Net neutrality still allows you to prioritize protocols over one another. The bill says that if you prioritize one user's service over another, it has to be done universally for all users of that service. SSH traffic over BitTorrent? Legal under Net Neutrality. Fortune 500 SSH traffic over the rest of our SSH traffic? Illegal under Net Neutrality.
Here is the problem: China doesn't need Google. They don't need Yahoo or even Microsoft. That is the "great" thing about pseudo-communism is that the government has a massive amount of capital to do whatever they want. Giant firewall of China? Custom Linux/BSD distro with censorship built in? An internet police which the RIAA/MPAA could only dream about? A search engine which has the mantra "Do no good?" If China wants it, they can do it without help from America.
Besides costs (which matters how much in government planning anymore?) the only reason for China to make partnerships with these American companies is for economic relations. When Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Cisco are all invested into China, how hard do you think the lobbying firms for those companies will push for China-friendly legislation? How likely is it for US nukes to rain down or troops to land on Chinese soil when American companies have billions at stake?
China (or at least the government of the PRC) views their state sovereignity as the most importnant issue at the end of the day. I think that a coordinated pullout by the Western firms will produce the opposite effect as intended: the PRC will give us all the bird and go dark. America and the PRC will not be as close economically, and trade relations will inevitably shift to other countries.
He's not being deprived of his right to free speech, he's learning an important lesson about being responsible for his public statements. He has a right to say what he wants; they have a right to kick him out. No one is depriving either of them of either right. It's like how I have the right to post this and you have the right to call me an idiot and some other guy has the right to mod me "Overrated".
If the kid was banned from Disneyworld for saying something critical about Disney, I would totally agree with you. Hell, if the kid was at a Catholic school and posted about the joys of premarital sex, I would be fine with the admins if they chose to kick 'em out. However, for public schools, education is compulsory - you have no choice in going or not. You also can't even pick which school you go to in many areas.
Your slashdot analogy is incomplete. In this kid's situation, your analogy would mean that he has the right to say what he wants, and the admins can tell him how stupid he is. This shouting match DOES NOT include the admins expelling him. Expelling isn't a putting an anonymous -1 modifer on a post. It is more like banning your account. When the admins have the authority to expel a kid from an education system for such reasons, it kills any sort of fairness in the situation. How is this not a deprivation of rights, especially when the kid didn't freely decide to be apart of the school rules?
If her employers checked her myspace, they most certainly would have not hired her.
Comments from her myspace:
obviously (FTA): "hi, i'm colleen kluttz and i just smoked the. best. weed. everrrrrrr..."
"Best host ever! I like the part when you shake your boobies."
"pot brownies, colleen! POT BROWNIES!!!"
"if you lived here, i would have to quit my job and become a full time hang over nurse."
"i'd like to report that i just opened my purse at work and found a can of PBR inside. livin' large!!!" - PBR being Paps Blue Ribbon beer by the way
"chris's eyes = patriotic. stoned white and blue. come visit."
And the profile picture she picked herself that has her giving the finger to a camera doesn't help either.
If the incident in question (someone posted a pic of her looking high) was isolated, an employer might overlook it. But these comments suggest a heavy drinker/pot smoker. I personally don't care if someone drinks/smokes weed while not on the job, but these things in conjunction with the attitude that is expressed on her myspace is something more.
"benefits may be aggregated" - applies (for first degree felony) "aggregate amount (of benefit) involved is $200,000 or more" - maybe, based on total sales
If I were the AG, I wouldn't say the benefit was based on sales, I would say the benefit was based of "piracy" prevention that the DRM "stopped." Remember how the RIAA was claiming that one song shared could cost thousands of dollars (or was it more)? Multiply that by the number of songs on an album, and then multiply that by the number of albums sold. That is the benefit from having DRM.
As soon as you find someone with an active IP, you become on the network, and recieve a new list of IP addresses(all the active ones) from the client that's online
Riaa computer to hub computer: Can I get a list of all the people sharing files? Hub computer to Riaa computer: Sure thing!
You may be right, but here is the thing: image is everything. Millions of 11-30 year olds still base their gaming decisions on what either the latest magazines and review sites say, or copy their "cool" friends attitudes. You don't want to be the company who makes the "childish" games, even if they are the most entertaining. Even if a game is fun, it being "childish" will get in the way of their ego. Irrational? Yes.
So who cares? Nintendo, and everyone else selling stuff to teens should care. If they are fueling millions of dollars into a game, only to have it be rejected (even if it is a stupid, baseless rejection) by the male, adolescent gamers, it affects them. They either need to put out advertizing that convinces people it isn't childish, or make it seem less childish.
And it hurts the entire console. Games like WindWalker and Mario Sunshine made people think the entire Gamecube was for children only, which seriously hurt sales. If you are a developer, you don't want to be known as the children's platform - there is no way to go but down from there.
Seems like desktops are becoming smaller, quieter and more efficient while notebooks are becoming larger, noisier and hungrier. Whatever happened to portability?
I love my IBM-Lenovo X41 Laptop. 2.7lbs. It has a 1.5ghz Ultra Low Voltage Pentium M (that I still undervolted), a 4200RPM hard drive, no optical drive, a 12" screen. Some people wince at me when I tell them the specs, but IBM understood that it was all I needed. However, when I pull it out, no one thinks, "Only 1.5ghz, 4200RPM?" They think, "How the hell did they get that in there?"
It is the essence of portability. It weighs less than my bag, or any of the books I carry. It honestly gets over 6 hours of battery life, with wi-fi on. I carry it everywhere, and with my bluetooth phone, I can be productive wherever I am.
My laptop isn't made to be a desktop replacement. The whole point of my laptop was to be mobile. I don't need RAID, or dedicated graphics, because I can do a one click backup to my home gaming computer.
After some configing, I got it to work in trillian.
Go to the preferences menu, click on plugins, and make sure the jabber plugin is enabled. If you don't have the jabber plugin, you'll have to download it from cerulean studio's website (I'll let someone else karma whore for posting it). Then, click on the purple dot that has just appeared right next to the yellow, green, blue, etc., dots.
Click "add a new connection", then use your gmail account @ talk.google.com. Click connect. There ya go.
Feeding the trolls of course, but the Venezuela Crash and the Gaza Pullout are days old. This is hours old. I knew that the Gaza Pullout was going suckfully and that people died in a plane crash. I didn't know that the worm had gotten into corporate networks.
We don't want to hear the same news stories over and over. If a story is important, it should get front page status until (Importance of $story1 * Percentage of readers who have heard of $story1) is less than (Importance of $story2 * Percentage of readers who have heard of $story2). Then story2 should go on the front page. When everyone hears of the worm, I suspect that Gaza will go back to the front page because it has a higher importance, even if more people have read it.
Miller v. California says that it doesn't have to afford you total and complete freedom of speech.
Thus spake the court: In order to find material "obscene", the average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient (lustful, sexual) interests; second, that it depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct as defined by state law; and third, that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
If so, then a government (state, federal, or local) can pass a law against it. Of course, this is very broad and open to interpretation. All porn sites, by defination, appeal to sexual interests, and I doubt that most porn sites have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a site is patently offensive (like beastality, or, as may come if fundies get their way, homosexuality or even sex out of marrage), a law can be passed regulating, or even banning it.
When manufacturers state that they are making a chip based on a 90mm process, that is the distance between the gates. It's misleading, but it has to be because not all transistors are exactly the same size. Measuring the gate length is a way to have a standardized size that applies to the entire chip.
Please stop using download counts to prove your argument that Firefox is toppling IE. It's not yet...
This isn't what they are citing. If you read the TFA (yeah, I'm new here), you would know that the data is taken from NetApplications, a company that analyzes traffic from 40,000 websites. The download number was just a "whoo-hoo" remark.
As with any product, the only way to measure market penetration are surveys, and that is what NetApplications is doing, just without you noticing.
Sounds like a load of crap to me. First of all, M$ is pretending to be a direct competitor to Google. In reality, they're not really. I've heard of some weird people using Yahoo for search, but MSN?
Watch what you say. If a judge bought that argument, they could easily buy "Sounds like a load of crap to me. First of all, Linux is pretending to be a direct competitor to Windows XP. In reality, they're not really. I've heard of some weird people using Mac OS X for their desktop, but Linux?"
I'm pretty sure that MSN search market share is greater than linux desktop market share.
Secondly, why would Microsoft prevent an employee from taking a job at a rival as opposed to, oh say, signing a Trade Secrets Confidentiality agreement? Wouldn't that have made more sense?
And how easy is that to enforce? Microsoft certainly can't supoena the thought records of Lee to see if he violated the agreement. With reporters and the like, it is easy to enforce a Trade Secrets or Non-disclosure act, but not with a direct competitor. Google could get the "genius trade secrets" (whatever) from MSN Search, spend a year implementing them without MS or The Law knowing, and have it ready right after the contract expires. Expired contract means MS would have no standing to sue.
Maybe it would have. I don't know what's going through Ballmer's head.
I maintain a Microsoft SQL and Exchange server (not my choice, but management is stubborn about migrating), but I use Firefox and Jext, an open source text editor, to do my work.
If I were polled, what would I say? My employer doesn't allow code to be released open-source, but yet I use Open Source code to do my job.
We need trade schools. While you don't need virtually _any_ training to work minimum wage at McDonalds, there are many positions out there that don't require a college education, but do require some about a year or so of training to become good at it. Do you really care if your plumber or your mechanic has a college degree, as long as they are good at their field?
I say that at age 16, kids have the option of joining a trade program where they work for part of the day, and learn the other part. They would get to choose their work field, and would study that field, along with the basic living skills (home ec, money management, computer skills, cooking, civics) instead of what they would be "studying" (Chemistry, Literature, Algebra). Their paycheck from the half-day job would be dependant on their grades from the other classes.
After two years, they will recieve a high school diploma upon being hired by a company in the field that they chose. Bam! You've got 18 year olds who know how to manage their money, how to keep a home, how to be an effective member of society, and are well-versed in a trade that they can perform throughout their lives.
Fingerprints are stored in a double-hash. First, an image of your fingerprint isn't stored in the computer, the scanner makes calculations based on the image (i.e. how far apart the ridges are, which way they curve) and come up with something that is like a hash, in that it is one way only. You can't take the data and come up with a jpeg of a finger. Plus, this data itself is hashed so that you can't even extrapolate the data from what is stored in memory.
The only way this could possibly turn into a conspiracy is if someone took a fingerprint hash on your T43 and replaced it with the hash on an assassins T43. Then, they have you open up the assassins laptop. And if someone is trying this hard, you're screwed anyway.
Oh well, it will be a major nail in the coffin that was the great and wonderful world of Ham radio. 100 years down the drain.
How sympathetic were you to the cries of the horse buggy enthusiasts when their trails were paved over to create highways? The interstate highway system was the major nail in the coffin that was the great and wonderful world of Ham radio. Over 1000 years down the drain. And do you care? No, because it allows millions of people to quickly get around the country with little investment (comparatively).
The reason that most people are "anti-Ham", as you put it, is because you're the wagon-axle maker crying for government assistance when Ford came out with the Model T. Hell, you're not even making the argument that you need HAM Radios to feed your family, you're making the argument that progress should be stopped because it interferes with your hobby.
And no, there are many places that have phone line service, power, but no broadband access without the aid of a dish (expensive and only one-way) . Just because you can connect at 24kbps through wire that was laid by a New Deal era project doesn't mean you can run DSL through those lines.
Texas [state.tx.us], for example, seems to side with me. If you don't have the person's consent to access their computer, it is a crime to do so.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the owner.
A DHCP request is the closest thing to consent in the computer world. My computer forms a valid, non-hacked, IEEE standard request to join the network and submits it. If the router agrees, it sends out an IP address. And the law doesn't say explicit consent, it says effective consent. I think that if the router has given me an IP address after I requested one, that is as effective of a consent as you're going to get.
If the spammer is living in China (i.e., mainland China, Taiwan, or Hong Kong) and if this spammer sends e-mail notes to the e-mail address of an American children, how do the authorities plan to enforce this law. There is no extradition treaty between China and the USA.
We'd have a stronger case for declaring war than we did in Iraq...
See, if you go to war with the country that makes a critical component that you require to fight that war (a chip needed for a radar system perhaps), you're really screwed when that country refuses to sell it to you because you're at war with them.
Here is a better option: spend all that money and effort into diplomacy skills so we don't go to war with them.
Now for the logic: A system of international trade - especially when trading critical resources - keeps us honest, diplomatic, and at peace. If we didn't rely on China for part of our economy, the current administration would have no qualms about flying spy planes over China aggressively, walking out of a summit, placing nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe and
Asia, or even accelerating a small skirmish into a war. Politicans (and their financial friends) don't want to go to war with China not because they are worried about the nukes raining down, but because they don't want the stock market to go down with it.
Cliff's notes: While it may seem good to have a "backup plan", not having one leaves us accountable.
Trying to infect Prius with a Symbian "virus" is like trying to infect a tree with a choc chip cookie . Hey I can come up with a better one - it's like trying to infect shampoo with a book on eating disorders (now go picture that in your head for a second).
But this is so sweet - it takes one dumb kid with too much time on their hands and one even dumber kid to moderate at voila! you get slashdot "news".
WheneverthousandsofPriusownersandmillionsofconcerneddrivers hear a rumor about some virus that can infect cars, it is always cause for concern. I had heard about this before, and was actually relieved (not that much, but still) when I read this story. And, even if I had read the post you referenced, I would still be glad that a statement made by ArrayIndexOutOfBound on a tech news site was validated by F-Secure, a company that _knows_ viruses.
Still, I (a reasonably intelligent and informed/. user) personally have no knowledge of how the bluetooth virus everyone has been talking about works. I know nothing of what OS the Prius uses and how it compares with certain cell phones. I thought this was news.
So to sum it up, at best , guns kill for food at worst guns kill.
First off, let me say that I agree with your analogy. Second, let me say, No, no no, no, no! You've got the whole point of gun ownership wrong.
The whole point of the protection of guns isn't so that you can eat. This isn't the reason why they are protected under the U.S. constitution. Guns aren't protected for recreational use either. MDMA (Extacy) is classified by the government as a "recreational" drug, but it is not protected. This is a thing that most people do not understand.
You don't have the right to own a gun because you have the right to have food or the right to have fun. You have the right to own a gun to protect the civil liberties of you and your family. The reason for guns and weapons in the hands of the people is twofold: to allow people to protect themselves whenever the government cannot (either to protect from small crimes, or to form militias in the case of invasion), and for people to protect themselves _from_ the government.
Our founding fathers recognized that most authorities slowly increase their power and hegemony at the expense of the liberty of the people. This is why Franklin (I think) said (paraphrased) that a little revolution, every once in a while, isn't too bad. Besides, the Founding Fathers knew what would happen if the people lost their ability to protect themselves. An unarmed populace is the most vulnerable to unwanted change.
Look at every major and minor genocide in the past 100 years. From Nazi-Germany to Khymer Rouge to Rwanda, the government in control made it illegal for people to own weapons. Once they had no weapons, the massacres began.
The reason you are allowed to own guns is not for food, or for fun, or for sport. It is to remind the government that they are at the will of the people.
'cuts' are a misnomer. No spending is ever actually cut by Congress. When they use this word, what they really mean is they are just SLOWING the GROWTH in spending on a particular program. Most programs have built in "raises" each year in spending. That way, Congress can say, "Instead of giving your program 2% more money this year, we're only giving it 1% more -- we're cutting spending!"
This is because of inflation. If the same amount of money isn't buying as many nuts and bolts, then naturally, every program will be "cut" as the economy grows. Inflation will jump a few percentage points a year, so programs are adjusted for inflation. When they choose to decrease funding, they will sometimes kill the inflation adjustment.
Slashdot Mirror
Net neutrality still allows you to prioritize protocols over one another. The bill says that if you prioritize one user's service over another, it has to be done universally for all users of that service. SSH traffic over BitTorrent? Legal under Net Neutrality. Fortune 500 SSH traffic over the rest of our SSH traffic? Illegal under Net Neutrality.
Here is the problem: China doesn't need Google. They don't need Yahoo or even Microsoft. That is the "great" thing about pseudo-communism is that the government has a massive amount of capital to do whatever they want. Giant firewall of China? Custom Linux/BSD distro with censorship built in? An internet police which the RIAA/MPAA could only dream about? A search engine which has the mantra "Do no good?" If China wants it, they can do it without help from America.
Besides costs (which matters how much in government planning anymore?) the only reason for China to make partnerships with these American companies is for economic relations. When Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Cisco are all invested into China, how hard do you think the lobbying firms for those companies will push for China-friendly legislation? How likely is it for US nukes to rain down or troops to land on Chinese soil when American companies have billions at stake?
China (or at least the government of the PRC) views their state sovereignity as the most importnant issue at the end of the day. I think that a coordinated pullout by the Western firms will produce the opposite effect as intended: the PRC will give us all the bird and go dark. America and the PRC will not be as close economically, and trade relations will inevitably shift to other countries.
He's not being deprived of his right to free speech, he's learning an important lesson about being responsible for his public statements. He has a right to say what he wants; they have a right to kick him out. No one is depriving either of them of either right. It's like how I have the right to post this and you have the right to call me an idiot and some other guy has the right to mod me "Overrated".
If the kid was banned from Disneyworld for saying something critical about Disney, I would totally agree with you. Hell, if the kid was at a Catholic school and posted about the joys of premarital sex, I would be fine with the admins if they chose to kick 'em out. However, for public schools, education is compulsory - you have no choice in going or not. You also can't even pick which school you go to in many areas.
Your slashdot analogy is incomplete. In this kid's situation, your analogy would mean that he has the right to say what he wants, and the admins can tell him how stupid he is. This shouting match DOES NOT include the admins expelling him. Expelling isn't a putting an anonymous -1 modifer on a post. It is more like banning your account. When the admins have the authority to expel a kid from an education system for such reasons, it kills any sort of fairness in the situation. How is this not a deprivation of rights, especially when the kid didn't freely decide to be apart of the school rules?
If her employers checked her myspace, they most certainly would have not hired her.
Comments from her myspace:
obviously (FTA): "hi, i'm colleen kluttz and i just smoked the. best. weed. everrrrrrr..."
"Best host ever! I like the part when you shake your boobies."
"pot brownies, colleen! POT BROWNIES!!!"
"if you lived here, i would have to quit my job and become a full time hang over nurse."
"i'd like to report that i just opened my purse at work and found a can of PBR inside. livin' large!!!" - PBR being Paps Blue Ribbon beer by the way
"chris's eyes = patriotic. stoned white and blue. come visit."
And the profile picture she picked herself that has her giving the finger to a camera doesn't help either.
If the incident in question (someone posted a pic of her looking high) was isolated, an employer might overlook it. But these comments suggest a heavy drinker/pot smoker. I personally don't care if someone drinks/smokes weed while not on the job, but these things in conjunction with the attitude that is expressed on her myspace is something more.
"benefits may be aggregated" - applies
(for first degree felony) "aggregate amount (of benefit) involved is $200,000 or more" - maybe, based on total sales
If I were the AG, I wouldn't say the benefit was based on sales, I would say the benefit was based of "piracy" prevention that the DRM "stopped." Remember how the RIAA was claiming that one song shared could cost thousands of dollars (or was it more)? Multiply that by the number of songs on an album, and then multiply that by the number of albums sold. That is the benefit from having DRM.
Hah.
As soon as you find someone with an active IP, you become on the network, and recieve a new list of IP addresses(all the active ones) from the client that's online
Riaa computer to hub computer: Can I get a list of all the people sharing files?
Hub computer to Riaa computer: Sure thing!
You may be right, but here is the thing: image is everything. Millions of 11-30 year olds still base their gaming decisions on what either the latest magazines and review sites say, or copy their "cool" friends attitudes. You don't want to be the company who makes the "childish" games, even if they are the most entertaining. Even if a game is fun, it being "childish" will get in the way of their ego. Irrational? Yes.
So who cares? Nintendo, and everyone else selling stuff to teens should care. If they are fueling millions of dollars into a game, only to have it be rejected (even if it is a stupid, baseless rejection) by the male, adolescent gamers, it affects them. They either need to put out advertizing that convinces people it isn't childish, or make it seem less childish.
And it hurts the entire console. Games like WindWalker and Mario Sunshine made people think the entire Gamecube was for children only, which seriously hurt sales. If you are a developer, you don't want to be known as the children's platform - there is no way to go but down from there.
Seems like desktops are becoming smaller, quieter and more efficient while notebooks are becoming larger, noisier and hungrier. Whatever happened to portability?
I love my IBM-Lenovo X41 Laptop. 2.7lbs. It has a 1.5ghz Ultra Low Voltage Pentium M (that I still undervolted), a 4200RPM hard drive, no optical drive, a 12" screen. Some people wince at me when I tell them the specs, but IBM understood that it was all I needed. However, when I pull it out, no one thinks, "Only 1.5ghz, 4200RPM?" They think, "How the hell did they get that in there?"
It is the essence of portability. It weighs less than my bag, or any of the books I carry. It honestly gets over 6 hours of battery life, with wi-fi on. I carry it everywhere, and with my bluetooth phone, I can be productive wherever I am.
My laptop isn't made to be a desktop replacement. The whole point of my laptop was to be mobile. I don't need RAID, or dedicated graphics, because I can do a one click backup to my home gaming computer.
After some configing, I got it to work in trillian.
Go to the preferences menu, click on plugins, and make sure the jabber plugin is enabled. If you don't have the jabber plugin, you'll have to download it from cerulean studio's website (I'll let someone else karma whore for posting it). Then, click on the purple dot that has just appeared right next to the yellow, green, blue, etc., dots.
Click "add a new connection", then use your gmail account @ talk.google.com. Click connect. There ya go.
Feeding the trolls of course, but the Venezuela Crash and the Gaza Pullout are days old. This is hours old. I knew that the Gaza Pullout was going suckfully and that people died in a plane crash. I didn't know that the worm had gotten into corporate networks.
We don't want to hear the same news stories over and over. If a story is important, it should get front page status until (Importance of $story1 * Percentage of readers who have heard of $story1) is less than (Importance of $story2 * Percentage of readers who have heard of $story2). Then story2 should go on the front page. When everyone hears of the worm, I suspect that Gaza will go back to the front page because it has a higher importance, even if more people have read it.
Miller v. California says that it doesn't have to afford you total and complete freedom of speech. Thus spake the court: In order to find material "obscene", the average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient (lustful, sexual) interests; second, that it depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct as defined by state law; and third, that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If so, then a government (state, federal, or local) can pass a law against it. Of course, this is very broad and open to interpretation. All porn sites, by defination, appeal to sexual interests, and I doubt that most porn sites have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a site is patently offensive (like beastality, or, as may come if fundies get their way, homosexuality or even sex out of marrage), a law can be passed regulating, or even banning it.
When manufacturers state that they are making a chip based on a 90mm process, that is the distance between the gates. It's misleading, but it has to be because not all transistors are exactly the same size. Measuring the gate length is a way to have a standardized size that applies to the entire chip.
Please stop using download counts to prove your argument that Firefox is toppling IE. It's not yet...
This isn't what they are citing. If you read the TFA (yeah, I'm new here), you would know that the data is taken from NetApplications, a company that analyzes traffic from 40,000 websites. The download number was just a "whoo-hoo" remark.
As with any product, the only way to measure market penetration are surveys, and that is what NetApplications is doing, just without you noticing.
Sounds like a load of crap to me. First of all, M$ is pretending to be a direct competitor to Google. In reality, they're not really. I've heard of some weird people using Yahoo for search, but MSN?
Watch what you say. If a judge bought that argument, they could easily buy "Sounds like a load of crap to me. First of all, Linux is pretending to be a direct competitor to Windows XP. In reality, they're not really. I've heard of some weird people using Mac OS X for their desktop, but Linux?"
I'm pretty sure that MSN search market share is greater than linux desktop market share.
Secondly, why would Microsoft prevent an employee from taking a job at a rival as opposed to, oh say, signing a Trade Secrets Confidentiality agreement? Wouldn't that have made more sense?
And how easy is that to enforce? Microsoft certainly can't supoena the thought records of Lee to see if he violated the agreement. With reporters and the like, it is easy to enforce a Trade Secrets or Non-disclosure act, but not with a direct competitor. Google could get the "genius trade secrets" (whatever) from MSN Search, spend a year implementing them without MS or The Law knowing, and have it ready right after the contract expires. Expired contract means MS would have no standing to sue.
Maybe it would have. I don't know what's going through Ballmer's head.
Money money money money market share money money money....
I maintain a Microsoft SQL and Exchange server (not my choice, but management is stubborn about migrating), but I use Firefox and Jext, an open source text editor, to do my work.
If I were polled, what would I say? My employer doesn't allow code to be released open-source, but yet I use Open Source code to do my job.
How the hell do you fail out of college. You just show up for class and they spoon feed you a degree. Open wide, here comes the degree train!
That is his point. The people who are stupid enough to flunk college shouldn't be going, but they still do.
We need trade schools. While you don't need virtually _any_ training to work minimum wage at McDonalds, there are many positions out there that don't require a college education, but do require some about a year or so of training to become good at it. Do you really care if your plumber or your mechanic has a college degree, as long as they are good at their field?
I say that at age 16, kids have the option of joining a trade program where they work for part of the day, and learn the other part. They would get to choose their work field, and would study that field, along with the basic living skills (home ec, money management, computer skills, cooking, civics) instead of what they would be "studying" (Chemistry, Literature, Algebra). Their paycheck from the half-day job would be dependant on their grades from the other classes.
After two years, they will recieve a high school diploma upon being hired by a company in the field that they chose. Bam! You've got 18 year olds who know how to manage their money, how to keep a home, how to be an effective member of society, and are well-versed in a trade that they can perform throughout their lives.
Fingerprints are stored in a double-hash. First, an image of your fingerprint isn't stored in the computer, the scanner makes calculations based on the image (i.e. how far apart the ridges are, which way they curve) and come up with something that is like a hash, in that it is one way only. You can't take the data and come up with a jpeg of a finger. Plus, this data itself is hashed so that you can't even extrapolate the data from what is stored in memory.
The only way this could possibly turn into a conspiracy is if someone took a fingerprint hash on your T43 and replaced it with the hash on an assassins T43. Then, they have you open up the assassins laptop. And if someone is trying this hard, you're screwed anyway.
Oh well, it will be a major nail in the coffin that was the great and wonderful world of Ham radio. 100 years down the drain.
How sympathetic were you to the cries of the horse buggy enthusiasts when their trails were paved over to create highways? The interstate highway system was the major nail in the coffin that was the great and wonderful world of Ham radio. Over 1000 years down the drain. And do you care? No, because it allows millions of people to quickly get around the country with little investment (comparatively).
The reason that most people are "anti-Ham", as you put it, is because you're the wagon-axle maker crying for government assistance when Ford came out with the Model T. Hell, you're not even making the argument that you need HAM Radios to feed your family, you're making the argument that progress should be stopped because it interferes with your hobby.
And no, there are many places that have phone line service, power, but no broadband access without the aid of a dish (expensive and only one-way) . Just because you can connect at 24kbps through wire that was laid by a New Deal era project doesn't mean you can run DSL through those lines.
Texas [state.tx.us], for example, seems to side with me. If you don't have the person's consent to access their computer, it is a crime to do so.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the owner.
A DHCP request is the closest thing to consent in the computer world. My computer forms a valid, non-hacked, IEEE standard request to join the network and submits it. If the router agrees, it sends out an IP address. And the law doesn't say explicit consent, it says effective consent. I think that if the router has given me an IP address after I requested one, that is as effective of a consent as you're going to get.
If the spammer is living in China (i.e., mainland China, Taiwan, or Hong Kong) and if this spammer sends e-mail notes to the e-mail address of an American children, how do the authorities plan to enforce this law. There is no extradition treaty between China and the USA.
We'd have a stronger case for declaring war than we did in Iraq...
See, if you go to war with the country that makes a critical component that you require to fight that war (a chip needed for a radar system perhaps), you're really screwed when that country refuses to sell it to you because you're at war with them.
Here is a better option: spend all that money and effort into diplomacy skills so we don't go to war with them.
Now for the logic: A system of international trade - especially when trading critical resources - keeps us honest, diplomatic, and at peace. If we didn't rely on China for part of our economy, the current administration would have no qualms about flying spy planes over China aggressively, walking out of a summit, placing nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe and Asia, or even accelerating a small skirmish into a war. Politicans (and their financial friends) don't want to go to war with China not because they are worried about the nukes raining down, but because they don't want the stock market to go down with it.
Cliff's notes: While it may seem good to have a "backup plan", not having one leaves us accountable.
Trying to infect Prius with a Symbian "virus" is like trying to infect a tree with a choc chip cookie . Hey I can come up with a better one - it's like trying to infect shampoo with a book on eating disorders (now go picture that in your head for a second). But this is so sweet - it takes one dumb kid with too much time on their hands and one even dumber kid to moderate at voila! you get slashdot "news".
/. user) personally have no knowledge of how the bluetooth virus everyone has been talking about works. I know nothing of what OS the Prius uses and how it compares with certain cell phones. I thought this was news.
Whenever thousands of Prius owners and millions of concerned drivers hear a rumor about some virus that can infect cars, it is always cause for concern. I had heard about this before, and was actually relieved (not that much, but still) when I read this story. And, even if I had read the post you referenced, I would still be glad that a statement made by ArrayIndexOutOfBound on a tech news site was validated by F-Secure, a company that _knows_ viruses.
Still, I (a reasonably intelligent and informed
Lighten up, jerk.
So to sum it up ,
at best , guns kill for food at worst guns kill.
First off, let me say that I agree with your analogy. Second, let me say, No, no no, no, no! You've got the whole point of gun ownership wrong.
The whole point of the protection of guns isn't so that you can eat. This isn't the reason why they are protected under the U.S. constitution. Guns aren't protected for recreational use either. MDMA (Extacy) is classified by the government as a "recreational" drug, but it is not protected. This is a thing that most people do not understand.
You don't have the right to own a gun because you have the right to have food or the right to have fun. You have the right to own a gun to protect the civil liberties of you and your family. The reason for guns and weapons in the hands of the people is twofold: to allow people to protect themselves whenever the government cannot (either to protect from small crimes, or to form militias in the case of invasion), and for people to protect themselves _from_ the government.
Our founding fathers recognized that most authorities slowly increase their power and hegemony at the expense of the liberty of the people. This is why Franklin (I think) said (paraphrased) that a little revolution, every once in a while, isn't too bad. Besides, the Founding Fathers knew what would happen if the people lost their ability to protect themselves. An unarmed populace is the most vulnerable to unwanted change.
Look at every major and minor genocide in the past 100 years. From Nazi-Germany to Khymer Rouge to Rwanda, the government in control made it illegal for people to own weapons. Once they had no weapons, the massacres began.
The reason you are allowed to own guns is not for food, or for fun, or for sport. It is to remind the government that they are at the will of the people.
'cuts' are a misnomer. No spending is ever actually cut by Congress. When they use this word, what they really mean is they are just SLOWING the GROWTH in spending on a particular program. Most programs have built in "raises" each year in spending. That way, Congress can say, "Instead of giving your program 2% more money this year, we're only giving it 1% more -- we're cutting spending!"
This is because of inflation. If the same amount of money isn't buying as many nuts and bolts, then naturally, every program will be "cut" as the economy grows. Inflation will jump a few percentage points a year, so programs are adjusted for inflation. When they choose to decrease funding, they will sometimes kill the inflation adjustment.