There is no chance of it being IDE. He'll be lucky if it is a plain old MFM controller in an ISA slot - at least then he can probably move the controller to an older linux machine which might have a driver for that controller. He'll be unlucky if the controller is on the original motherboard instead.
That makes it sound like it's by design. Certainly it's useful for the purpose of changing the system, but it doesn't seem to have been intentionally included.
That is your own bias talking. What, precisely, does it take to be "intentionally include?" Historical usage in the English common-law system? A ruling by the SCOTUS that it is a right of the jury?
There is a pretty good chance that kermit is available for that system. I would go with kermit file transfers over uucp any day it being easier to set up, has decent error detection and better feedback for the average user.
The first time I get payment from a client I always wait to see if it clears before moving forward on a project.
You should know then that checks never clear. They just fail to bounce. That may not seem like much of a distinction but it is precisely the reason many of these frauds work. In the US the law specifies a maximum hold time on deposits before the bank must make funds available to you. So, as long as the check fails to bounce during that period of time the fraudster usually gets away with their scam. But eventually it does bounce, and that's when the bank comes back to the person who made the deposit and they take their money back - if there isn't enough cash in his account, they sue him for the difference.
I know a guy who was scammed out of an exotic car - the 'buyer' gave him a bogus cashiers check. His bank took nearly three weeks before notifying him that they were "having difficulties" processing the check. By then, the car was half way across the country and had already been resold to a used-car dealer. FWIW, his car insurance eventually paid out because the car was essentially stolen, albeit through fraud rather than the more common ways.
If there isn't a way to respond directly to the faults of process or the faults of the laws themselves, the system is screwed, change it.
Jury nullification is part of the system for precisely that reason. No codified system of any reasonable complexity, never mind one approaching the size of the US legal system can be perfect or even close to perfect. Nullification is one of the means by which the system corrects itself.
You know there was practically no chance of jury nullification, if for no other reason than the effort the courts go to make sure that the people actually sitting on the jury are unaware of the concept.
Why is the Linux migration project in Munich so prominent, as mentioned in TFS?
Because the guy who wrote it is German and lives in Munich.
There's nothing stopping you from writing up a submission about Banco do Brasil yourself. You seem to have access to a source with a whole bunch of good information, I'm sure a success story like the one you described would get coverage on slashdot too if someone made the effort to submit it.
So total requests went down and the number of denials went up.
Not necessarily. The number of "cited exemptions" is not the number of denials, it is closer to the number of reasons for denial. Like a lawyer, these agencies will frequently cite more than one reason to avoid release. It may even be that given Obama's directive to be more open to FOIA requests that the agencies are just covering their asses and citing a lot more exemptions when they do deny a request. For example, if the average number of exemptions went from 1 to 2 per denial, that would mean an actual decrease of about one third in actual denials since 2008.
And then you get studies of the usefulness of psychotropic drugs and wonder whose black hole they pulled that out of...
Indeed. Normally I would never cite an article in a McNews magazine like Time or Newsweek, but I found this explanation of the state of antidepressant drug efficacy to be one of the best I've run across so far - hundreds of billions of dollars all depending on some really, really bad math. Its like the collateralized debt securities of the drug & psychiatric industries:
That's right, when you have nothing persuasive to say, insult the other person. Great.
You are the one who tried to pull the wholly unpersuasive, self-aggrandizing "I'm an intelligence expert." You insulted me first with that bullshit.
Two examples are better than the one you offered. I win.
Lol. Palestine US invasion of Iraq Iraq-Iran War Kashmir Both Chechen Wars Korean War
I wasn't kidding about there being thousands of conflicts - the vast majority - where the lines are not so clear cut as you claimed. Your juvenile dismissal, as if such conflicts don't exist is beyond naive, its either willful or definitive proof of incompetence. But, incompetent or not, an "intelligence analyst" with such a simplistic black & white view of international relations is unequivocally a liability.
And while I let it pass the first time, your WWI reference is a whole lotta superficiality too. Hell, even WWII isn't so simple - while the end result of the nazis being enabled in their ethnic cleansing campaign isn't defensible, the stresses the country was put under by the rest of Europe made war of some sort inevitable. If not nazis, then it would have been some other group, probably one that was more sympathetic and less bellicose - but the fundamental motivation for war would have been the same since it originated as much inside Germany as it did outside.
The real question is, why is there *one* password for all the cars? Shouldn't it be one password for each employee who has access to log into the "car disabling" server which then sends the lockdown signal using a trusted certificate?
They shouldn't have to change the passwords at all, just delete the employee's user account.
No. That's not the real question. It's a stupid ass question because it was answered in article. Each employee does have an account. His account was even disabled. He used another employee's account.
Man, you got a +5 for "I didn't read the article" - I can understand no one bothering to mod you down, but +5 stupid? Come on...
This will put a hick up in collection company's practices since they do it all the time.
I think that impersonation as a means to collect a debt was made illegal over a decade ago, check the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act for the details.
Not always, but usually, the good guys vs. the bad guys delineation is pretty clear to most sane/rational people of Earth.
Holy shit, are you naive. Just about every conflict going on in the world right now has no such clear delineation and frequently the 'winners' are the badder guys because they were just that much more vicious than the losers - until they get around to writing their own history books. The situation with the Tamil Tigers being one recent example.
The US DoD and CIA put aircraft up in orbit there, they get intelligence over weeks from these aircraft and finally after multi-step and multi-agency protocols they get the green light to drop a JDAM or fire a Hellfire at someone.
Yeah, and these protocols need to be subject to extreme scrutiny. Which is the point of the FOIA filing.
In any case, in the context of my original comment, this wouldn't apply to someone who merely downloaded what was purported to be a leaked classified document.
Precisely. It's so ironic that the guy criticizing unfounded legal advice for being modded +5 informative is himself modded +5 informative for unfounded legal advice.
What prevents Google from being hacked after pulling out of China? The internet is, you know, global and all... Why would Chinese hackers be limited to operating in China?
Nothing. But at least Google is no longer helping the people who are hurting them. Plus, if they do retaliate, none of Google's people are subject to arrest.
Also here in Norway they can do the same with the cell phone.
Are you saying that simply knowing your cell phone number and maybe your name is enough for a company to successfully bill someone for money in Norway?
If so, that's fucked. I'm unhappy that I need to give my billing address and real name to make a purchase for 'virtual products' like web subscriptions if I want to pay with a credit card because I can't control what the merchant will do with that information, but going to something as public as your phone number instead of the semi-secret CC# is even worse.
If you do not agree with security clearances you should not work for entities that require them.
Bingo! But what you fail to take into account is that the government CHANGED ITS MIND after DECADES of not requiring background checks. In fact, many of the scientists chose those jobs specifically because they did not want to suffer a background check. What's particularlly damning is that there has been no new threats to justify the change in security policy, if anything risk has been reduced over the years, not increased.
You are only partly right. All of those things are knowable and learnable within a reasonble length of time - the problem is getting the documentation to know them. Too much documentation is locked up as proprietary info, either behind a paywall or an NDA wall.
That makes more sense. But the rate thing is going to be hard to compete on - most people flag taxis down in the street, or get them out of a taxi queue at a place like the airport. Its much less common to be in a situation where you can shop rates.
At least 9 out of 10 taxi drivers in NYC do not know enough about the city's streets or the city's traffic patterns to know when it is appropriate to make a judgement call to deviate from the GPS-selected route.
That is one huge unsupported assertion. You can provide a link to something in london that anyone can google, but you can't provide any backing support for such a massively outlandish claim?
I dunno about all that, by trying to remove all slack in the system you end up sacrificing flexibility and turning the driver into a robot. Construction detours are hardly the only reason to take a different route -- it ultimately comes down a judgment call for things that can't be easily automated. Sure, reducing unnecessary slack to improve efficiency is a good thing, just don't go too far because without enough slack the system will just end up another kind of inefficient.
Plus, drivers who are robots are going to hate their jobs which can result in all kinds of unexpected side effects (increased accident rates, disgruntled drivers looking to exploit the system in other, possibly more costly or more dangerous ways, etc).
I'm a bit of a cynic, but it seems to me that Google wanted to leave China after they were hacked, and made an unreasonable (in context) offer to China in order to make the Chinese look like the "bad guys" and Google look like the "good guys."
Getting hacked by state-sponsored hackers seems like enough of a reason all on its own, no need to make up another one.
Seems more like an attempt to use the hacking as leverage to reduce censorship requirements as in "you hacked us, we're leaving unless you cut restrictions on our business."
Slashdot Mirror
There is no chance of it being IDE. He'll be lucky if it is a plain old MFM controller in an ISA slot - at least then he can probably move the controller to an older linux machine which might have a driver for that controller. He'll be unlucky if the controller is on the original motherboard instead.
That makes it sound like it's by design. Certainly it's useful for the purpose of changing the system, but it doesn't seem to have been intentionally included.
That is your own bias talking. What, precisely, does it take to be "intentionally include?" Historical usage in the English common-law system? A ruling by the SCOTUS that it is a right of the jury?
There is a pretty good chance that kermit is available for that system. I would go with kermit file transfers over uucp any day it being easier to set up, has decent error detection and better feedback for the average user.
The first time I get payment from a client I always wait to see if it clears before moving forward on a project.
You should know then that checks never clear. They just fail to bounce. That may not seem like much of a distinction but it is precisely the reason many of these frauds work. In the US the law specifies a maximum hold time on deposits before the bank must make funds available to you. So, as long as the check fails to bounce during that period of time the fraudster usually gets away with their scam. But eventually it does bounce, and that's when the bank comes back to the person who made the deposit and they take their money back - if there isn't enough cash in his account, they sue him for the difference.
I know a guy who was scammed out of an exotic car - the 'buyer' gave him a bogus cashiers check. His bank took nearly three weeks before notifying him that they were "having difficulties" processing the check. By then, the car was half way across the country and had already been resold to a used-car dealer. FWIW, his car insurance eventually paid out because the car was essentially stolen, albeit through fraud rather than the more common ways.
If there isn't a way to respond directly to the faults of process or the faults of the laws themselves, the system is screwed, change it.
Jury nullification is part of the system for precisely that reason. No codified system of any reasonable complexity, never mind one approaching the size of the US legal system can be perfect or even close to perfect. Nullification is one of the means by which the system corrects itself.
You know there was practically no chance of jury nullification, if for no other reason than the effort the courts go to make sure that the people actually sitting on the jury are unaware of the concept.
Why is the Linux migration project in Munich so prominent, as mentioned in TFS?
Because the guy who wrote it is German and lives in Munich.
There's nothing stopping you from writing up a submission about Banco do Brasil yourself. You seem to have access to a source with a whole bunch of good information, I'm sure a success story like the one you described would get coverage on slashdot too if someone made the effort to submit it.
So total requests went down and the number of denials went up.
Not necessarily. The number of "cited exemptions" is not the number of denials, it is closer to the number of reasons for denial. Like a lawyer, these agencies will frequently cite more than one reason to avoid release. It may even be that given Obama's directive to be more open to FOIA requests that the agencies are just covering their asses and citing a lot more exemptions when they do deny a request. For example, if the average number of exemptions went from 1 to 2 per denial, that would mean an actual decrease of about one third in actual denials since 2008.
I think my headline is a lot better.
And then you get studies of the usefulness of psychotropic drugs and wonder whose black hole they pulled that out of...
Indeed. Normally I would never cite an article in a McNews magazine like Time or Newsweek, but I found this explanation of the state of antidepressant drug efficacy to be one of the best I've run across so far - hundreds of billions of dollars all depending on some really, really bad math. Its like the collateralized debt securities of the drug & psychiatric industries:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/232781
That's right, when you have nothing persuasive to say, insult the other person. Great.
You are the one who tried to pull the wholly unpersuasive, self-aggrandizing "I'm an intelligence expert."
You insulted me first with that bullshit.
Two examples are better than the one you offered. I win.
Lol.
Palestine
US invasion of Iraq
Iraq-Iran War
Kashmir
Both Chechen Wars
Korean War
I wasn't kidding about there being thousands of conflicts - the vast majority - where the lines are not so clear cut as you claimed. Your juvenile dismissal, as if such conflicts don't exist is beyond naive, its either willful or definitive proof of incompetence. But, incompetent or not, an "intelligence analyst" with such a simplistic black & white view of international relations is unequivocally a liability.
And while I let it pass the first time, your WWI reference is a whole lotta superficiality too. Hell, even WWII isn't so simple - while the end result of the nazis being enabled in their ethnic cleansing campaign isn't defensible, the stresses the country was put under by the rest of Europe made war of some sort inevitable. If not nazis, then it would have been some other group, probably one that was more sympathetic and less bellicose - but the fundamental motivation for war would have been the same since it originated as much inside Germany as it did outside.
The real question is, why is there *one* password for all the cars? Shouldn't it be one password for each employee who has access to log into the "car disabling" server which then sends the lockdown signal using a trusted certificate?
They shouldn't have to change the passwords at all, just delete the employee's user account.
No. That's not the real question. It's a stupid ass question because it was answered in article.
Each employee does have an account. His account was even disabled. He used another employee's account.
Man, you got a +5 for "I didn't read the article" - I can understand no one bothering to mod you down, but +5 stupid? Come on...
Naive my ass. I'm a 17-year Intelligence Professional in the Middle East/North Africa region.
Even worse then, incompetent.
However, I can think of two pretty clear "bad guy" scenarios, and they both start with "World War".
Innumerate too. "Two" is nowhere near the thousands of conflicts in contradiction to your claim.
This will put a hick up in collection company's practices since they do it all the time.
I think that impersonation as a means to collect a debt was made illegal over a decade ago, check the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act for the details.
Not always, but usually, the good guys vs. the bad guys delineation is pretty clear to most sane/rational people of Earth.
Holy shit, are you naive.
Just about every conflict going on in the world right now has no such clear delineation and frequently the 'winners' are the badder guys because they were just that much more vicious than the losers - until they get around to writing their own history books. The situation with the Tamil Tigers being one recent example.
The US DoD and CIA put aircraft up in orbit there, they get intelligence over weeks from these aircraft and finally after multi-step and multi-agency protocols they get the green light to drop a JDAM or fire a Hellfire at someone.
Yeah, and these protocols need to be subject to extreme scrutiny.
Which is the point of the FOIA filing.
In any case, in the context of my original comment, this wouldn't apply to someone who merely downloaded what was purported to be a leaked classified document.
Precisely. It's so ironic that the guy criticizing unfounded legal advice for being modded +5 informative is himself modded +5 informative for unfounded legal advice.
What prevents Google from being hacked after pulling out of China? The internet is, you know, global and all... Why would Chinese hackers be limited to operating in China?
Nothing. But at least Google is no longer helping the people who are hurting them. Plus, if they do retaliate, none of Google's people are subject to arrest.
Also here in Norway they can do the same with the cell phone.
Are you saying that simply knowing your cell phone number and maybe your name is enough for a company to successfully bill someone for money in Norway?
If so, that's fucked. I'm unhappy that I need to give my billing address and real name to make a purchase for 'virtual products' like web subscriptions if I want to pay with a credit card because I can't control what the merchant will do with that information, but going to something as public as your phone number instead of the semi-secret CC# is even worse.
If you do not agree with security clearances you should not work for entities that require them.
Bingo! But what you fail to take into account is that the government CHANGED ITS MIND after DECADES of not requiring background checks. In fact, many of the scientists chose those jobs specifically because they did not want to suffer a background check. What's particularlly damning is that there has been no new threats to justify the change in security policy, if anything risk has been reduced over the years, not increased.
You are only partly right. All of those things are knowable and learnable within a reasonble length of time - the problem is getting the documentation to know them. Too much documentation is locked up as proprietary info, either behind a paywall or an NDA wall.
That makes more sense. But the rate thing is going to be hard to compete on - most people flag taxis down in the street, or get them out of a taxi queue at a place like the airport. Its much less common to be in a situation where you can shop rates.
At least 9 out of 10 taxi drivers in NYC do not know enough about the city's streets or the city's traffic patterns to know when it is appropriate to make a judgement call to deviate from the GPS-selected route.
That is one huge unsupported assertion. You can provide a link to something in london that anyone can google, but you can't provide any backing support for such a massively outlandish claim?
I dunno about all that, by trying to remove all slack in the system you end up sacrificing flexibility and turning the driver into a robot. Construction detours are hardly the only reason to take a different route -- it ultimately comes down a judgment call for things that can't be easily automated. Sure, reducing unnecessary slack to improve efficiency is a good thing, just don't go too far because without enough slack the system will just end up another kind of inefficient.
Plus, drivers who are robots are going to hate their jobs which can result in all kinds of unexpected side effects (increased accident rates, disgruntled drivers looking to exploit the system in other, possibly more costly or more dangerous ways, etc).
I'm a bit of a cynic, but it seems to me that Google wanted to leave China after they were hacked, and made an unreasonable (in context) offer to China in order to make the Chinese look like the "bad guys" and Google look like the "good guys."
Getting hacked by state-sponsored hackers seems like enough of a reason all on its own, no need to make up another one.
Seems more like an attempt to use the hacking as leverage to reduce censorship requirements as in "you hacked us, we're leaving unless you cut restrictions on our business."