I suppose you don't get the part where journalists feel that they need to honour the trust of privacy between themselves and their informant.
Informant? What informant? He was the one who shot the videotape. This takes him out of the realm of journalist and puts him squarely in the position of witness. As such, the "shield" journalists should be provided is irrelevant. No journalist (real or imagined) can or should have the right to evade the requirements of being a citizen by claiming a shield where one does not (and should not) exist. If Mr. Wolf had received the video from someone who was involved in the fracas, he might have had a claim. Instead, he cried "I am a journalist" while deciding not to follow the clear legal requirements involved in being a witness (this is assuming that he only observed, not participated). If he was a participant, his fifth amendment rights, not first amendment were the appropriate argument to use.
In short, whether or not a "blogger" is a "journalist", no shield exists that prevents a citizen from the duty (ethically and morally) to provide available evidence of a crime which happened while they were observing it.
Not when you are doing financial calculations. At that point, one calendar day of interest can add up rapidly. If the OP states that the primary rule is X, it is usually worth it to not the exceptions, especially when Y2K came in as one (this was the subject of OP's post).
There's an important sentence that comes right before the quoted one (emphasis added):
The Hhctrl.ocx file that is included in security update 928843 and the User32.dll file that is included in security update 925902 have conflicting base addresses.
Why is the base address hardcoded instead of being resolved by the system at runtime???
The early IBM optical character readers (Model 1257/8 IIRC) did just that. If they did not recognize a character, they stopped and displayed the image on a 7" crt for the operator to correct. This was back in 1977, so there *must* be prior art which was not disclosed.
There are several wireless bridges available which will support WPA (I just checked the Linksys site). One of these would allow you to still use WPA to a device with an ethernet port.
Just a thought...
Sorry, add to that COBOL (IBM 026/029), Fortran, Basic (TeleType KSR 33/43), OS/360 JCL (80-col punch card), RPGII/III (IBM S/34-36-38). If you want to make sure that you do *not* break something, you do two things
Test on a dedicated network
Wait until *someone else* has gotten burned
There are lots of reasons why this is an extremely bad idea, not least of which is that you have just allowed a machine that your IT staff cannot manage into your production network
Read my reply in context - By definition, a production *nix box is admin'd by a *nix Admin. The post I replied to implied that "IT Staff" and only "IT Staff" can be trusted with the safety of the network. If the personnel in the "IT Staff" are not *nix experienced, that is a recipe for major trouble. If, on the other hand, changes to production *nix boxes are done by experienced (and hopefully competent) personnel (read: *nix Systems Administrators), than said admins should be provided with the tools necessary for them to do their job.
No competent administrator, no matter what the platform tests updates, patches or blue-sky additions on a production network. Instead they try to break them in a controlled (development/test) environment. This mandates a separate network.
Add to this the concept that tools which are available in one environment (mine has been everything from IBM DOS/360 to MVS/ESA, AIX to Linux, CP/M to WinXP at any given time) are not necessarily available in another.
This was the reason for the emphasis added regarding the trust issue and I stand by it in any and all ways.
Todd N7TWF
Wascha said that collaborative work takes care of the vast majority of compatibility issues with devices and applications, which, according to Microsoft, were resolved before Windows Vista shipped.
(emphasis mine)
Is it just me, or are graphics and wireless cards
Another option is ASUS (yes, they sell laptops now). You can order it with any combination of features, but the part is that the processor is socketed (easy upgrade).
Sorry, meant to go farther.
An "executive order" is a directive to all executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to act.
A "signing statement", according to GWB's apparent belief, is a directive to all executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the law at hand.
The only difference is that one applies across the board, while the other applies to one bill
A signing statement is nothing more than an opinion stated at the time the bill is signed.
A president making a signing statement is simply going on record about the context in which they're signing the bill, and actually saving everyone a lot of time and trouble when said law (or the way in which it's used or ignored) winds up in court. Would you rather that a president decide, personally, that he thinks a law is BS and makes a decision about if/how he'll apply it at a policy level within his areas of authority, but doesn't say so out loud?
This is exactly what a signing statement says:
Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, Bush is using his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch. These statements, for him, function as directives to executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the relevant law.
So: specifically ask John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama if they would ask congress to kill it off (since that's all they can do), and see what they say.
Given that GWB is the master of the signing statement a.k.a "I won't veto it, I'll just ignore it", and based on the current admin's stance that "the C-in-C can do anything in time of war", what would stop the new C-in-C from issuing an executive order abolishing the Patriot Act?
people are just NOW rushing to patch (which could have been done YEARS ago)
Not true at all. Unlike the *nix tzinfo file, if the change was made in windows in January 2006, DST in 2006 would have started on Mar 12. To see why, keeping in mind that there are 2 registry entries, on a *nix box run "zdump -v US/Pacific | less". You will see every change in DST dating back to 1901 (at least on my fedora core 6 box).
I work very heavily with the emergency management offices for my state, county and city (Ham Radio operator, ARRL Emergency Coordinator). In 1999, the various EM groups started testing for Y2K, and found just 2 problems
1) The CAD system for 911 dispatch failed the test.
2) The system controlling card key access to the city Emergency Management Center and Police/Fire Dispatch failed the test.
We were able to fix the problems prior to Y2K. The situation is the same with the DST change. 911 dispatching operations are way too critical to take a chance. In addition, they tend to be on systems that are one to two releases down, since "bleeding edge" platforms and emergency operations are mutually incompatible.
For years, I was regional support for a computer maintenance company. I was the only one in the office without an answering machine (pre-cellular times). Six months after I got married, I got an answering machine (since I had always answered the phone, I was the first one to be called). Sure enough, two days later I got several frantic phone calls. My manager asked why I didn't answer the phone and was told "when everybody starts answering, I will". After that, we went to an on-call rotation.
For example, if PJ was actually a team of IBM-lawyers (which I consider bullshit -- but then again, pretty much anything coming out of SCO is bullshit) then it'd mean that they lied.
How so? Even though PJ does state her opinions, she includes the relevant public court documents to back them up. That is not lying, deceiving or generally attempting to mislead.
SCO is, once again, attempting to muddy the waters in a losing battle.
Where I live (Tucson, AZ), the public libraries allow patrons to logon for a limited amount of time (30 minutes). This is accomplished by a signup process, reserving a specific computer. At the end of that time, if other patrons wish to use the computer, you are automatically logged off (after being warned). This seems to be a non-issue with any social networking site
If you cannot wait up to 30 minutes for free internet access, like other posters have said, get your own.
Slashdot Mirror
Not when you are doing financial calculations. At that point, one calendar day of interest can add up rapidly. If the OP states that the primary rule is X, it is usually worth it to not the exceptions, especially when Y2K came in as one (this was the subject of OP's post).
Wrong If ((year mod 4 == 0) && (year mod 100 != 0)) then year = leapyear. Many people got burned by the second condition.
The early IBM optical character readers (Model 1257/8 IIRC) did just that. If they did not recognize a character, they stopped and displayed the image on a 7" crt for the operator to correct. This was back in 1977, so there *must* be prior art which was not disclosed.
There are several wireless bridges available which will support WPA (I just checked the Linksys site). One of these would allow you to still use WPA to a device with an ethernet port. Just a thought...
Another option is ASUS (yes, they sell laptops now). You can order it with any combination of features, but the part is that the processor is socketed (easy upgrade).
When the site (in this case Flixster) PUTS UP A GOOGLE/AOL/etc logo without telling you that THEY ARE NOT AFFILIATED this is fraud.
Sorry, meant to go farther. An "executive order" is a directive to all executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to act. A "signing statement", according to GWB's apparent belief, is a directive to all executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the law at hand. The only difference is that one applies across the board, while the other applies to one bill
Another option, as has been pointed out twice so far, is to start to learn amateur radio.
I work very heavily with the emergency management offices for my state, county and city (Ham Radio operator, ARRL Emergency Coordinator). In 1999, the various EM groups started testing for Y2K, and found just 2 problems 1) The CAD system for 911 dispatch failed the test. 2) The system controlling card key access to the city Emergency Management Center and Police/Fire Dispatch failed the test. We were able to fix the problems prior to Y2K. The situation is the same with the DST change. 911 dispatching operations are way too critical to take a chance. In addition, they tend to be on systems that are one to two releases down, since "bleeding edge" platforms and emergency operations are mutually incompatible.
For years, I was regional support for a computer maintenance company. I was the only one in the office without an answering machine (pre-cellular times). Six months after I got married, I got an answering machine (since I had always answered the phone, I was the first one to be called). Sure enough, two days later I got several frantic phone calls. My manager asked why I didn't answer the phone and was told "when everybody starts answering, I will". After that, we went to an on-call rotation.
Where I live (Tucson, AZ), the public libraries allow patrons to logon for a limited amount of time (30 minutes). This is accomplished by a signup process, reserving a specific computer. At the end of that time, if other patrons wish to use the computer, you are automatically logged off (after being warned). This seems to be a non-issue with any social networking site If you cannot wait up to 30 minutes for free internet access, like other posters have said, get your own.