I must admit, I've never had this problem. Probably because I have a very long password and I lock my PC whenever I turn my head away from the screen. As long as you're obviously paranoid enough with your PC, chances are, people won't ask you to use it.
There are authentication codes which will allow you to pass by the guards of that military base. Those codes are concealed. The guards may be more intelligent intrusion detection systems; they may be more discriminating; but ultimately if you have a key, they will let you pass, and therefore the agency that employs those guards is trying to keep you from getting your hands on that key by keeping it secret.
How is it not obscurity? All security relies on hiding something. It doesn't have to be the object to be secured; it can be a key to the object that you are attempting to secure, but the security is reliant on the object you are trying to hide not being discovered.
Why would they bother? All they have to do on the last shuttle flight is bring along a docking adapter and bring the external tank with them into orbit. Voila, they could quadruple the ISS's internal volume in one fell swoop and not have to pay Bigelow for the privilege. The ET already gets up to 98% of orbital speed during a standard launch.
And don't use the 10th Amendment, because I'll laugh at you, as would any self-respecting constitutional scholar. In the clearest words it can be put "The 10th Amendment adds nothing to the Constitution as originally ratified".)
Why is the right to anonymous speech necessary to have free speech? We already have laws against threatening others, or inciting imminent lawless action. If you are concerned that your speech might make people want to attack you, we already have legal consequences and protections revolving around that. Anonymity is not necessary.
Unless the purpose of the course is to teach you LaTex, then there is absolutely no reasonable rationale for them to require any specific output format at all. Any liberal arts class that required the use of the five-paragraph essay which was not teaching that form is equally open to derision, for example.
At any level higher than grade school, what matters is the output, not the method (Where in this case, 'output' refers to the specific relevancy; for example, a class in partial differential equations would have as its 'output' both the formulas leading up to the answer and the answer itself).
Do you really think that NYCL is any different? I don't. Part of being a lawyer is knowing what lines you can cross and knowing what lines you can't, and then crossing the former for your clients and not crossing the latter.
I am dubious. He is only 'ethical' in the sense that all the RIAA lawyers I have met are ethical (and I have met about half a dozen); that is they have enough faith in the cause they are defending it to do the best job they can.
The fact that that cause happens to coincide with Slashdot's general groupthink is merely a lucky coincidence.
No- that's not what I meant at all. I meant that if I were the NSA and I didn't think there was a reasonable chance I could shut them down rapidly without adverse effort, I would not have participated at all. You gain nothing by participating and you stand to lose a lot in revealing your capabilities to the enemy.
The fact that they chose to participate means that either a) they don't see the tactical situation as I do, or b) they didn't consider they were revealing anything particularly impressive.
The latter, IMNSHO, is perhaps more frightening than the former.
The fact that the NSA was willing to participate at all strongly suggests to me that the NSA was just playing games, and was not in fact utilizing anywhere near their full capabilities in this exercise. Which says something pretty impressive about the NSA.
The problem is that the.NET framework or the J2EE class library is not adding 3,000 pages of documented or undocumented features per week, unlike the judicial system. From statutory law at the state level, the federal level, and municipal bylaws to judicial decisions at the local, circuit, and Supreme Court level there's an immense amount of material to wade through.
Political affiliation is not an analogous ground under S.15 of the Charter; it is hardly an immutable characteristic, or one that can only be changed at great personal cost.
Given that, why should that translate through to the Human Rights Code?
250 pages an hour is a lot, but not entirely out of the realm of plausibility. ~200 pages an hour, for example, is reasonably fast but by no means terribly unusual.
And if that happened, I'm sure there would be consequences. That's the legal stick. You'd be fined, or imprisoned. It's in your best interests to make your backup policy sufficient.
I have a tablet PC, with a multi-touch display (Touchsmart Tx2). Windows 7's support is light-years better than Windows Vista... and that would be a deal-breaker.
You say it stresses your arms, but it really doesn't. After about two weeks of practice, I could touch-type reasonably quickly on the onscreen keyboard (with a couple of quirks), and when I'm working, it's so much easier to lift a finger from the keyboard to touch the screen than it is to lower one hand to use the touchpad.
I'll never get another notebook that doesn't have a touchscreen, and I will never use an OS on it that doesn't have at least reasonable support. Touch is a godsend.
Rubbish. The government relies on the value of the individual's effort; that's the whole point of taxation. Taxation does not destroy the value created by the worker.
Slashdot Mirror
That is both fascinating and disturbing. Thanks for the link, though.
I just wish you could feed four people on one litre of vegetable oil.
I must admit, I've never had this problem. Probably because I have a very long password and I lock my PC whenever I turn my head away from the screen. As long as you're obviously paranoid enough with your PC, chances are, people won't ask you to use it.
There are authentication codes which will allow you to pass by the guards of that military base. Those codes are concealed. The guards may be more intelligent intrusion detection systems; they may be more discriminating; but ultimately if you have a key, they will let you pass, and therefore the agency that employs those guards is trying to keep you from getting your hands on that key by keeping it secret.
How is it not obscurity? All security relies on hiding something. It doesn't have to be the object to be secured; it can be a key to the object that you are attempting to secure, but the security is reliant on the object you are trying to hide not being discovered.
All security measures rely on obscurity to ensure that security.
You don't believe me? Give me all your private encryption keys and see how long your cryptographic solution resists attack.
Don't want to? That defeats the point? Bingo, that's obscurity right there.
No? Put it this way, would you rather have your full salary (say $150,000) in Somalia or $75,000 in wherever you live?
Because that's what the $75k is paying for- the difference between the modern, first-world nation where you live and Somalia.
Why would they bother? All they have to do on the last shuttle flight is bring along a docking adapter and bring the external tank with them into orbit. Voila, they could quadruple the ISS's internal volume in one fell swoop and not have to pay Bigelow for the privilege. The ET already gets up to 98% of orbital speed during a standard launch.
Oh really? Proof of this statement?
And don't use the 10th Amendment, because I'll laugh at you, as would any self-respecting constitutional scholar. In the clearest words it can be put "The 10th Amendment adds nothing to the Constitution as originally ratified".)
Why is the right to anonymous speech necessary to have free speech? We already have laws against threatening others, or inciting imminent lawless action. If you are concerned that your speech might make people want to attack you, we already have legal consequences and protections revolving around that. Anonymity is not necessary.
Unless the purpose of the course is to teach you LaTex, then there is absolutely no reasonable rationale for them to require any specific output format at all. Any liberal arts class that required the use of the five-paragraph essay which was not teaching that form is equally open to derision, for example.
At any level higher than grade school, what matters is the output, not the method (Where in this case, 'output' refers to the specific relevancy; for example, a class in partial differential equations would have as its 'output' both the formulas leading up to the answer and the answer itself).
Your teacher should have been fired unless they were teaching a course in LaTex.
Oh dear. I routinely have 100+ tabs open at a time. :(
What does that say about me?
Do you really think that NYCL is any different? I don't. Part of being a lawyer is knowing what lines you can cross and knowing what lines you can't, and then crossing the former for your clients and not crossing the latter.
I am dubious. He is only 'ethical' in the sense that all the RIAA lawyers I have met are ethical (and I have met about half a dozen); that is they have enough faith in the cause they are defending it to do the best job they can.
The fact that that cause happens to coincide with Slashdot's general groupthink is merely a lucky coincidence.
No- that's not what I meant at all. I meant that if I were the NSA and I didn't think there was a reasonable chance I could shut them down rapidly without adverse effort, I would not have participated at all. You gain nothing by participating and you stand to lose a lot in revealing your capabilities to the enemy.
The fact that they chose to participate means that either a) they don't see the tactical situation as I do, or b) they didn't consider they were revealing anything particularly impressive.
The latter, IMNSHO, is perhaps more frightening than the former.
The fact that the NSA was willing to participate at all strongly suggests to me that the NSA was just playing games, and was not in fact utilizing anywhere near their full capabilities in this exercise. Which says something pretty impressive about the NSA.
The problem is that the .NET framework or the J2EE class library is not adding 3,000 pages of documented or undocumented features per week, unlike the judicial system. From statutory law at the state level, the federal level, and municipal bylaws to judicial decisions at the local, circuit, and Supreme Court level there's an immense amount of material to wade through.
Tell me: Why should it?
Political affiliation is not an analogous ground under S.15 of the Charter; it is hardly an immutable characteristic, or one that can only be changed at great personal cost.
Given that, why should that translate through to the Human Rights Code?
Next up: Why we don't lock our doors, because thieves might happen to carry lockpicks!
After all, locks are not 100% secure, therefore, that security is totally useless, right?
250 pages an hour is a lot, but not entirely out of the realm of plausibility. ~200 pages an hour, for example, is reasonably fast but by no means terribly unusual.
And if that happened, I'm sure there would be consequences. That's the legal stick. You'd be fined, or imprisoned. It's in your best interests to make your backup policy sufficient.
I have another display set up (especially since the display on this is only 12.1") where I do graphics work, and that is one of the reasons.
I have a tablet PC, with a multi-touch display (Touchsmart Tx2). Windows 7's support is light-years better than Windows Vista... and that would be a deal-breaker.
You say it stresses your arms, but it really doesn't. After about two weeks of practice, I could touch-type reasonably quickly on the onscreen keyboard (with a couple of quirks), and when I'm working, it's so much easier to lift a finger from the keyboard to touch the screen than it is to lower one hand to use the touchpad.
I'll never get another notebook that doesn't have a touchscreen, and I will never use an OS on it that doesn't have at least reasonable support. Touch is a godsend.
Rubbish. The government relies on the value of the individual's effort; that's the whole point of taxation. Taxation does not destroy the value created by the worker.