Although it stands to reason that if the US monitors the skies and publishes anything that moves in them, they wouldn't go through great pains to keep Chinese spy satellites off of that list. First off, it's not 'great pains'. It's as simple as not adding something to the list.
Second, using the Chinese as an example; maybe they have pretty high tech sats that come close to or rival our own. If that's the case, we wouldn't want to push China into an arms race in the sat arena. If we just act ignorant, we can give them false confidence while dodging them to hide our own secrets or putting false items on the ground to fool them into thinking what we want.
The military and inteligence communities are well versed in PSYOPS.
Try doing that to the PHP core libs. Better know C, and love it a lot.
That's why PHP5 is nice. A lot of core libs are starting to be converted to more of an OO interface where you can extend or abstract these core libs. They've got some way to go, but it's nice anyway.
There's simply no reason that our government should get into the business of becoming ISP's.
I don't think about it as them becomming ISPs. I think it would, in fact, be a much better way of solving the issues that brought monopoly agreements into place and allow much more competition.
Let's say municipal or county government laid and owned the infrastructure(just the layer 1 part of the network). You would allow for the prevention of insane ammounts of cables running down your streets on poles. That (to my knowledge) was the primary reason they started granting monopolies. Imagine if 50 companies all ran sets of cables down power poles.
Then the governmental body would lease out usage of this infrastructure to any company that wanted part. Then you could theoretically have 1 set of fiber running down the pole and split off to each home(or wireless in this case). So your neighborhood would look pretty and it would bring in much more competition without any more of those monopoly agreements.
Auto-responders are the devil with a touch of hilarity. I once had a user send out an e-mail to someone with a vacation auto-response. At the same time, she had one set still from her vacation. So the servers just kept responding to each other and everything slowed to a crawl. I stopped allowing them shortly after.
Reminds me of the French presidential election system. Is it the same, to your knowledge ? His idea is modeled after the French (executive?) election system. Louisiana, USA also uses this system, and some other pieces of French government and used them. It's a pretty nice model.
I already posted this quote earlier but I think this quote would sum up your post pretty well. A quote by Ralph Nader(from memory).
"As long as the two ruling parties think you won't take your vote elsewhere, they have very little reason to care what you think."
They know they have their large base that will always side with them. Then there's the middle ground folk who tend to change their vote between parties. Also swing states where most of the population are swing voters. Guess who the two major parties target their campaign. Guess where the two major parties campaign most. The only reason they go anywhere else is for money from their base.
Do you really think voting is what will get us out? Or that voting will stop politicians from being corrupt?
As a great man(Ralph Nader) once said; (quote is from memory)"As long as the two ruling parties think you won't take your vote elsewhere, they have very little reason to care what you think." In my opinion, what we need are more mainstream parties. Without them, we're doomed.
Yeah, like totally, how the hell did we ever find anybody when cell and sat phones didn't exist? Seriously, security through obscurity is not security at all. Obscurity works if the goal is to not be found.
I still don't understand what this stupid "auto MDI/MDI-X" feature is ever useful for, and it has the potential to cause a lot of mishap. While not necessary, it can be nice. When connecting switches to a core switch or chaining a few together, you don't have to go slap together a crossover cable because there's only one uplink port.
Actually that's part of the problem - the BBC don't pay for their bandwidth. They pay for some bandwidth and they pay quite a lot overall for bandwidth but the bulk of BBC content is provided to ISPs through peering arrangements.
Peering agreements aren't free. They usually make up differences in usage with cash. Otherwise, how would backbone providers like Level3 stay in business?
That's not the court's job. In fact, it is entirely contrary to what the court should be doing, which is interpreting the laws. There, fixed that for you.
Even though you may not want them to do that, this is exactly their purpose. And so you know, the executive enforces the law.
The firmware/software are licensed to use. You dont actually get ownership. But that's exactly the point. They're busting people for modding their devices, not for pirating software.
And once again, a PC user has to argue semantics. I think we all know that gp meant "Windows-running PC" when he said "PC," and "Computer manufactured by Apple running Mac OS X" when he said "Mac."
I am a PC user. However, my PC runs Linux. And considering this whole discussion is based on ubuntu v. mac, no, it's not obvious that he meant a doze box. Using PC in that way is vague and wrong.
Macs are also PCs in the true sense. It's just been accepted that x86 took that term since the whole IBM PC deal. Still vague.
A lot of people call Windows PC simply "PCs," and "Macs" "Macs."
They are wrong and don't convey what they're talking about very well. I shouldn't have to infer what you're talking about. I should know what you are talking about.
The slump at the end of the nineties and into the early 2000's was caused by the Dot-Com bubble bursting, and the recovery since then has been largely the result of GWB's and the GOP's economic policies.
(read: war)
The economic 'recovery' can be attributed to the wars and all the government contracts going out to the various companies that support it. This includes arms makers, construction, fire crews, mercenaries, and all that garbage that comes with it. And to top it off, while the economy is doing great, we've had an increasing distance between the lower and upper classes. So it's all really about perspective. Yes, as a whole, the country is doing 'great'. However, an increasing amount of the population sees nothing from it.
Now look at US Code TITLE 10 - Subtitle A - PART I - CHAPTER 13 - 311 which reads in part:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
Interesting info, thanks for sharing. Does that mean that once you reach 45, you can't own a gun anymore? heh
However, US Code is not the constitution, so while US law allows for the ownership of weapons, it does not mean laws can change to restrict arms heavily and still fit the second amendment. While this interpretation is pure opinion, I do think the amendment is in fairly simple terms and purposely vague to allow for US laws to fine tune it for the time. I don't think the authors wrote it with the intention of allowing everyone free access to however many guns they want to protect themselves from each other.
So, is a militia created by Federal law considered well-regulated?
'Well' is a sloppy term but I do believe this fits under the 2nd amendment. And I had no idea that this is what constituted a militia. However, I bet it changes at state level.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
We can debate all day whether gun control is a good idea. What's not up for debate is whether it's constitutional. It's unconstitutional, it's right there in black and white, there's no debate about it. It's a very inconvenient truth for gun control advocates, who go into all kinds of ridiculous logical contortions to explain away the 2nd amendment. I just ask that we repeal an amendment *before* we begin ignoring it.
I do agree that current law allows for everyone to bear arms, what I'm trying to say is that this is not the intention of the second amendment. I believe the sentence is worded quite clearly.
Quite honestly I think today's gun regulations aren't too bad. But if we really want to pass more, we have to strike the 2nd amendment first. If it doesn't really protect individual rights, then it's useless anyway. Under what scenario would you imagine Congress trying to disarm the National Guard? Would never happen.
I don't think we'd have to axe the second amendment at all. I specifically point out the "well regulated" portion of the sentence as it leaves a lot of room for pretty much anything. For instance, this could allow the ban of all weapons except in the hands of registered militia men. Not that I'm advocating it, because I'm not. I'm just disagreeing with the GGP of the intentions of the second amendment.
His point is that the kernels are optimized for servers. That is, focus on throughput, performance, but not latency or responsiveness. A desktop has the latter two as priorities, while sacrificing the former two. As an example, it doesn't matter if that mpeg4 video I/O eats a little more CPU, as long as other tasks don't interrupt its playback. CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL
Here's an example that should improve latency. Not that most users know how to recompile a kernel but the options are there and many distros already tune the kernel config for the desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is a good thing. Gives NASA some money they could put to good use.
Second, using the Chinese as an example; maybe they have pretty high tech sats that come close to or rival our own. If that's the case, we wouldn't want to push China into an arms race in the sat arena. If we just act ignorant, we can give them false confidence while dodging them to hide our own secrets or putting false items on the ground to fool them into thinking what we want.
The military and inteligence communities are well versed in PSYOPS.
Let's say municipal or county government laid and owned the infrastructure(just the layer 1 part of the network). You would allow for the prevention of insane ammounts of cables running down your streets on poles. That (to my knowledge) was the primary reason they started granting monopolies. Imagine if 50 companies all ran sets of cables down power poles.
Then the governmental body would lease out usage of this infrastructure to any company that wanted part. Then you could theoretically have 1 set of fiber running down the pole and split off to each home(or wireless in this case). So your neighborhood would look pretty and it would bring in much more competition without any more of those monopoly agreements.
Haven't you ever been walking down the street, or in a park, and have an argument with a friend that only wikipedia could answer?
"Did you know that before mating bald eagles will fly really high, lock their talons and free fall to the ground?"
"Bullshit"
"Look at this."
Now if only I could really link words in my speech.
Auto-responders are the devil with a touch of hilarity. I once had a user send out an e-mail to someone with a vacation auto-response. At the same time, she had one set still from her vacation. So the servers just kept responding to each other and everything slowed to a crawl. I stopped allowing them shortly after.
I already posted this quote earlier but I think this quote would sum up your post pretty well. A quote by Ralph Nader(from memory).
"As long as the two ruling parties think you won't take your vote elsewhere, they have very little reason to care what you think."
They know they have their large base that will always side with them. Then there's the middle ground folk who tend to change their vote between parties. Also swing states where most of the population are swing voters. Guess who the two major parties target their campaign. Guess where the two major parties campaign most. The only reason they go anywhere else is for money from their base.
Even though you may not want them to do that, this is exactly their purpose. And so you know, the executive enforces the law.
The firmware/software are licensed to use. You dont actually get ownership. But that's exactly the point. They're busting people for modding their devices, not for pirating software.
Macs are also PCs in the true sense. It's just been accepted that x86 took that term since the whole IBM PC deal. Still vague. They are wrong and don't convey what they're talking about very well. I shouldn't have to infer what you're talking about. I should know what you are talking about.
The economic 'recovery' can be attributed to the wars and all the government contracts going out to the various companies that support it. This includes arms makers, construction, fire crews, mercenaries, and all that garbage that comes with it. And to top it off, while the economy is doing great, we've had an increasing distance between the lower and upper classes. So it's all really about perspective. Yes, as a whole, the country is doing 'great'. However, an increasing amount of the population sees nothing from it.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
Interesting info, thanks for sharing. Does that mean that once you reach 45, you can't own a gun anymore? hehHowever, US Code is not the constitution, so while US law allows for the ownership of weapons, it does not mean laws can change to restrict arms heavily and still fit the second amendment. While this interpretation is pure opinion, I do think the amendment is in fairly simple terms and purposely vague to allow for US laws to fine tune it for the time. I don't think the authors wrote it with the intention of allowing everyone free access to however many guns they want to protect themselves from each other.
So, is a militia created by Federal law considered well-regulated?
'Well' is a sloppy term but I do believe this fits under the 2nd amendment. And I had no idea that this is what constituted a militia. However, I bet it changes at state level.We can debate all day whether gun control is a good idea. What's not up for debate is whether it's constitutional. It's unconstitutional, it's right there in black and white, there's no debate about it. It's a very inconvenient truth for gun control advocates, who go into all kinds of ridiculous logical contortions to explain away the 2nd amendment. I just ask that we repeal an amendment *before* we begin ignoring it.
I do agree that current law allows for everyone to bear arms, what I'm trying to say is that this is not the intention of the second amendment. I believe the sentence is worded quite clearly.Quite honestly I think today's gun regulations aren't too bad. But if we really want to pass more, we have to strike the 2nd amendment first. If it doesn't really protect individual rights, then it's useless anyway. Under what scenario would you imagine Congress trying to disarm the National Guard? Would never happen.
I don't think we'd have to axe the second amendment at all. I specifically point out the "well regulated" portion of the sentence as it leaves a lot of room for pretty much anything. For instance, this could allow the ban of all weapons except in the hands of registered militia men. Not that I'm advocating it, because I'm not. I'm just disagreeing with the GGP of the intentions of the second amendment.Here's an example that should improve latency. Not that most users know how to recompile a kernel but the options are there and many distros already tune the kernel config for the desktop.