls under common law where it is yours unless the original owner asks for it back.
Europe same thing - you have to report the find to the police
Regardless, there is no such thing as 'finders keepers' law, and EVERYWHERE if you try and buy knowingly stolen goods it is a crime.
Gizmodo or the guy who found it didn't report the device to the police so its stolen. And if they paid someone for the device knowing it wasn't his property, then thats fencing stolen property. Additionally Gizmodo had no newsworthy reason to publish the guys name.
Students cheat because they don't have the skills to write their own correct solution. It's far less effort to write the solution yourself than to copy someone elses, then try and modify it enough so it doesn't look copied without breaking it.
It's not long-duration temperatures they shields have to withstand - they do that already, being non-ablative - it's the instantaneous heat.
It's both. For long duration heating the heat has a chance go through the entire thickness of the heat shield and destroy what the shield was trying to protect. A shorter descent gives a higher surface temperature but it doesn't have time to heat the material underneath.
Heat shields work this way. They do not violate the conservation of energy.
As for fuel, the energy to get down is about the same to get up there, for the dry weight of the shuttle anyway.
Except for that bit required for the deorbit burn, there's very little fuel left on the shuttle when it comes back. Think of it. On the way up you have a huge external fuel tank and two solid rocket boosters, on the way down, only whats left in the shuttles interior tanks, and often most of that capacity was burned giving the ISS an orbit boost.
Why slow down as fast as possible? It's not like the shuttle couldn't spend a few hours gradually slowing down at a safe altitude.
If you reduce your angle of descent too much, yes the instantaneous amount of heat buildup will be less, but you will be doing this over a much greater period of time. This will cumulate and fail the heat shields. So your entry needs to be a balance between too much friction to fail the shields, and too much total buildup over the entire glide path. These are the basic restrictions on angle of entry.
It's an epic failure to say that the people using Linux and OpenOffice must be the ones illegally copying music.
Thats not what I said at all. I was talking about people who dowload illegally would be the first to defend defend GPL. Are you saying that the only people who support GPL are Linux/OpenOffice users? Pretty small group if that's true.
Sure. But that gets into repetitive muscle training that no longer requires a lot of conscious thought. Ever try and learn the piano? You only get good when you practice enough so your fingers 'automatically' go where you want them to. As soon as you start thinking about finger placement consciously, you miss tempo.
Agreed. The very same people that justify stealing music or movies via download sites are the first people to get up in arms about companies taking open source and not complying to GPL. Bunch of hypocrites.
If you don't like their conditions for their code, you don't have to use it. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.
Which is why I dont use GPL code, nor release anything I write under GPL. It's basically useless to me.
Also, being 'forced to do something' is in no way a *specificly* Nazi trait since it could apply to any authoritarian system, and in fact to certain aspects of all democracies (being forced to pay taxes for things you don't agree with, for example), so you appear to have chosen that term purely for flamebait purposes.
Sorry. Next time I'll use the word 'Republican' instead of 'Nazi' but I usually reserve that word for removal of personal liberties or implying massive public debt.
Yet the single picture violation does not tell anybody whether or not you entered the intersection illegally. Merely that you were in the intersection when it turned red... that is not illegal.
The only red light ticket I ever got had two pictures: one showing the car before the intersection and one partway through the intersection showing I went straight through, both showing the red light. Can't argue with that.
This is bullshit. There is always a couple of seconds where your light is red, but the other lights in the intersection are not yet green. Care to guess why it was designed that way?
To save lives because it is known that there are idiots on the road that don't pay attention and will blow through a red.
If you entered the intersection to make a left hand turn with someone coming at you then you deserve to get a ticket. I don't understand why people seem to have trouble with the concept but YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO ENTER THE INTERSECTION UNLESS YOU CAN CLEAR IT
Not in Canada. You can enter the intersection to turn left if you reasonably believe you can make the turn before the light turns red. So with traffic coming, you can generally enter the intersection legally as long as you don't block oncoming traffic.
Try to get permission to string cable to compete with them in a jurisdiction where they have a "franchise". The free market is deliberately crippled in the case of cable companies.
Have you tried getting such permission or are you making up the the suggestion that there is somehow some collusion going on that prevents competition?
The only barrier to multiple cable companies is the infrastructure cost to setting up the initial lines. That's why most competitors use things like satellite or line of sight broadcast.
No, it has to do with the fact that we don't have as much free-market as anti-free-market whiners like to tell us we do. You can't strongly regulate an industry and then claim that free market failed.
No, regulation is irrelevant as long as everyone is regulated the same and its a level playing field. Its when different standards exist that the market playing field becomes unfair and breaks down.
Slashdot Mirror
Think of it this way. You've got a major city to run and one guy - ONLY ONE GUY knows the passwords and he refuses to let ANYONE else know what it is, or even disclose how the network is configured. This is a massive liability and yes he should be forced to share control or be charged.
Put your friggin butt in the car ashtray - thats what its there for.
They didn't "allow this person to get complete control of essentially EVERYTHING", they paid him to do it and not tell anyone the password except the mayor.
I have to disagree. If you read more about the circumstances, it seems Terry Childs is a egomanic trusting no one to have anything to do with the network but himself. This is an extremely dangerous situation and a liability for the city. They have every right to get access to their own equipment, and to not do so would be irresponsible.
Funny ho wyou asked for a source but then made a wild claim as to what the laws are in 30 states without a single source.
It's not a wild claim, and you dont need to quote everything when it can be easily verified true with a simple Google search.
California has a 90 day period, but it also requires that a found item valued over $100 must be turned over to the local police.
Heres a nice summary of all state lost and found laws, including California.: http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovuslostdogpropertystatutes.htm
I dont own a smartphone or iPhone or anything else that starts with a lower case 'i'.
I don't even have a computer at home. I just hate sensationalist journalism, and some poor guy getting publicly humiliated for ratings.
That and what they did was illegal. Are you saying I shouldn't care? Do you honestly not care about any criminal activity? (Ah the investor just ran off with several hundred peoples' lifes savings. Oh well, good for him. Hey look someone getting raped! Hope they have fun.).
Almost nowhere are you required to report such things to the police. If you find an abandoned item, it's yours.
Completely untrue. Please provide a source for your claim.
Every US state that has enacted a specific 'lost and found' law (20 of them) require you to hand over the find to the police. For states that do not have a law, then it falls under common law where it is yours unless the original owner asks for it back.
Europe same thing - you have to report the find to the police
Regardless, there is no such thing as 'finders keepers' law, and EVERYWHERE if you try and buy knowingly stolen goods it is a crime.
Gizmodo or the guy who found it didn't report the device to the police so its stolen. And if they paid someone for the device knowing it wasn't his property, then thats fencing stolen property. Additionally Gizmodo had no newsworthy reason to publish the guys name.
I'm hoping criminal charges get laid here.
Students cheat because they don't have the skills to write their own correct solution. It's far less effort to write the solution yourself than to copy someone elses, then try and modify it enough so it doesn't look copied without breaking it.
It's not long-duration temperatures they shields have to withstand - they do that already, being non-ablative - it's the instantaneous heat.
It's both. For long duration heating the heat has a chance go through the entire thickness of the heat shield and destroy what the shield was trying to protect. A shorter descent gives a higher surface temperature but it doesn't have time to heat the material underneath.
Heat shields work this way. They do not violate the conservation of energy.
Orbital mechanics determines the speed required to be in orbit. It is fairly simple physics and about 17,000 MPH for all objects.
Thats for LEO yes, but different altitude orbits require different speeds.
As for fuel, the energy to get down is about the same to get up there, for the dry weight of the shuttle anyway.
Except for that bit required for the deorbit burn, there's very little fuel left on the shuttle when it comes back. Think of it. On the way up you have a huge external fuel tank and two solid rocket boosters, on the way down, only whats left in the shuttles interior tanks, and often most of that capacity was burned giving the ISS an orbit boost.
Uh no., Thats completely wrong.
Why slow down as fast as possible? It's not like the shuttle couldn't spend a few hours gradually slowing down at a safe altitude.
If you reduce your angle of descent too much, yes the instantaneous amount of heat buildup will be less, but you will be doing this over a much greater period of time. This will cumulate and fail the heat shields. So your entry needs to be a balance between too much friction to fail the shields, and too much total buildup over the entire glide path. These are the basic restrictions on angle of entry.
It's an epic failure to say that the people using Linux and OpenOffice must be the ones illegally copying music.
Thats not what I said at all. I was talking about people who dowload illegally would be the first to defend defend GPL. Are you saying that the only people who support GPL are Linux/OpenOffice users? Pretty small group if that's true.
Looks like you are case in point. Prove its wrong.
Sure. But that gets into repetitive muscle training that no longer requires a lot of conscious thought. Ever try and learn the piano? You only get good when you practice enough so your fingers 'automatically' go where you want them to. As soon as you start thinking about finger placement consciously, you miss tempo.
Agreed. The very same people that justify stealing music or movies via download sites are the first people to get up in arms about companies taking open source and not complying to GPL. Bunch of hypocrites.
If you don't like their conditions for their code, you don't have to use it. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.
Which is why I dont use GPL code, nor release anything I write under GPL. It's basically useless to me.
Also, being 'forced to do something' is in no way a *specificly* Nazi trait since it could apply to any authoritarian system, and in fact to certain aspects of all democracies (being forced to pay taxes for things you don't agree with, for example), so you appear to have chosen that term purely for flamebait purposes.
Sorry. Next time I'll use the word 'Republican' instead of 'Nazi' but I usually reserve that word for removal of personal liberties or implying massive public debt.
Yet the single picture violation does not tell anybody whether or not you entered the intersection illegally. Merely that you were in the intersection when it turned red... that is not illegal.
The only red light ticket I ever got had two pictures: one showing the car before the intersection and one partway through the intersection showing I went straight through, both showing the red light. Can't argue with that.
I'm surprised he didn't get a ticket for driving the wrong way on the street which is more correct and more serious.
This is bullshit. There is always a couple of seconds where your light is red, but the other lights in the intersection are not yet green. Care to guess why it was designed that way?
To save lives because it is known that there are idiots on the road that don't pay attention and will blow through a red.
If you entered the intersection to make a left hand turn with someone coming at you then you deserve to get a ticket. I don't understand why people seem to have trouble with the concept but YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO ENTER THE INTERSECTION UNLESS YOU CAN CLEAR IT
Not in Canada. You can enter the intersection to turn left if you reasonably believe you can make the turn before the light turns red. So with traffic coming, you can generally enter the intersection legally as long as you don't block oncoming traffic.
Try to get permission to string cable to compete with them in a jurisdiction where they have a "franchise". The free market is deliberately crippled in the case of cable companies.
Have you tried getting such permission or are you making up the the suggestion that there is somehow some collusion going on that prevents competition?
The only barrier to multiple cable companies is the infrastructure cost to setting up the initial lines. That's why most competitors use things like satellite or line of sight broadcast.
Good post, good question. Should not be a Troll.
No, it has to do with the fact that we don't have as much free-market as anti-free-market whiners like to tell us we do. You can't strongly regulate an industry and then claim that free market failed.
No, regulation is irrelevant as long as everyone is regulated the same and its a level playing field. Its when different standards exist that the market playing field becomes unfair and breaks down.