Maybe that's true in SoCal, but in San Jose I would say it's anything but an economic hellhole. I just moved here a few months ago, there's job growth and improvement all over.
The only difference is that classification of documents by the federal government is backed by federal criminal law.
By stealing this information the two individuals did in fact give access to other people: those at their new company. They did transfer the information from protected computers to unprotected computers. Under criminal law this is not considered equivalent to what Manning did, but effectively only because the latter was done against the government rather than a business.
Bench warrant generally means you have to be taken before a judge. That takes time, in the meantime to make sure you don't run off again they're going to hold you.
I recognize in this case the issue had already been dealt with, the warrant should have been rescinded. However, the cops were well within their powers to jail the guy.
The decision of the court is correct, there are enough problems in prisons today that anyone entering general pop. should be searched. Otherwise people would do just enough to get arrested and held (but ultimately have the charges dropped) in order to pass in items like weapons, drugs, phones, etc. to their friends.
Maybe we should take those strip search scanners out of airports and use them in jails instead...
The Supreme Court can't rule on a question that isn't brought before it. If the question brought before it is "can a person being placed in jail/prison be strip searched?" then that's all they can answer. If the defense had brought the question of "can someone charged with XYZ be thrown in jail?" then SCOTUS may have answered differently. You don't really appeal a case to the court, you appeal a particular decision by a lower court.
I'm 23, I work for a Well Known Bay Area E-Commerce Company, I'm a software engineer (I've been working as one since I was 18). I was in college for a year and a half, and I joined facebook when they only allowed college students. I used to use it every day, now I barely log in to facebook once a week. Whenever I see a commenting system or site that wants access to my facebook profile, I refuse. I stopped liking facebook when they set it up so I 'liked' the page for every TV show I listed in my interests, allowing them to infect my news feed with corporate crap. For the same reason, I don't allow any apps access to my profile.
Besides that, people under 30 aren't the only ones who should have input into this. An e-mail address is sufficient for commenting on most news sites, and it should be sufficient for this. Facebook as an option is fine, but that should be a lower priority than providing access to everyone. Government is supposed to be about everyone having a voice.
I wonder how many people will end up as indentured servants unable to purchase transport back to earth, working in dangerous working conditions on a world run by corporations. They'll be lured by false promises, or maybe even sent by countries with overpopulated prisons.
Just wait for the U.S. to invoke the Roosevelt Corollary and claim that the internet activities of the whole of the western hemisphere are their jurisdiction.
There's a difference between urban smog control and environmental protection. Urban smog control is baout keeping the air breathable in the immediate area, particularly for those with asthma and other conditions. In cases like the one you mention, urban smog control even goes *against* environmental protection.
Then again, I live in a big city, and I'm happy they take measures against smog.
Desertification doesn't happen overnight, it would have been a slow change over a few centuries. So, areas would have experienced a slow decline in available food. If (and this is the biggest assumption) a few humans figured out the link between seeds and plants, they might have tried to plant more to replace plants that were dying. That could have slowly evolved into agriculture.
The point is, for a sedentary culture that relies on natural growth but is facing slow desertification, agriculture does make sense in the short term. This explanation may not apply to the Americas, as agriculture predated sedentary culture by millenia here.
Note: I'm an engineer, not a paleontologist. In the end, it's all just curiosity to me, it just seemed like the argument that there was no reason to move to agriculture assumed that nothing changed that might have forced the development of agriculture.
Why the heck would the agricultural revolution be a mystery? The Levant had the first known sedentary culture (born of a land of "milk and honey" - seriously, there was so much food available in the immediate area that they didn't need to migrate constantly). Then, the climate changed, and the Levant starting moving towards the much more desert-like area it is today. Naturally, people who had been living a sedentary lifestyle for generations would try to preserve that and so it seems inevitable that at least a few of them would come up with a solution.
If you think I'm making this up (or pulling it from the bible) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture .
Actually, I personally believe that some form of this eventually became the "Garden of Eden" story.
Not that I'm particularly eager to put our elections in the hands of the post office, but before we consider an internet voting system, we need a postal voting system. Many states (including New York) do not allow postal voting unless you can prove you can get to your polling place (if you're out of the state/country). There's a good reason for this, and it's been brought up before: it's not a secret ballot. In theory, your employer can force you to fill out your ballot in front of them.
On the other hand, California allows postal voting. If it works in California, it should work in NY and across the country. Postal voting would make voting about as inconvenient as Netflix.
Online voting has a lot more problems. I can see some pretty insidious botnets getting into the business of faking votes, possibly by just masking the input and display to the voting site. Electoral fraud could become a huge business for individuals, corporations and foreign governments.
Intercepting mailed ballots at least should require a lot more resources, and be much easier to detect.
As someone else has said, you need to explain how the "review" didn't catch an obvious error, and you need to fix your process.
Making automatic claims of ownership (a.k.a robosigning) recently resulted in a lawsuit in all 50 states against the biggest banks in the nation, and New York virtually has a tradition now of having AGs that sue big companies to get their names in the paper (their last two elected governors were both former AGs).
Want to have an automatic system flag potential copyright violations? Fine, but you need a real human reviewing it, and if they screw up, your company should be fined for making false claims. That's the only way to keep companies accountable for their actions. Otherwise, you have incentive to claim you own everything.
The difference is that there's a reason to shout fire if there's an actual fire. People are in danger. From an empirical standpoint, everyone in the theater might die if they don't evacuate.
Shouting fire when there is none definitely puts people in danger. If there is a fire, you might be getting them out of danger.
I recently moved to the Bay Area, and when I arrived I didn't have a car for about two weeks. With my android tablet I've been able to navigate all around San Jose and San Francisco (and in-between) easily. Rather than needing to plan my trip ahead of time I would just look up places and then navigate to them. It worked out great. Of course, it helps to have a useful public transit system.
There's another reason the bus lanes are useful: pedestrians.
I live in downtown San Jose, near the corner of Santa Clara and 2nd. Most of the north/south streets here are one-way, with one bus lane and one car lane. As a result, even during rush hour there are very few cars, and so most of the time the road is clear. This makes it very convenient to simply walk across the road (nowhere near a corsswalk). I do it every day to get back and forth from the tram (light rail) stop.
It's not dangerous, as I said most of the time the road is clear for the entire block, the traffic lights make sure of that.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Simple Solution:
Treat the taking of the loan as a taxable event. After all, by using the stocks as collateral you're effectively transferring ownership to the bank, in exchange for money no less.
In fact, according to FINRA, this is sometimes a taxable event (http://www.finra.org/investors/protectyourself/investoralerts/tradingsecurities/p123719) so just tighten up the existing rule and make sure all such loans are taxable.
Probably because IT thinks everything is a "crapplett". Cygwin? crapplett. Chrome? crapplett. Dia? crapplett. If it's open source, it must be insecure, nevermind that our backend is WebLogic running on Red Hat.
Once someone who's trying to do actual work gets their manager involved, then IT shoots back with "well, we have to certify that it's secure and that will take X months". Management gets sick of IT constantly getting in the way and tells them to bugger off.
IT thinks they can come up with a whitelist of applications and a whitelist of web sites that people need to do their jobs (doubly funny as IT has no idea what those people do). The same logic would have us still using horse driven plows, or would have them using green screen terminals.
Impeachment requires a criminal offense. The constitution does not grant congress a general power to remove the president by a supermajority vote. If the claim is that classifying ACTA as an executive agreement is a criminal act, you'd first have to prove that it isn't an executive agreement. That would require a court ruling, not just a supermajority of congress.
Of course, I suppose they could try something like what happened with Andrew Johnson, but given the public's opinion of congress right now that would almost certainly backfire.
I very rarely go to a store unless I plan to buy something there. I don't come in to a store to look at something and buy it online. I do almost all of my shopping online, I look at reviews, specs, etc. and decide what to buy. Sometimes (if a local store has it in stock at a reasonable price) I buy it in a store. Most of the time I order it. If Target starts stocking 'exclusive' products, well, I'll never see them. There are a few things I know Target stocks, and I buy that there. Aside from that, they have no information about what's in stock at a local store, so I can't buy anything there (I don't go searching from store to store to find something, if I can't see that it's in stock nearby, I buy it online).
If Target wants more business they need to focus on three things: 1) Provide information on local prices and inventory. 2) Sell items that people are more likely to want *today*. 3) Don't waste shelf space on something that's much cheaper online unless the consumer won't be willing to wait a day or two for it.
Let's say we take all taxes paid by California residents (natural and legal persons) to the Federal government, and instead shift it to the state government. Now, let's take away all federal spending in the state of California, both intergovernmental revenue and federal employees: the state comes out ahead, effectively Californians pay a chunk of their tax dollars to the federal government, which then funnels it to states that don't tax their citizens enough to pay for government services.
The state government doesn't pay taxes to the feds, but the resdent of CA do.
No amount of desperation present in this country justifies cutting off 911 service for hundreds of people, as has happened before in copper theft cases. Sure, go after the dealers, also go after their buyers (make sure they start enforcing traceability) AND go after the thieves.
Actually, this new cable seems like a great idea, I suppose the company probably charges a high premium over the cost of the underlying metal, though.
Slashdot Mirror
If they pirate, they'll certainly download VLC. VLC can play the DVD, with or without the Windows codec.
I get none of those, what do you call that?
Maybe that's true in SoCal, but in San Jose I would say it's anything but an economic hellhole. I just moved here a few months ago, there's job growth and improvement all over.
The only difference is that classification of documents by the federal government is backed by federal criminal law.
By stealing this information the two individuals did in fact give access to other people: those at their new company. They did transfer the information from protected computers to unprotected computers. Under criminal law this is not considered equivalent to what Manning did, but effectively only because the latter was done against the government rather than a business.
Bench warrant generally means you have to be taken before a judge. That takes time, in the meantime to make sure you don't run off again they're going to hold you.
I recognize in this case the issue had already been dealt with, the warrant should have been rescinded. However, the cops were well within their powers to jail the guy.
The decision of the court is correct, there are enough problems in prisons today that anyone entering general pop. should be searched. Otherwise people would do just enough to get arrested and held (but ultimately have the charges dropped) in order to pass in items like weapons, drugs, phones, etc. to their friends.
Maybe we should take those strip search scanners out of airports and use them in jails instead...
He was jailed because there was a warrant for his arrest.
The Supreme Court can't rule on a question that isn't brought before it. If the question brought before it is "can a person being placed in jail/prison be strip searched?" then that's all they can answer. If the defense had brought the question of "can someone charged with XYZ be thrown in jail?" then SCOTUS may have answered differently. You don't really appeal a case to the court, you appeal a particular decision by a lower court.
I'm 23, I work for a Well Known Bay Area E-Commerce Company, I'm a software engineer (I've been working as one since I was 18). I was in college for a year and a half, and I joined facebook when they only allowed college students. I used to use it every day, now I barely log in to facebook once a week. Whenever I see a commenting system or site that wants access to my facebook profile, I refuse. I stopped liking facebook when they set it up so I 'liked' the page for every TV show I listed in my interests, allowing them to infect my news feed with corporate crap. For the same reason, I don't allow any apps access to my profile.
Besides that, people under 30 aren't the only ones who should have input into this. An e-mail address is sufficient for commenting on most news sites, and it should be sufficient for this. Facebook as an option is fine, but that should be a lower priority than providing access to everyone. Government is supposed to be about everyone having a voice.
Sonic.net is awesome, get fusion if you can. I just wonder what everyone who doesn't live in the bay area will do...
I wonder how many people will end up as indentured servants unable to purchase transport back to earth, working in dangerous working conditions on a world run by corporations. They'll be lured by false promises, or maybe even sent by countries with overpopulated prisons.
Just wait for the U.S. to invoke the Roosevelt Corollary and claim that the internet activities of the whole of the western hemisphere are their jurisdiction.
There's a difference between urban smog control and environmental protection. Urban smog control is baout keeping the air breathable in the immediate area, particularly for those with asthma and other conditions. In cases like the one you mention, urban smog control even goes *against* environmental protection.
Then again, I live in a big city, and I'm happy they take measures against smog.
Desertification doesn't happen overnight, it would have been a slow change over a few centuries. So, areas would have experienced a slow decline in available food. If (and this is the biggest assumption) a few humans figured out the link between seeds and plants, they might have tried to plant more to replace plants that were dying. That could have slowly evolved into agriculture.
The point is, for a sedentary culture that relies on natural growth but is facing slow desertification, agriculture does make sense in the short term. This explanation may not apply to the Americas, as agriculture predated sedentary culture by millenia here.
Note: I'm an engineer, not a paleontologist. In the end, it's all just curiosity to me, it just seemed like the argument that there was no reason to move to agriculture assumed that nothing changed that might have forced the development of agriculture.
Why the heck would the agricultural revolution be a mystery? The Levant had the first known sedentary culture (born of a land of "milk and honey" - seriously, there was so much food available in the immediate area that they didn't need to migrate constantly). Then, the climate changed, and the Levant starting moving towards the much more desert-like area it is today. Naturally, people who had been living a sedentary lifestyle for generations would try to preserve that and so it seems inevitable that at least a few of them would come up with a solution.
If you think I'm making this up (or pulling it from the bible) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture .
Actually, I personally believe that some form of this eventually became the "Garden of Eden" story.
Not that I'm particularly eager to put our elections in the hands of the post office, but before we consider an internet voting system, we need a postal voting system. Many states (including New York) do not allow postal voting unless you can prove you can get to your polling place (if you're out of the state/country). There's a good reason for this, and it's been brought up before: it's not a secret ballot. In theory, your employer can force you to fill out your ballot in front of them.
On the other hand, California allows postal voting. If it works in California, it should work in NY and across the country. Postal voting would make voting about as inconvenient as Netflix.
Online voting has a lot more problems. I can see some pretty insidious botnets getting into the business of faking votes, possibly by just masking the input and display to the voting site. Electoral fraud could become a huge business for individuals, corporations and foreign governments.
Intercepting mailed ballots at least should require a lot more resources, and be much easier to detect.
As someone else has said, you need to explain how the "review" didn't catch an obvious error, and you need to fix your process.
Making automatic claims of ownership (a.k.a robosigning) recently resulted in a lawsuit in all 50 states against the biggest banks in the nation, and New York virtually has a tradition now of having AGs that sue big companies to get their names in the paper (their last two elected governors were both former AGs).
Want to have an automatic system flag potential copyright violations? Fine, but you need a real human reviewing it, and if they screw up, your company should be fined for making false claims. That's the only way to keep companies accountable for their actions. Otherwise, you have incentive to claim you own everything.
The difference is that there's a reason to shout fire if there's an actual fire. People are in danger. From an empirical standpoint, everyone in the theater might die if they don't evacuate.
Shouting fire when there is none definitely puts people in danger. If there is a fire, you might be getting them out of danger.
I recently moved to the Bay Area, and when I arrived I didn't have a car for about two weeks. With my android tablet I've been able to navigate all around San Jose and San Francisco (and in-between) easily. Rather than needing to plan my trip ahead of time I would just look up places and then navigate to them. It worked out great. Of course, it helps to have a useful public transit system.
There's another reason the bus lanes are useful: pedestrians.
I live in downtown San Jose, near the corner of Santa Clara and 2nd. Most of the north/south streets here are one-way, with one bus lane and one car lane. As a result, even during rush hour there are very few cars, and so most of the time the road is clear. This makes it very convenient to simply walk across the road (nowhere near a corsswalk). I do it every day to get back and forth from the tram (light rail) stop.
It's not dangerous, as I said most of the time the road is clear for the entire block, the traffic lights make sure of that.
Simple Solution:
Treat the taking of the loan as a taxable event. After all, by using the stocks as collateral you're effectively transferring ownership to the bank, in exchange for money no less.
In fact, according to FINRA, this is sometimes a taxable event (http://www.finra.org/investors/protectyourself/investoralerts/tradingsecurities/p123719) so just tighten up the existing rule and make sure all such loans are taxable.
Probably because IT thinks everything is a "crapplett". Cygwin? crapplett. Chrome? crapplett. Dia? crapplett. If it's open source, it must be insecure, nevermind that our backend is WebLogic running on Red Hat.
Once someone who's trying to do actual work gets their manager involved, then IT shoots back with "well, we have to certify that it's secure and that will take X months". Management gets sick of IT constantly getting in the way and tells them to bugger off.
IT thinks they can come up with a whitelist of applications and a whitelist of web sites that people need to do their jobs (doubly funny as IT has no idea what those people do). The same logic would have us still using horse driven plows, or would have them using green screen terminals.
Impeachment requires a criminal offense. The constitution does not grant congress a general power to remove the president by a supermajority vote. If the claim is that classifying ACTA as an executive agreement is a criminal act, you'd first have to prove that it isn't an executive agreement. That would require a court ruling, not just a supermajority of congress.
Of course, I suppose they could try something like what happened with Andrew Johnson, but given the public's opinion of congress right now that would almost certainly backfire.
I very rarely go to a store unless I plan to buy something there. I don't come in to a store to look at something and buy it online. I do almost all of my shopping online, I look at reviews, specs, etc. and decide what to buy. Sometimes (if a local store has it in stock at a reasonable price) I buy it in a store. Most of the time I order it. If Target starts stocking 'exclusive' products, well, I'll never see them. There are a few things I know Target stocks, and I buy that there. Aside from that, they have no information about what's in stock at a local store, so I can't buy anything there (I don't go searching from store to store to find something, if I can't see that it's in stock nearby, I buy it online).
If Target wants more business they need to focus on three things:
1) Provide information on local prices and inventory.
2) Sell items that people are more likely to want *today*.
3) Don't waste shelf space on something that's much cheaper online unless the consumer won't be willing to wait a day or two for it.
Let's say we take all taxes paid by California residents (natural and legal persons) to the Federal government, and instead shift it to the state government. Now, let's take away all federal spending in the state of California, both intergovernmental revenue and federal employees: the state comes out ahead, effectively Californians pay a chunk of their tax dollars to the federal government, which then funnels it to states that don't tax their citizens enough to pay for government services.
The state government doesn't pay taxes to the feds, but the resdent of CA do.
No amount of desperation present in this country justifies cutting off 911 service for hundreds of people, as has happened before in copper theft cases. Sure, go after the dealers, also go after their buyers (make sure they start enforcing traceability) AND go after the thieves.
Actually, this new cable seems like a great idea, I suppose the company probably charges a high premium over the cost of the underlying metal, though.