"contempt of court" isn't proof of guilt. However, what I meant was that they had proven "beyond reasonable doubt" that he was guilty or at least responsible. If you give your computer to a person and watch them commit a crime with you approval you are at least an accomplice.
Exactly:) Contempt of Court isn't going to net 6 years; I was just setting the bar lower.
and not a net neutrality issue thankfully. Settlement free peering between tier 1 carriers only happens when the flow of traffic is roughly balanced between the contracting peers. When one peer is pushing a lot more traffic onto the other network, then that usually goes out the window and the pusher is required to pay the receiving network. Otherwise, networks would be monetarily incentivized to unload traffic they should carry on their own networks onto their peers' instead.
What you're stating is the situation for transit peering. This issue has nothing to do with transit peering, as the packets all terminate inside the receiving network.
See, this is why it's a problem that we've got the same people providing Tier 1 trunk lines that are providing endpoint connects. It creates another class of peer where they're being paid by end users for transit to the interconnect, and then they turn around and want to charge peers for transit to the end users. That's called double dipping, and that's why there's an issue here. The entire point of peering with these Tier 1-to-endpoint providers is to unload traffic; there's no other way to actually route traffic to the destination!
And that won't really work because an even larger check from the cable companies will always follow. Hell they most likely just give them a credit card with an unlimited balance that draws right from the cable companies' customers' bank accounts.
Um, this article is about a guy who broke into state systems and stole police and citizen data. Or at least they allege he did, and as he indicates that he knows who actually did it but refuses to name them, and it was done on his hardware, that makes him pretty much indictable of contempt of court at a minimum.
As for your last remark, there are thousands of people around the world who have come and taken my work product for free (as the license on my work allows), and I also donate to the local food bank, and feed multiple people directly off my table.
So yeah, I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, other than to state that you don't like this guy's lifestyle, and think they got him Al Capone style (which they didn't).
Which means that people who plan ahead and alot time to prepare food in the evening/morning for the day will have much healthier diets than those who pick up something from the corner convenience store/fast food store between shifts.
This is what all the studies and numbers already indicate. They also indicate that people would rather someone else do that work for them and pay the extra money/pay the price in health.
Actually, car companies will probably add these to their test beds; safety ratings aren't based off of manufacturer's internal testing results, they're based off of the national testing facility results.
Which means the only time the 5-star rating is going to go to a 3-star rating is if the national testing facilities start using these dummies. And if they do that... the auto manufacturers had better start using them too, or they're going to lose a LOT of money as their cars' ratings go down the drain compared to those who DO test with them.
While true, most truly obese people aren't going to be visible on Street View, as they never walk anywhere. So it's not going to be an accurate measurement for shut-ins and 'drive to work/store' obese persons, which are the majority in the US.
I can't think of a better way of measuring it off the top of my head though.
As a number of people have responded to you, the issue, while simple, is not what you're stating. That's something that can be adjusted for and overcome pretty easily.
The real issue is that more developed nations have found methods of mass-producing cheap consumables -- cheap to produce, cheap to buy, lacking in nutrients, rich in other stuff that causes obesity (or sometimes just the wrong balance for your body to process as "working" food). These consumables have replaced grown vegetables in the diet of people with less income, because they're more easily affordable at the time they're needed.
Ron Finley spells it out pretty clearly. When his poorer neighbourhood converted abandoned lots and street easements into places to plant edible food, obesity levels dropped, vandalism dropped, and most importantly, diabetes levels dropped.
It's correlation and not causation, but this is a pretty damning result suggesting that convenience "foods" are a major contributor to the obesity issue (likely because of what they use as fillers, preservatives and growth hormones).
You should push ahead, even if everyone else is trying to stop you.
I was with you up to this bit.
If everyone's trying to stop you, you should take a long moment to figure out what their motives are. Once you've done that, armed with that information, you should take the time to decide if you've been an idiot, or whether everyone else is attempting to cover something up.
Stubbornly sticking to your guns is no better than going with the latest craze -- it's much better to make the effort to make informed decisions, especially when those around you are providing what may be useful feedback. Humans are social creatures after all.
AT & T have no business locking anything I purchase. I buy a car, it's not locked by the dealership, I buy a Skil-saw and I don't have to call to change blades. No , it's not a good business practice, it's not nice and it is intrusive, invasive and rude. It would be no different than getting married to a hottie, then finding her breeding rights belong to another guy and you can't even touch her cunt unless she gets a new one. No, just piss on AT&T and their ilk.
If you buy a car these days, the computer is indeed locked by the dealership, although the manufacturer has the keys. Independent mechanics have been up in arms over this for years -- they have to purchase the keys needed to tune the vehicles, even though they're running on a somewhat open system.
That doesn't make either a reasonable course of action though, even with the security arguments.
I think you'd do better to say that Canadian cities have very few guns, as you're allowed to carry all over the place in the country, which is a significant portion of Canada. Even as far as the city goes, people carry guns all over the place. You can even get a concealed carry permit, and some do.
The difference between the US and Canada is that a) fully automatic weapons and other weapons that serve no useful purpose are banned for common carry (but can still be carried with a special permit) and b) you need to be able to show a level of competency, a level of responsibility, or a reasonable cause to carry any specific firearm. That, and there's no "right" to bear arms. You have the same issue with carrying around pretty much any weapon, be it a sword, a compound hunting bow, or a blow gun. In general, people don't have a problem with that.
Also, remember that the only real differences between a gang and a political party are that gangs don't have the backing of the government and their members are "elected" by different groups.
You know what gang members spend over 30% of their time doing? Sleeping. Another large chunk of their day is taken up with eating.
If you label all government organizations as gangs, just for a thought experiment, how does that affect the statistics on gang-related violence and crimes?
Indeed... it would make much more sense to make changes in your routine in anticipation of getting cancer, being hit by a car, or slipping in your bathtub. These are all serious issues that COULD have their risks significantly curtailed through known behavioural, technical and environmental methods, but for the most part aren't. Terrorists, on the other hand, by definition are in it to spread mass-FUD. If you don't fear them, then they have pretty much no means of accomplishing their goal, even if they kill a few thousand people. The only real way to defeat terrorism is to make sure terror doesn't gain a foothold.
Now it may be that some "terrorists" actually have other goals, such as invading and conquering a country.
Good luck with that in Canada, unless you've got a really really big army. It's like Hitler invading Russia: not going to end well for the invaders. Population density's just not high enough in Canada to depend on the herd mentality to do your dirty work.
I think one of the differences is that Canadians don't get so panicked if someone threatens to attack their politicians -- and Canadian politicians have a reputation for being able to defend themselves.
The lock down may or may not have been useful, depending on why it was called.
I think you've cited all that needs to be cited. "Doesn't have a lot of leeway" isn't the same as "has no leeway".
The GG and Queen are the country's safety valve. If we elect idiots who are so incompetent as to cause a danger to the world at large, they can shut things down.
Think of the Queen as being Canada's equivalent to the safety valve on a hot water heater. Unlikely you'll ever need either, but you can't miss seeing them, and you're always glad they're around when the pressure rises.
Canada has a Governor General, the provinces have Lieutenant Governors.
And besides being a sanity check on the elected officials (they're the emergency breaks), they are also quite heavily involved in public relations, as the Queen herself is. Annoyingly, there is always a need for grease in the political engine, and I'd prefer it be done by a designated position than by elected officials who then get "contributions" which are no more than bribes.
When the only real power is the ability to press the big red button, bribes/kickbacks/etc. don't tend to work very well, so this is an excellent separation of gladhanding and politics. Personally, I wish Canadian politicians would leave more of the PR work to the GG and LGs. It's what they're paid to do, and it's pretty much a full-time job.
So, fuck the queen of England... she's not the queen of Canada.
Hmm... so badly uninformed.
Regina, Queen Elizabeth II of Canada is, and has never been, the Queen of England. I believe the last queen to hold that title was Queen Anne.
Instead, Queen Elizabeth II is (separately) the Queen of the United Kingdom, Australia, Jamaica and Canada. Possibly a few others as well. She's also head of state but not queen in a few jurisdictions.
And the Canadian constitution is hung off of one head of state: the Monarch of Canada, who just now happens to be a queen living in the UK. Her representative the Governor General has the ability to close up parliament if they start getting out of hand, and force a re-election. This privilege has only been used once, and it requires the Queen's approval.
Slashdot Mirror
"contempt of court" isn't proof of guilt. However, what I meant was that they had proven "beyond reasonable doubt" that he was guilty or at least responsible. If you give your computer to a person and watch them commit a crime with you approval you are at least an accomplice.
Exactly :) Contempt of Court isn't going to net 6 years; I was just setting the bar lower.
and not a net neutrality issue thankfully.
Settlement free peering between tier 1 carriers only happens when the flow of traffic is roughly balanced between the contracting peers.
When one peer is pushing a lot more traffic onto the other network, then that usually goes out the window and the pusher is required to pay the receiving network. Otherwise, networks would be monetarily incentivized to unload traffic they should carry on their own networks onto their peers' instead.
What you're stating is the situation for transit peering. This issue has nothing to do with transit peering, as the packets all terminate inside the receiving network.
See, this is why it's a problem that we've got the same people providing Tier 1 trunk lines that are providing endpoint connects. It creates another class of peer where they're being paid by end users for transit to the interconnect, and then they turn around and want to charge peers for transit to the end users. That's called double dipping, and that's why there's an issue here. The entire point of peering with these Tier 1-to-endpoint providers is to unload traffic; there's no other way to actually route traffic to the destination!
FTFY
There's also the pesky "contempt of court" that many countries have. I'd say he more than stepped over that line.
Um, this article is about a guy who broke into state systems and stole police and citizen data. Or at least they allege he did, and as he indicates that he knows who actually did it but refuses to name them, and it was done on his hardware, that makes him pretty much indictable of contempt of court at a minimum.
As for your last remark, there are thousands of people around the world who have come and taken my work product for free (as the license on my work allows), and I also donate to the local food bank, and feed multiple people directly off my table.
So yeah, I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, other than to state that you don't like this guy's lifestyle, and think they got him Al Capone style (which they didn't).
Which means that people who plan ahead and alot time to prepare food in the evening/morning for the day will have much healthier diets than those who pick up something from the corner convenience store/fast food store between shifts.
This is what all the studies and numbers already indicate. They also indicate that people would rather someone else do that work for them and pay the extra money/pay the price in health.
Actually, car companies will probably add these to their test beds; safety ratings aren't based off of manufacturer's internal testing results, they're based off of the national testing facility results.
Which means the only time the 5-star rating is going to go to a 3-star rating is if the national testing facilities start using these dummies. And if they do that... the auto manufacturers had better start using them too, or they're going to lose a LOT of money as their cars' ratings go down the drain compared to those who DO test with them.
While true, most truly obese people aren't going to be visible on Street View, as they never walk anywhere. So it's not going to be an accurate measurement for shut-ins and 'drive to work/store' obese persons, which are the majority in the US.
I can't think of a better way of measuring it off the top of my head though.
As a number of people have responded to you, the issue, while simple, is not what you're stating. That's something that can be adjusted for and overcome pretty easily.
The real issue is that more developed nations have found methods of mass-producing cheap consumables -- cheap to produce, cheap to buy, lacking in nutrients, rich in other stuff that causes obesity (or sometimes just the wrong balance for your body to process as "working" food). These consumables have replaced grown vegetables in the diet of people with less income, because they're more easily affordable at the time they're needed.
Ron Finley spells it out pretty clearly. When his poorer neighbourhood converted abandoned lots and street easements into places to plant edible food, obesity levels dropped, vandalism dropped, and most importantly, diabetes levels dropped.
It's correlation and not causation, but this is a pretty damning result suggesting that convenience "foods" are a major contributor to the obesity issue (likely because of what they use as fillers, preservatives and growth hormones).
But shouldn't AT&T also have to reimburse the customers for the value of the contract portion they did not deliver?
Since the contract states "unlimited", doesn't that mean that they failed to deliver on an infinite portion of the contract?
And you thought photocopying your butt was fun!
Good luck with that unspoken idea, unless you're a garden gnome.....
You should push ahead, even if everyone else is trying to stop you.
I was with you up to this bit.
If everyone's trying to stop you, you should take a long moment to figure out what their motives are. Once you've done that, armed with that information, you should take the time to decide if you've been an idiot, or whether everyone else is attempting to cover something up.
Stubbornly sticking to your guns is no better than going with the latest craze -- it's much better to make the effort to make informed decisions, especially when those around you are providing what may be useful feedback. Humans are social creatures after all.
AT & T have no business locking anything I purchase. I buy a car, it's not locked by the dealership, I buy a Skil-saw and I don't have to call to change blades.
No , it's not a good business practice, it's not nice and it is intrusive, invasive and rude. It would be no different than getting married to a hottie, then finding her breeding rights belong to another guy and you can't even touch her cunt unless she gets a new one.
No, just piss on AT&T and their ilk.
If you buy a car these days, the computer is indeed locked by the dealership, although the manufacturer has the keys. Independent mechanics have been up in arms over this for years -- they have to purchase the keys needed to tune the vehicles, even though they're running on a somewhat open system.
That doesn't make either a reasonable course of action though, even with the security arguments.
Was the previous version called FACE?
What if I'm stuck in the dessert and I need ice.
I'm sure there'd be plenty of people happy to help you eat your way out... depending on the dessert of course. Maybe Bennett could help with THAT?
"We" saw what you did there.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of Bennett Haseltons feeding hot grits to Natalie Portman!
Are we done yet?
I'm more than happy to leave that job to security professionals. They tend to do a good job of it too.
What about to enable armed revolt against a runaway government? Isn't that why the US has the right to bear arms?
???
I think you'd do better to say that Canadian cities have very few guns, as you're allowed to carry all over the place in the country, which is a significant portion of Canada. Even as far as the city goes, people carry guns all over the place. You can even get a concealed carry permit, and some do.
The difference between the US and Canada is that a) fully automatic weapons and other weapons that serve no useful purpose are banned for common carry (but can still be carried with a special permit) and b) you need to be able to show a level of competency, a level of responsibility, or a reasonable cause to carry any specific firearm. That, and there's no "right" to bear arms. You have the same issue with carrying around pretty much any weapon, be it a sword, a compound hunting bow, or a blow gun. In general, people don't have a problem with that.
Also, remember that the only real differences between a gang and a political party are that gangs don't have the backing of the government and their members are "elected" by different groups.
You know what gang members spend over 30% of their time doing? Sleeping. Another large chunk of their day is taken up with eating.
If you label all government organizations as gangs, just for a thought experiment, how does that affect the statistics on gang-related violence and crimes?
Indeed... it would make much more sense to make changes in your routine in anticipation of getting cancer, being hit by a car, or slipping in your bathtub. These are all serious issues that COULD have their risks significantly curtailed through known behavioural, technical and environmental methods, but for the most part aren't. Terrorists, on the other hand, by definition are in it to spread mass-FUD. If you don't fear them, then they have pretty much no means of accomplishing their goal, even if they kill a few thousand people. The only real way to defeat terrorism is to make sure terror doesn't gain a foothold.
Now it may be that some "terrorists" actually have other goals, such as invading and conquering a country.
Good luck with that in Canada, unless you've got a really really big army. It's like Hitler invading Russia: not going to end well for the invaders. Population density's just not high enough in Canada to depend on the herd mentality to do your dirty work.
I think one of the differences is that Canadians don't get so panicked if someone threatens to attack their politicians -- and Canadian politicians have a reputation for being able to defend themselves.
The lock down may or may not have been useful, depending on why it was called.
I think you've cited all that needs to be cited. "Doesn't have a lot of leeway" isn't the same as "has no leeway".
The GG and Queen are the country's safety valve. If we elect idiots who are so incompetent as to cause a danger to the world at large, they can shut things down.
Think of the Queen as being Canada's equivalent to the safety valve on a hot water heater. Unlikely you'll ever need either, but you can't miss seeing them, and you're always glad they're around when the pressure rises.
Canada has a Governor General, the provinces have Lieutenant Governors.
And besides being a sanity check on the elected officials (they're the emergency breaks), they are also quite heavily involved in public relations, as the Queen herself is. Annoyingly, there is always a need for grease in the political engine, and I'd prefer it be done by a designated position than by elected officials who then get "contributions" which are no more than bribes.
When the only real power is the ability to press the big red button, bribes/kickbacks/etc. don't tend to work very well, so this is an excellent separation of gladhanding and politics. Personally, I wish Canadian politicians would leave more of the PR work to the GG and LGs. It's what they're paid to do, and it's pretty much a full-time job.
So, fuck the queen of England ... she's not the queen of Canada.
Hmm... so badly uninformed.
Regina, Queen Elizabeth II of Canada is, and has never been, the Queen of England. I believe the last queen to hold that title was Queen Anne.
Instead, Queen Elizabeth II is (separately) the Queen of the United Kingdom, Australia, Jamaica and Canada. Possibly a few others as well. She's also head of state but not queen in a few jurisdictions.
And the Canadian constitution is hung off of one head of state: the Monarch of Canada, who just now happens to be a queen living in the UK. Her representative the Governor General has the ability to close up parliament if they start getting out of hand, and force a re-election. This privilege has only been used once, and it requires the Queen's approval.