If it's your servers, then you need to be doing something they want to look at. Even if it's a shared server (which no company in their right mind would use), there's a few dozen people whose actions might affect you. Contrast that with the millions of people using MegaUpload. The exposure, by comparison, is off the charts.
Furthermore, a court order is due process. "Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person.", which if they have probable cause and get a search warrant, they are.
I won't dispute that evidence-gathering frequently ruins a company, but this has always been the case. It's not new to technology.
You don't even known the legal meaning of the word "assault". Assault is threatening violence. So someone coming up to you saying "I'm going to beat the tar out of you!" is assaulting you, by definition.
In law, assault is a crime which involves causing a victim to fear violence. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact.
I pose you a few scenarios.
1) A threatens B, B responds with force, confrontation ensues 2) A threatens B, B responds with force, A backs off 3) A threatens B, B responds with force, A backs off, B continues
Typically, they'd all go to trial (or not even that far, depending), and all but the third would result in nothing for B. Even the third would likely result in a pretty small conviction, if anything - the fact that "A started it" does count for something, as long as it's not something stupid like "A gave B a noogie and B shot him". There's a solid legal principle that, essentially, you shouldn't punish people for normal human nature - and human nature is definitely to respond with force if threatened with force.
Law isn't a checklist - it's very much about shades of grey, and the facts of what actually happen matter a lot. Let's say somebody shoots at you, but misses, and you shoot him back and kill him. Technically, since he never hit you, it's only aggravated assault. Under your rules, he'd have to hit you in order for you to respond in kind, but nobody in their right mind is going to convict somebody for killing a guy that just shot at him. It's not really that different if a guy comes up to you and is about to restrain you (he doesn't even need to be about to fight you).
Considering their goal is to bring us back about a thousand years, it stands to reason that they have issues with technology. From Wikipedia:
Under the Taliban regime, Sharia law was interpreted to forbid a wide variety of previously lawful activities in Afghanistan. One Taliban list of prohibitions included: pork, pig, pig oil, anything made from human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, and equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computers, VCRs, television, anything that propagates sex and is full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards. They also got rid of employment, education, and sports for all women, dancing, clapping during sports events, kite flying, and characterizations of living things, no matter if they were drawings, paintings, photographs, stuffed animals, or dolls. Men had to have a fist size beard at the bottom of their chin. Conversely, they had to wear their head hair short. Men had to wear a head covering.
Well cynical dicks that have contempt for jury duty don't typically get selected. Both juries I've been on (a DUI and a murder) were full of reasonably intelligent and rational people who took the case and their responsibilities as citizens very seriously. It was actually pretty reassuring.
You're walking down the street. There's a guy following you in a SUV. You keep walking, he keeps following. Then he gets out of the car and comes towards you.
I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty freaked out. Definitely enough to be very prepared for a physical confrontation, even though I didn't have any weapons and was just minding my own business. It doesn't matter if Trayvon beat the hell out of Zimmerman - frankly, he should've, he was being assaulted (the threat of violence). But instead Zimmerman shoots him.
If I go into a bar, threaten a guy until he has to respond by force, am I justified in shooting him?
Keep in mind, there's not even any substantial evidence that Travyon did actually respond to the threat with force.
Sure. If I ask somebody about their interests, and they go into detail about their volunteer work for a church, that's dandy. But they didn't have to bring it up, and I didn't ask them to talk about where they go to church.
Asking specific questions about one of these protected facts is an extremely reliable indicator of "intent to discriminate", for lack of a better phrase... Basically, as an employer, there's virtually no reason for me to ask specifically about your national origin, sexuality, religion, etc... unless I intend to discriminate against people giving the "wrong" answers.
Litmus test - if somebody were asked a question, lied about the answer, got hired (but wouldn't if they didn't lie), and the answer doesn't make any difference in their job, then you shouldn't be asking and it's probably illegal to do so.
No. You're wrong. The whole point of this is that you don't need to know anything about somebody's family status, sexuality, national origin, and so on in order to get to know somebody beyond the basics. Education, interests, experience, general conversation...
If you think you need to know something protected in order to hire someone, you're doing it wrong - at best. At worst it means you're (consciously or subconsciously) going to not offer someone a job because of their sexuality or something, which isn't OK. You should want to prevent even the possibility of that, so if you hire someone more qualified, the guy you didn't can't sue you alleging that you discriminated against him.
The current wisdom is to wait until the cord stops pulsing (that is, is no longer connected to the baby's or the mother's blood supply) before clamping and cutting. It seems to make sense - the pulsing indicates that it's "in use".
Frankly, the whole cord blood seems like a scam to me. It doesn't do any good at the moment, and any suggestions that it eventually will are hand-wavey at best. Add in the large ongoing costs (and substantially larger initial costs), and the implied emotional argument of "you're bad parents if you don't do this" and it seems like Homer's "happy dude" scam. Pay a truckload of money, get essentially nothing in return, and be assured by some company that gladly took that money that it makes you better.
Arguably people looking up "santorum" are likely to be looking for the sexual neologism, as opposed to those looking for "rick santorum". As a result, the higher rankings for 'santorum' are the search feature working as designed.
Not bullshit. A telnet client works best with a telnet server; while you can use it against other servers, it is not ideal. The client interprets certain byte sequences as commands.
Furthermore, I quote the wiki:
a Telnet client application may also be used to establish an interactive raw TCP session, and it is commonly believed that such session which does not use the IAC (\377 character, or 255 in decimal) is functionally identical. This is not the case, however, because there are other network virtual terminal (NVT) rules, such as the requirement for a bare carriage return character (CR, ASCII 13) to be followed by a NULL (ASCII 0) character, that distinguish the telnet protocol from raw TCP sessions.
The wiki lacks citations; I point you to RFC 854 (bottom of page 11).
Thus, the protocol is not plain text. It is very close, close enough that most things should work fine, but if you actually desire the ability to deal with raw TCP streams, you'd be much better off using a tool designed for it. Such as socat or netcat.
The protocol was designed to provide remote access similar to a terminal. As such, it includes escape characters and other terminal-control mechanisms. It was not designed to pass text exactly as entered, or display it exactly as sent. Given the common existence of tools that are, it seems like a poor choice to use the inferior one.
You should use netcat or socat, since those are designed to allow you to fire text at a remote port and display the result. Telnet isn't, it only works "by accident" because the protocol is similar enough to plain text to work sometimes.
Drought. Bad ones too. In my part of NJ, we got a few inches of snow this year, instead of a few feet. The reservoirs are going to be bone-dry, since there's no snow to melt.
One favorite story was of a motorcyclist with a prosthetic who was in an accident. He was stuck in a position unable to remove his prosthetic which was pinned down under the motorcycle. He shouted to the first responders, "Take off my leg. Take off my leg."
They told him not to worry, they could get him out with amputation. He most emphatically told them he'd be able to get himself away if they would just disconnect his leg.
Presumably you meant "they could get him out without amputation"? Not nazi-ing, just very confused at the text as-is. But a good story.
Why clean, and why nice smelling (if they weren't around other people)?
Formal/business attire is just an extension of that. We judge people by how they represent themselves to us. When a guy comes in wearing a suit and tie and a nice pair of kakhis, he went to some effort to appear professional to you. When he comes in wearing sweatpants, he didn't.
It's a respect thing. I respect you, so I go to effort to present myself well in front of you.
Sure, it's a pain in the ass, and sure there's no "technical" reason for it, but it is a fact that people respond to how you act around them. Appearance is part of that.
Well, had Clementi been thinking straight (no pun intended), he would've gone to the university administration and his lawyer, and disciplinary action (at least) would presumably have been taken. And nobody would've heard about it.
There is actually legal standing to bring manslaughter charges against Ravi, which is why I thought it was a pretty reasonable move by the prosecutor to not do so. It's called the "eggshell skull rule" - the legal analogy is that if you throw a baseball at somebody's head, not reasonably expecting that such a thing would kill them, but they have an "eggshell skull", you're still liable for their death. Even though you didn't mean to do it, and you had no expectation that it would, you still "take your victim as you find him". This argument easily allows for the prosecution of Ravi - even though Ravi didn't anticipate that his actions would cause Clementi to kill himself, it doesn't matter since they did.
The 360 has graphics somewhere between the ATI 520 and 600 series, or comparable to a high-end NVidia 7000-series card or a midrange 8000 series, roughly what was in my laptop when the console was announced. My boring 15-inch Macbook from 3 years ago has a substantially stronger GPU. Current cards are more than 5 generations ahead.
It's embarrassing. Not as bad as the Wii, of course, but hacks can only take you so far. The bigger concern (at least for me) is that PC games more-or-less all run on consoles as well (ported or co-developed) so the lowest common denominator is really low.
Even if we accept the premise that there's no substantial improvements in graphical quality (which I don't, some of the newer features like tessellation are really stunning), there's almost limitless potential to use GPGPU techniques, which are currently not feasible. Things like cloth, smoke, and fluid simulation were almost made for GPGPU, and they currently look like crap on the consoles. It's a whole class of stuff that just isn't feasible at the moment, which I think definitely warrants an upgrade.
Slashdot Mirror
What?
If it's your servers, then you need to be doing something they want to look at. Even if it's a shared server (which no company in their right mind would use), there's a few dozen people whose actions might affect you. Contrast that with the millions of people using MegaUpload. The exposure, by comparison, is off the charts.
Furthermore, a court order is due process. "Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person.", which if they have probable cause and get a search warrant, they are.
I won't dispute that evidence-gathering frequently ruins a company, but this has always been the case. It's not new to technology.
You don't even known the legal meaning of the word "assault". Assault is threatening violence. So someone coming up to you saying "I'm going to beat the tar out of you!" is assaulting you, by definition.
In law, assault is a crime which involves causing a victim to fear violence. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact.
I pose you a few scenarios.
1) A threatens B, B responds with force, confrontation ensues
2) A threatens B, B responds with force, A backs off
3) A threatens B, B responds with force, A backs off, B continues
Typically, they'd all go to trial (or not even that far, depending), and all but the third would result in nothing for B. Even the third would likely result in a pretty small conviction, if anything - the fact that "A started it" does count for something, as long as it's not something stupid like "A gave B a noogie and B shot him". There's a solid legal principle that, essentially, you shouldn't punish people for normal human nature - and human nature is definitely to respond with force if threatened with force.
Law isn't a checklist - it's very much about shades of grey, and the facts of what actually happen matter a lot. Let's say somebody shoots at you, but misses, and you shoot him back and kill him. Technically, since he never hit you, it's only aggravated assault. Under your rules, he'd have to hit you in order for you to respond in kind, but nobody in their right mind is going to convict somebody for killing a guy that just shot at him. It's not really that different if a guy comes up to you and is about to restrain you (he doesn't even need to be about to fight you).
Jeez. Stupid troll, not even an attempt at hiding it, and so stupid it doesn't even warrant a pity point. Troll rating 0/10
Considering their goal is to bring us back about a thousand years, it stands to reason that they have issues with technology. From Wikipedia:
Under the Taliban regime, Sharia law was interpreted to forbid a wide variety of previously lawful activities in Afghanistan. One Taliban list of prohibitions included: pork, pig, pig oil, anything made from human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, and equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computers, VCRs, television, anything that propagates sex and is full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards. They also got rid of employment, education, and sports for all women, dancing, clapping during sports events, kite flying, and characterizations of living things, no matter if they were drawings, paintings, photographs, stuffed animals, or dolls. Men had to have a fist size beard at the bottom of their chin. Conversely, they had to wear their head hair short. Men had to wear a head covering.
Well cynical dicks that have contempt for jury duty don't typically get selected. Both juries I've been on (a DUI and a murder) were full of reasonably intelligent and rational people who took the case and their responsibilities as citizens very seriously. It was actually pretty reassuring.
You're a fucking idiot.
You're walking down the street. There's a guy following you in a SUV. You keep walking, he keeps following. Then he gets out of the car and comes towards you.
I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty freaked out. Definitely enough to be very prepared for a physical confrontation, even though I didn't have any weapons and was just minding my own business. It doesn't matter if Trayvon beat the hell out of Zimmerman - frankly, he should've, he was being assaulted (the threat of violence). But instead Zimmerman shoots him.
If I go into a bar, threaten a guy until he has to respond by force, am I justified in shooting him?
Keep in mind, there's not even any substantial evidence that Travyon did actually respond to the threat with force.
Sorry, but Real Video never worked. :p
Sure. If I ask somebody about their interests, and they go into detail about their volunteer work for a church, that's dandy. But they didn't have to bring it up, and I didn't ask them to talk about where they go to church.
Asking specific questions about one of these protected facts is an extremely reliable indicator of "intent to discriminate", for lack of a better phrase... Basically, as an employer, there's virtually no reason for me to ask specifically about your national origin, sexuality, religion, etc... unless I intend to discriminate against people giving the "wrong" answers.
Litmus test - if somebody were asked a question, lied about the answer, got hired (but wouldn't if they didn't lie), and the answer doesn't make any difference in their job, then you shouldn't be asking and it's probably illegal to do so.
No. You're wrong. The whole point of this is that you don't need to know anything about somebody's family status, sexuality, national origin, and so on in order to get to know somebody beyond the basics. Education, interests, experience, general conversation...
If you think you need to know something protected in order to hire someone, you're doing it wrong - at best. At worst it means you're (consciously or subconsciously) going to not offer someone a job because of their sexuality or something, which isn't OK. You should want to prevent even the possibility of that, so if you hire someone more qualified, the guy you didn't can't sue you alleging that you discriminated against him.
The current wisdom is to wait until the cord stops pulsing (that is, is no longer connected to the baby's or the mother's blood supply) before clamping and cutting. It seems to make sense - the pulsing indicates that it's "in use".
Frankly, the whole cord blood seems like a scam to me. It doesn't do any good at the moment, and any suggestions that it eventually will are hand-wavey at best. Add in the large ongoing costs (and substantially larger initial costs), and the implied emotional argument of "you're bad parents if you don't do this" and it seems like Homer's "happy dude" scam. Pay a truckload of money, get essentially nothing in return, and be assured by some company that gladly took that money that it makes you better.
Doesn't matter. Michael Bay could shoot "Sex in the City" with massive explosions and car chases.
If you know some trick to get 50mbps to an arbitrary location for less than a cable bill, I'd absolutely love to hear it.
Take everything they say with a massive fistful of salt. I expected better of most people here... it's pretty well known as a trash rag
re-designed to run on gasified pellets made from animal droppings
Seriously?
Works for me, as they say. But check out this to send a literal CRLF (CTRL+V enter enter)
Arguably people looking up "santorum" are likely to be looking for the sexual neologism, as opposed to those looking for "rick santorum". As a result, the higher rankings for 'santorum' are the search feature working as designed.
Not bullshit. A telnet client works best with a telnet server; while you can use it against other servers, it is not ideal. The client interprets certain byte sequences as commands.
Furthermore, I quote the wiki:
a Telnet client application may also be used to establish an interactive raw TCP session, and it is commonly believed that such session which does not use the IAC (\377 character, or 255 in decimal) is functionally identical. This is not the case, however, because there are other network virtual terminal (NVT) rules, such as the requirement for a bare carriage return character (CR, ASCII 13) to be followed by a NULL (ASCII 0) character, that distinguish the telnet protocol from raw TCP sessions.
The wiki lacks citations; I point you to RFC 854 (bottom of page 11).
Thus, the protocol is not plain text. It is very close, close enough that most things should work fine, but if you actually desire the ability to deal with raw TCP streams, you'd be much better off using a tool designed for it. Such as socat or netcat.
The protocol was designed to provide remote access similar to a terminal. As such, it includes escape characters and other terminal-control mechanisms. It was not designed to pass text exactly as entered, or display it exactly as sent. Given the common existence of tools that are, it seems like a poor choice to use the inferior one.
You should use netcat or socat, since those are designed to allow you to fire text at a remote port and display the result. Telnet isn't, it only works "by accident" because the protocol is similar enough to plain text to work sometimes.
Drought. Bad ones too. In my part of NJ, we got a few inches of snow this year, instead of a few feet. The reservoirs are going to be bone-dry, since there's no snow to melt.
One favorite story was of a motorcyclist with a prosthetic who was in an accident. He was stuck in a position unable to remove his prosthetic which was pinned down under the motorcycle. He shouted to the first responders, "Take off my leg. Take off my leg."
They told him not to worry, they could get him out with amputation. He most emphatically told them he'd be able to get himself away if they would just disconnect his leg.
Presumably you meant "they could get him out without amputation"? Not nazi-ing, just very confused at the text as-is. But a good story.
See the globe next to the person icon, the one that says "Hide personal results"?
Why clean, and why nice smelling (if they weren't around other people)?
Formal/business attire is just an extension of that. We judge people by how they represent themselves to us. When a guy comes in wearing a suit and tie and a nice pair of kakhis, he went to some effort to appear professional to you. When he comes in wearing sweatpants, he didn't.
It's a respect thing. I respect you, so I go to effort to present myself well in front of you.
Sure, it's a pain in the ass, and sure there's no "technical" reason for it, but it is a fact that people respond to how you act around them. Appearance is part of that.
Well, had Clementi been thinking straight (no pun intended), he would've gone to the university administration and his lawyer, and disciplinary action (at least) would presumably have been taken. And nobody would've heard about it.
There is actually legal standing to bring manslaughter charges against Ravi, which is why I thought it was a pretty reasonable move by the prosecutor to not do so. It's called the "eggshell skull rule" - the legal analogy is that if you throw a baseball at somebody's head, not reasonably expecting that such a thing would kill them, but they have an "eggshell skull", you're still liable for their death. Even though you didn't mean to do it, and you had no expectation that it would, you still "take your victim as you find him". This argument easily allows for the prosecution of Ravi - even though Ravi didn't anticipate that his actions would cause Clementi to kill himself, it doesn't matter since they did.
The 360 has graphics somewhere between the ATI 520 and 600 series, or comparable to a high-end NVidia 7000-series card or a midrange 8000 series, roughly what was in my laptop when the console was announced. My boring 15-inch Macbook from 3 years ago has a substantially stronger GPU. Current cards are more than 5 generations ahead.
It's embarrassing. Not as bad as the Wii, of course, but hacks can only take you so far. The bigger concern (at least for me) is that PC games more-or-less all run on consoles as well (ported or co-developed) so the lowest common denominator is really low.
Even if we accept the premise that there's no substantial improvements in graphical quality (which I don't, some of the newer features like tessellation are really stunning), there's almost limitless potential to use GPGPU techniques, which are currently not feasible. Things like cloth, smoke, and fluid simulation were almost made for GPGPU, and they currently look like crap on the consoles. It's a whole class of stuff that just isn't feasible at the moment, which I think definitely warrants an upgrade.
What's wrong with top posting???
I'm headed over to Usenet right now to tell them top posting is still not OK.