The Elmegreens examined 269 spirals in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field and discarded all but 41 because of factors such as an inability to discern a clear spiral structure or the lack of redshift data which gives a galaxyâ(TM)s age.
They divided these 41 spiral galaxies into five different types, based on features such as the number and clarity of arms, whether well-defined or clumpy and so on.
It sounds like they only found a few of each type, seems more like a good hypothesis than "the answer". It also makes you wonder if they cherry picked some of their data.
Imagine that you're attempting to determine when spiral structure typically arose.
1. You throw out all non-spirals: not relevant. 2. You throw out proto-spirals where there's mushy arm-sh structures: potential bias, yes but 2a. You also throw out other spirals where you cannot objectively classify them as grand (2) or multi-armed (>2) spirals or... to one of the five types -- not an inherent time bias. 3. You throw out all data where you have no redshift to determine age: potential bias, yes but 3a You're attempting to determine a relationship with age. If you have no age data, how is that cherry picking?
There is a difference between objectively screening data based on logical considerations and cherry picking. Cherry picking typically involves biased selections or the use of supposedly objective selection criteria to obtain a directed result. I say supposedly because the true objectivity depends upon how the selection criteria actually relate to the hypothesis or analytical method.
As for the rest, I don't see how the paper claims to have "the answer." You're also incorrect that it's a good hypothesis -- the hypothesis is what you test against the data, not the conclusion that your observations are consistent with the hypothesis. They have a decent conclusion of consistency. Now they could use independent confimation, hopefully with a larger population of samples.
Collins English Dictionary beg the question
a. to evade the issue
b. to assume the thing under examination as proved
c. to suggest that a question needs to be asked the firm's success begs the question: why aren't more companies doing the same?
Webster's College Dictionary Idioms: 1. beg the question,
a. to assume the truth of the very point raised in a question.
b. to evade the issue.
c. to raise the question; inspire one to ask.
The English language is a living language where meaning is defined by its general users, not solely by logicians. You've already lost. Deal with it.
Conspiracy theory is the exact word that is used to draw attention away from abuses of power.
As well as to label explanations that require systemic nullification of the law, and broad membership in the conspiracy, to support unfalsifiable theories concerning horrible persecutions of unspecified others.
In the end, the IRS found no wrongdoing, Dr. Carson said, but it raised his suspicions about being singled out for his speech.
Very scary. An audit. One that found there was no wrongdoing. I believed you claimed there would be an arrest involved.
You could be arrested for the same activity in the US under the 18 USC 245...
Yep. You did.
Since you've effectively conceded that US laws on free speech are far better than the ones in the UK, and require conspiracies to circumvent them, the original point that you criticized has been proven. Thank you.
(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with....
(2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has beenâ"
(F) enjoying the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any inn, hotel, motel, [...] , or of any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium, or any other place of exhibition or entertainment which serves the public, or of any other establishment which serves the public and....
shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both
Such an arrest would still be possible only if you were to ignore several inconvenient words in the statute (I can bold selected words in a statute as easily as you). Those tweets were neither force nor a threat of force. Case dismissed.
False equivalency is not equivaleny. Regardless of your other appeals to unlawful arrests, conspiracies involving the IRS, and other extra-judical punishment in your other posts, the systems are not the same. The law does not authorize such an arrest, there are organizations such as the ACLU which will defend anyone prosecuted in such circumstances, and there are other US laws which make those very extrajudicial acts -- the ones you claim make the US the same as the UK -- punishable civil rights violations.
The US has much stronger free speech protections. Full stop.
Collins English Dictionary beg the question
a. to evade the issue
b. to assume the thing under examination as proved c. to suggest that a question needs to be asked the firm's success begs the question: why aren't more companies doing the same?
Webster's College Dictionary Idioms: 1. beg the question,
a. to assume the truth of the very point raised in a question.
b. to evade the issue. c. to raise the question; inspire one to ask.
Some random luddite who believes that English should be proscriptive like French: *sigh*
You obviously have never spent any time in jail....
You obviously have never experienced actual trauma. Grow a pair.
and really obviously have never been in a non-US jail.
Please provide an example of an international arrest warrant springing out of a finding of civil contempt.
And you've never followed an international extradition proceeding either, have you?
You've apparently never followed a proceeding in which extradition was waived because the person wanted to be delievered to the court. The premise is that the person is precluded from flying back, not that they are trying to avoid answering the subpoena.
Your "remarkably quick" proceeding rarely happens in less then two weeks...
and if the arresting country has any issue at all with any recent US policy it can be stretched out for months.
You obviously have never attempted to serve a US subpoena internationally. Nevermind providing an example of an international arrest warrant for failing to answer a subpoena, or providing an example of a country refusing to 'extradite' a person who actually wants to respond to the subpoena.
You should recall that the person is being prevented from attending by being on the 'no fly list,' not actively seeking to avoid the subpoena. Frankly, I don't care about jail, extradition, or issues with US policy. I buy ferry, bus, and/or train tickets, since those modes of transportation are covered by the list.
A perfectly overcomplicated scheme to jail someone thwarted by Gre.yhound and Amtrak. Drat. Back to the drawing board.
Imagine this sequence of events: 1. A perfectly legal subpoena is issued for someone to appear as a witness, while they're a plane's flight away from home. 2. Put witness on no-fly list. 3. Cite witness for contempt of court for failing to appear.
Yeah. No.
For example: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b) requires that you serve the person with the subpoena. If you wait until they're away from home, you're going to have a much harder time finding them. Not a complete barrier to the scheme, but ask your lawyer friends how much fun it is to track down someone who cannot be found at their nominal residence or place of business. They will have stories. They will not be fun stories.
Also, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(1) provides that:
A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanctionâ"which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's feesâ"on a party or attorney who fails to comply.
That rule doesn't appear to apply here because I understand that this was a party witness, not an opposition or hostile witness who you'd compel to attend using a subpoena. Instead, Judge Alsop is likely to cite "the inherent authority of the Court" (to conduct proceedings and sanction parties who unreasonably interfere with those proceedings). But if you're the government, or a party that fraudulently causes the government to put someone on the no-fly list, that Rule would apply to shennanigans involving any witness that you were compelling to attend.
Boom, you now have a tool for the intelligence community, with the help of a friendly (or blackmailed) judge to put anyone away they like, for any reason they like, at least for a little while.
No. Because contempt of court typically requires an intentional act, and typically is used as a threat by that judge to gain compliance. If you were to show up ready to testify, you very likely would not be jailed for contempt merely due to the fact that you've voluntarily showed up. If you can also show that you were actively impeded from showing up, you almost certainly would not be jailed for contempt.
At worst, you could be arrested where you were stuck, temporarily jailed, and extradited to the state/court that issued the subpoena. Slightly traumatic, but remarkably quick if you don't oppose the proceedings. Better yet, the authorities attempting to extradite you will rather quickly find out that you are on the no-fly list. Unless they're part of the 'grand conspiracy' too, that tends to work against the scheme.
Of course once you start theorizing as to "friendly (or blackmailed) judge[s]," you can come up with all sorts of whacky crap. Like a Federal judge ignoring the typical requirement that a subpoena cannot demand attendance in less some number of days (related to Rule 45(d) -- try to issue a subpoena requiring attendance the next day and see how enforcable that will be) and the laws of physics somehow preventing you from getting a train ticket, bus ticket, or rental car allowing you to return home within the typical required 'waiting period.'
Too much Hollywood. Not enough real life. Courts tend to work slowly and methodically. Judges tend not to throw away their careers on petty crap, and with the exception of a very few (Supreme Court types) remain answerable to a host of other judges. Actual long-term jailing for contempt is relatively rare and exceptional. You would do well to focus your conern on your local LEOs and prosecutors, who really can screw up your life with very little cause.
"[P]erchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that."
"[S]mall-scale projects -- because of their potential to mitigate climate change and support sustainable rural development, without undermining food security or incurring unmanageable expense -- deserve a great deal of attention."
Sorry, poor people, that tech potentially mitigates climate change. No sustainable rural development for you. Buy our industrial ethanol. Or perhaps you'd like a nice molten salt solar reactor.
"Bioenergy, the agency argues, can play a significant role in achieving global access to clean energy, notably among the rural poor. An array of modern, small-scale technologies can contribute to this effort. These include efficient cookstoves, biogas for cooking and village electrification, biomass gasifiers, and decentralized cogeneration systems that utilize bagasse (the fiber that remains after liquid is extracted from sugarcane). These biomass-based options, partly by reducing the carbon dioxide emissions that result from unsustainable biomass harvesting, could achieve a 1-gigaton reduction in annual greenhouse gas emissions. They could also reduce, by 60 to 90 percent, emissions of black carbon -- essentially, soot -- which is blamed for 2 million deaths each year."
Sorry, poor people, but you'll have to continue to import your electricity, liquid fuels, and cooking gas, as well as burn your own forests, because upgrading your technology potentially mitigates climate change. Hands off the first world problem, and nevermind those other benefits.
Point 1: The fact that you mention mac addresses and dos in the same question shows that you do not know enough about networking to assess this situation properly.
No, the fact that you question changing MAC addresses means that you do not know enough about home internet connections to be lecturing others about their supposed deficiencies.
If your cable modem is cold booted using the same MAC address, 99 times out of 100 the modem will be assigned the same IP address. If your cable modem is cold or warm booted using a different MAC address, 9 times out of 10 the modem will be assigned a new IP address.
If you're familiar with DHCP leases, you already know why. If you're not, peharps you should do some research of your own. If you didn't know that the upstream side of a residential cable modem makes a DHCP request to the ISP, you simply need to put the keyboard down and walk away...
'Revenge porn' is nearly always copyright violation. Clearly the 'model' has not signed off on this usage, and in the case of 'sexting' in particular, the 'model' is usually the 'photographer' too and therefore has ALL publication and distribution rights to the image, not just the model rights.
I've made the same point (and I'm an IP attorney, so yes, you're right regarding the copyright ownership)...
That's funny, since I'm an IP attorney, and I would never let anyone get away with the statement that "'revenge porn' is nearly always [a] copyright violation." The photographer or videographer will frequently be the partner rather than the subject, in which case a civil suit for copyright infringement is going to go exactly nowhere.
To be clear: (1) The copyright is held by the photographer; (2) The copyright in the photograph cannot be assigned except through a written instrument; and (3) in these situations the court typically cannot order such a transfer. 17 USC 201(e). If you didn't set up the camera or take the photo yourself, there is very little chance that you will be able to use copyright law to address the problem.
And never forget the ultimate problem -- anything posted on the internet will remain on the internet (through some service and at some location) essentially forever.
But you can't ban this â" not without abolishing the First Amendment...
For values of "you" which equal the Federal government, a State government, a municipality, or some other government actor.
First amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."
Fourteenth amendment: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" Held to bring the States within the umbrella of the first amendment in Gitlow v. New York.
However, Reddit is not a government actor. More to the point, Reddit has absolute editorial discretion under the Communications Decency Act -- so that even case law concerning speech in company towns and shopping centers cannot be used by analogy to create any obligation for the site to permit it.
Reddit could ban it, your local paper could ban it, and your ad-supported or paid email service could ban it. They simply don't have the power to throw you in jail or confiscate your money if you violate the ban.
Overall, the article's contents don't really seem to support the notion that it's game over for SSD capacity improvements.
That notion is off topic. The summary says that NAND "has broken the $1 per gigabyte barrier and isn't getting any cheaper." Since the article says prices will be flat through 2015, the article at least in the short term supports the summary.
The article actually says "Don't expect SSDs to ever get much cheaper." It suggets there may be two more process shrinks (16nm and unspecified). Process shrinks make NAND cheaper, since more transistors per wafer makes the per transistor cost cheaper.
Unless 3D stacking also enables you more effeciently pack more transisters per wafer, that technology is only really going to increase capacity -- not decrease NAND cost. You're still spending weeks manufacturing almost the same wafers, then you're stacking them to increase density. To make the same number of three layer packages, you have to triple your 2D throughput (wafers, machinery, etc.), which is going to increase costs, not decrease them.
Yes, you don't have to have as many packages, as large a PCB, or as many controller channels, but those aren't the biggest contributors to costs in consumer devices to begin with.
If the total CO2 going into the atmosphere matters, and the average American puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than the average Chinese person, how can you possibly say that China is a worse offender? That kind of thinking lets every small nation (or state or city) off the hook, just because of how borders happen to be drawn.
Because I can possibly decide that per capita allocations of resources encourage states to grow their populations, and penalize those who whether by accident of history or design have a smaller population.
Why not carbon emissions per hectare? After all, short of artificial CO2 sequestration, the land available for plant growth/CO2 removal dictates how much carbon you could use while still being carbon neutral.
Do you know why? Because the US and China have comparable land areas, so that whether by total carbon emissions or carbon emissions per hectare, you lose the justification for forcing radical change in the US while ignoring the problems associated with 'developing' countries. Nevermind that the emissions of the 'developing' countries threaten to swamp the problems associated with 'developed' countries in far less time than you think.
On the other hand, hacking a CEOs account isn't the most diplomatic or responsible way to handle the situation and it sounds like his English is a little rough.
Ok, I'm getting tired of this "hacked Mark Z's account" characterization. It didn't happen.
This guy posted to a Mark Z's wall. He shouldn't have been able to, but there's no indication that he gained permissions to the account, changed the account settings, or had access to information marked anything other than public in connection with the account. He found a way to send a message to another account -- that's hacking the messaging system, not hacking the user account.
If you manage to spam an email address through a spam filter, for example by finding a too-obvious whitelisted keyword, I don't think that there would be many people who would claim that the email account had been hacked. Suddenly when you change over to Facebook's wall system, what is essentialy a messaging scenario suddenly becomes a hack of the user account?
Mark Z received a message that he shouldn't have, and thanks to Facebook oversharing it was probably visible to some other people. Whoop dee doo. Unless the message was posted as Mark Z, this was 'quasi-spam' that correctly made Facebook sit up and finally ask 'how' for the first time, not remotely a hack of the user account.
Okay, now I've read TFA; the document in question is a court filing and definitely not subject to copyright.
Incorrect. Federal judicial decisions are not subject to copyright. 17 USC 105. But the briefs and other materials prepared by private litigants are subject to copyright.
Using that material "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." 17 USC 107. But don't think that the fact that material appears within a public record immunizes someone who obtained a copy from the public record from copyright claims. You'll often find copies of copyrighted material submitted as evidence, e.g., an allegedly infringed photograph, book, film, etc. Including it in reporting or criticism of a judicial case, almost conclusively fair use. Reproducing it for commercial sale, probably not going to be a fair use.
Ars Technica reported that Comcast had put the brakes on the service provider that was apparently conducting the search and takedown notice activity. That's probably because the Comcast attorneys realize that this is terrible PR in addition to almost certainly being a fair use situation. I've yet to see a third party service provider who actually has an IP attorney in the loop (or anyone putting much of an effort into reviewing content), which means that they tend to fire first and wonder why there was such an explosive backlash afterward.
it just says that the law is sporadically enforced, if at all, and universally ignored by drivers.
The hallmarks of a law which is a bad idea...
Accident rates didn't change because talking/texting while driving rates also didn't change.
If you had actual data to back that up, it would be far more convincing. You can question and suspect and infer all you like, but no law requires others to accept your highly subjective view of reality as gospel.
If Chrome is going to enter your password for you, it has to know your password. This simple requirement ultimately means that any attempt to obfuscate the stored password is going to be trivial to overcome by anyone who has physical access to the box, unless you're flat out encrypting them with another password that the user would have to enter to decrypt them, and at that point, we've pretty handily defeated the purpose of storing passwords (because let's face it, it's not like you're going to want to do this EVERY time you need to autofill a password, so we're just going to do it once and then leave the db unlocked), so you may as well just remember your passwords and enter them manually in the first place.
Others: you've modded this driven insightful? For shame.
AC: You should call LastPass and patiently explain to them why nobody will pay them money for their password manager, because this is exactly what it does. Well, 'exactly' with the exception that you can set it to remember your master password until you close the brower session and/or are idle for a specified time and/or (implicitly) log off. Sort of addresses that "EVERY time you need to autofill a password" thing.
After all if you memorize one password you may as well just memorize all of them and enter them manually in the first place... there's no convenience at in memorizing just a handfull.
Other admins can access it if they change the permissions on the directory, naturally. If you don't trust the other admins on your system you are boned anyway.
That explains why Linux, Windows, OS/X, and pretty much every operating system stores the actual password instead of a hash. Oh, wait...
THEY DON'T.
The administrator should not be able to retreive the user's actual password, merely change it to a different one. If an administrator can retreive the password, that's as much a security defect as any permissions escalation attack to the kernel is.
In this instance you would have to store the actual passwords in encrypted form and control access/decryption with a hash, but golly gee whiz Ma, Chrome won't even provide an option for that (unlike Mozilla).
The key is to read the extra words... they mean something.
"My so-called blanket denials have been specifically directed to your initial point that a court would say "I see obligation A and consideration X, and obligation B, but no consideration Y, so there is no contract." Yes that is absolutely denied. It. Does. Not. Happen."
I stated that though the other party did not read the contract, by signing it they were obligating themselves to the terms. Where did you misunderstand?
Here...
If there is not mutual understanding, there is no binding contract.
And here...
If they didn't read my amendment, then they didn't agree and there is no contract.
And the entire content of the post to which I replied.
What you quoted was wrong but I did not mean what it seems to imply.
Unless this statement doesn't mean what it seems to imply, and you did mean it... because that's how you roll.
But since I explicitly stated elsewhere that it was a binding contract, the passage you quoted could not have meant what it appears to imply.
Yet here you explicitly stated that there was not, so the "explicit statement" made four posts earlier could not have meant what that appears to imply, correct? After all, you clearly said there was no contract not once but twice, in a row, in the same post. And frankly I don't have time to read your entire literary works to decide whether you mean what you've written or the complete opposite.
TL;DR
Since nobody can rely upon what you've written to reflect your secret mind, all discussion with you becomes pointless. You're done.
Companies like that hand you a long form with lots of fine print, relying on the fact that most people will never bother to read them. But that means people aren't really agreeing to them, either. If there is not mutual understanding, there is no binding contract.
So back to my original point: the paper is not the contract. The agreement is the contract. The paper is merely evidence of it. They don't get to have that both ways. If they didn't read my amendment, then they didn't agree and there is no contract.
You need to stop spouting egregiously wrong bullshit on Slashdot before someone files a complaint with your state's disciplinary officials. They won't care that YANAL; they will care that you're practicing law very badly without a license.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine that you're attempting to determine when spiral structure typically arose.
1. You throw out all non-spirals: not relevant.
2. You throw out proto-spirals where there's mushy arm-sh structures: potential bias, yes but
2a. You also throw out other spirals where you cannot objectively classify them as grand (2) or multi-armed (>2) spirals or... to one of the five types -- not an inherent time bias.
3. You throw out all data where you have no redshift to determine age: potential bias, yes but
3a You're attempting to determine a relationship with age. If you have no age data, how is that cherry picking?
There is a difference between objectively screening data based on logical considerations and cherry picking. Cherry picking typically involves biased selections or the use of supposedly objective selection criteria to obtain a directed result. I say supposedly because the true objectivity depends upon how the selection criteria actually relate to the hypothesis or analytical method.
As for the rest, I don't see how the paper claims to have "the answer." You're also incorrect that it's a good hypothesis -- the hypothesis is what you test against the data, not the conclusion that your observations are consistent with the hypothesis. They have a decent conclusion of consistency. Now they could use independent confimation, hopefully with a larger population of samples.
Yes it does.
Collins English Dictionary
beg the question
a. to evade the issue
b. to assume the thing under examination as proved
c. to suggest that a question needs to be asked the firm's success begs the question: why aren't more companies doing the same?
Webster's College Dictionary
Idioms:
1. beg the question,
a. to assume the truth of the very point raised in a question.
b. to evade the issue.
c. to raise the question; inspire one to ask.
The English language is a living language where meaning is defined by its general users, not solely by logicians. You've already lost. Deal with it.
As well as to label explanations that require systemic nullification of the law, and broad membership in the conspiracy, to support unfalsifiable theories concerning horrible persecutions of unspecified others.
Very scary. An audit. One that found there was no wrongdoing. I believed you claimed there would be an arrest involved.
Yep. You did.
Since you've effectively conceded that US laws on free speech are far better than the ones in the UK, and require conspiracies to circumvent them, the original point that you criticized has been proven. Thank you.
Such an arrest would still be possible only if you were to ignore several inconvenient words in the statute (I can bold selected words in a statute as easily as you). Those tweets were neither force nor a threat of force. Case dismissed.
False equivalency is not equivaleny. Regardless of your other appeals to unlawful arrests, conspiracies involving the IRS, and other extra-judical punishment in your other posts, the systems are not the same. The law does not authorize such an arrest, there are organizations such as the ACLU which will defend anyone prosecuted in such circumstances, and there are other US laws which make those very extrajudicial acts -- the ones you claim make the US the same as the UK -- punishable civil rights violations.
The US has much stronger free speech protections. Full stop.
Oh really?
Collins English Dictionary
beg the question
a. to evade the issue
b. to assume the thing under examination as proved
c. to suggest that a question needs to be asked the firm's success begs the question: why aren't more companies doing the same?
Webster's College Dictionary
Idioms:
1. beg the question,
a. to assume the truth of the very point raised in a question.
b. to evade the issue.
c. to raise the question; inspire one to ask.
Some random luddite who believes that English should be proscriptive like French:
*sigh*
You obviously have never experienced actual trauma. Grow a pair.
Please provide an example of an international arrest warrant springing out of a finding of civil contempt.
You've apparently never followed a proceeding in which extradition was waived because the person wanted to be delievered to the court. The premise is that the person is precluded from flying back, not that they are trying to avoid answering the subpoena.
Two days is more like it.
You obviously have never attempted to serve a US subpoena internationally. Nevermind providing an example of an international arrest warrant for failing to answer a subpoena, or providing an example of a country refusing to 'extradite' a person who actually wants to respond to the subpoena. You should recall that the person is being prevented from attending by being on the 'no fly list,' not actively seeking to avoid the subpoena. Frankly, I don't care about jail, extradition, or issues with US policy. I buy ferry, bus, and/or train tickets, since those modes of transportation are covered by the list. A perfectly overcomplicated scheme to jail someone thwarted by Gre.yhound and Amtrak. Drat. Back to the drawing board.
Yeah. No.
For example: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b) requires that you serve the person with the subpoena. If you wait until they're away from home, you're going to have a much harder time finding them. Not a complete barrier to the scheme, but ask your lawyer friends how much fun it is to track down someone who cannot be found at their nominal residence or place of business. They will have stories. They will not be fun stories.
Also, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(1) provides that:
That rule doesn't appear to apply here because I understand that this was a party witness, not an opposition or hostile witness who you'd compel to attend using a subpoena. Instead, Judge Alsop is likely to cite "the inherent authority of the Court" (to conduct proceedings and sanction parties who unreasonably interfere with those proceedings). But if you're the government, or a party that fraudulently causes the government to put someone on the no-fly list, that Rule would apply to shennanigans involving any witness that you were compelling to attend.
No. Because contempt of court typically requires an intentional act, and typically is used as a threat by that judge to gain compliance. If you were to show up ready to testify, you very likely would not be jailed for contempt merely due to the fact that you've voluntarily showed up. If you can also show that you were actively impeded from showing up, you almost certainly would not be jailed for contempt.
At worst, you could be arrested where you were stuck, temporarily jailed, and extradited to the state/court that issued the subpoena. Slightly traumatic, but remarkably quick if you don't oppose the proceedings. Better yet, the authorities attempting to extradite you will rather quickly find out that you are on the no-fly list. Unless they're part of the 'grand conspiracy' too, that tends to work against the scheme.
Of course once you start theorizing as to "friendly (or blackmailed) judge[s]," you can come up with all sorts of whacky crap. Like a Federal judge ignoring the typical requirement that a subpoena cannot demand attendance in less some number of days (related to Rule 45(d) -- try to issue a subpoena requiring attendance the next day and see how enforcable that will be) and the laws of physics somehow preventing you from getting a train ticket, bus ticket, or rental car allowing you to return home within the typical required 'waiting period.'
Too much Hollywood. Not enough real life. Courts tend to work slowly and methodically. Judges tend not to throw away their careers on petty crap, and with the exception of a very few (Supreme Court types) remain answerable to a host of other judges. Actual long-term jailing for contempt is relatively rare and exceptional. You would do well to focus your conern on your local LEOs and prosecutors, who really can screw up your life with very little cause.
(@Zero_Kelvin)
"[P]erchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that."
Sorry, poor people, that tech potentially mitigates climate change. No sustainable rural development for you. Buy our industrial ethanol. Or perhaps you'd like a nice molten salt solar reactor.
Sorry, poor people, but you'll have to continue to import your electricity, liquid fuels, and cooking gas, as well as burn your own forests, because upgrading your technology potentially mitigates climate change. Hands off the first world problem, and nevermind those other benefits.
P.S. Pay no attention to the fact that black carbon emissions in the developing world are far larger than black carbon emissions in the developed world. Black carbon only makes things look dingy. It has no relationship to either climate change or lung disease. We'd could invest in small scale technologies to the poor, but instead we're going to ignore you and write Jeremiads about U.S. CO2 emissions.
No, the fact that you question changing MAC addresses means that you do not know enough about home internet connections to be lecturing others about their supposed deficiencies.
If your cable modem is cold booted using the same MAC address, 99 times out of 100 the modem will be assigned the same IP address. If your cable modem is cold or warm booted using a different MAC address, 9 times out of 10 the modem will be assigned a new IP address.
If you're familiar with DHCP leases, you already know why. If you're not, peharps you should do some research of your own. If you didn't know that the upstream side of a residential cable modem makes a DHCP request to the ISP, you simply need to put the keyboard down and walk away...
That's funny, since I'm an IP attorney, and I would never let anyone get away with the statement that "'revenge porn' is nearly always [a] copyright violation." The photographer or videographer will frequently be the partner rather than the subject, in which case a civil suit for copyright infringement is going to go exactly nowhere.
To be clear: (1) The copyright is held by the photographer; (2) The copyright in the photograph cannot be assigned except through a written instrument; and (3) in these situations the court typically cannot order such a transfer. 17 USC 201(e). If you didn't set up the camera or take the photo yourself, there is very little chance that you will be able to use copyright law to address the problem.
And never forget the ultimate problem -- anything posted on the internet will remain on the internet (through some service and at some location) essentially forever.
For values of "you" which equal the Federal government, a State government, a municipality, or some other government actor.
First amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."
Fourteenth amendment: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
Held to bring the States within the umbrella of the first amendment in Gitlow v. New York.
However, Reddit is not a government actor. More to the point, Reddit has absolute editorial discretion under the Communications Decency Act -- so that even case law concerning speech in company towns and shopping centers cannot be used by analogy to create any obligation for the site to permit it.
Reddit could ban it, your local paper could ban it, and your ad-supported or paid email service could ban it. They simply don't have the power to throw you in jail or confiscate your money if you violate the ban.
That notion is off topic. The summary says that NAND "has broken the $1 per gigabyte barrier and isn't getting any cheaper." Since the article says prices will be flat through 2015, the article at least in the short term supports the summary.
The article actually says "Don't expect SSDs to ever get much cheaper." It suggets there may be two more process shrinks (16nm and unspecified). Process shrinks make NAND cheaper, since more transistors per wafer makes the per transistor cost cheaper.
Unless 3D stacking also enables you more effeciently pack more transisters per wafer, that technology is only really going to increase capacity -- not decrease NAND cost. You're still spending weeks manufacturing almost the same wafers, then you're stacking them to increase density. To make the same number of three layer packages, you have to triple your 2D throughput (wafers, machinery, etc.), which is going to increase costs, not decrease them.
Yes, you don't have to have as many packages, as large a PCB, or as many controller channels, but those aren't the biggest contributors to costs in consumer devices to begin with.
Yes... those 363 new coal plants, fueled with any coal the Chinese can get their hands on, are certainly reducing carbon emissions.
Not.
That's not a counterargument. It's not quite an ad hominem attack, but it does nothing show that per capita is a better comparison than per hectare.
My blown cellulose insulated attic and walls, triple-paned low-E windows, and high efficiency natural gas furnace beg to differ.
BTW: How do you like that nice contribution North Sea oil is making to your state budget? Planning on cutting that back anytime soon?
Premise denied. Please provide your argument and show your work.
Because I can possibly decide that per capita allocations of resources encourage states to grow their populations, and penalize those who whether by accident of history or design have a smaller population.
Why not carbon emissions per hectare? After all, short of artificial CO2 sequestration, the land available for plant growth/CO2 removal dictates how much carbon you could use while still being carbon neutral.
Do you know why? Because the US and China have comparable land areas, so that whether by total carbon emissions or carbon emissions per hectare, you lose the justification for forcing radical change in the US while ignoring the problems associated with 'developing' countries. Nevermind that the emissions of the 'developing' countries threaten to swamp the problems associated with 'developed' countries in far less time than you think.
Ok, I'm getting tired of this "hacked Mark Z's account" characterization. It didn't happen.
This guy posted to a Mark Z's wall. He shouldn't have been able to, but there's no indication that he gained permissions to the account, changed the account settings, or had access to information marked anything other than public in connection with the account. He found a way to send a message to another account -- that's hacking the messaging system, not hacking the user account.
If you manage to spam an email address through a spam filter, for example by finding a too-obvious whitelisted keyword, I don't think that there would be many people who would claim that the email account had been hacked. Suddenly when you change over to Facebook's wall system, what is essentialy a messaging scenario suddenly becomes a hack of the user account?
Mark Z received a message that he shouldn't have, and thanks to Facebook oversharing it was probably visible to some other people. Whoop dee doo. Unless the message was posted as Mark Z, this was 'quasi-spam' that correctly made Facebook sit up and finally ask 'how' for the first time, not remotely a hack of the user account.
Incorrect. Federal judicial decisions are not subject to copyright. 17 USC 105. But the briefs and other materials prepared by private litigants are subject to copyright.
Using that material "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." 17 USC 107. But don't think that the fact that material appears within a public record immunizes someone who obtained a copy from the public record from copyright claims. You'll often find copies of copyrighted material submitted as evidence, e.g., an allegedly infringed photograph, book, film, etc. Including it in reporting or criticism of a judicial case, almost conclusively fair use. Reproducing it for commercial sale, probably not going to be a fair use.
Ars Technica reported that Comcast had put the brakes on the service provider that was apparently conducting the search and takedown notice activity. That's probably because the Comcast attorneys realize that this is terrible PR in addition to almost certainly being a fair use situation. I've yet to see a third party service provider who actually has an IP attorney in the loop (or anyone putting much of an effort into reviewing content), which means that they tend to fire first and wonder why there was such an explosive backlash afterward.
The hallmarks of a law which is a bad idea...
If you had actual data to back that up, it would be far more convincing. You can question and suspect and infer all you like, but no law requires others to accept your highly subjective view of reality as gospel.
Others: you've modded this driven insightful? For shame.
AC: You should call LastPass and patiently explain to them why nobody will pay them money for their password manager, because this is exactly what it does. Well, 'exactly' with the exception that you can set it to remember your master password until you close the brower session and/or are idle for a specified time and/or (implicitly) log off. Sort of addresses that "EVERY time you need to autofill a password" thing.
After all if you memorize one password you may as well just memorize all of them and enter them manually in the first place... there's no convenience at in memorizing just a handfull.
That explains why Linux, Windows, OS/X, and pretty much every operating system stores the actual password instead of a hash.
Oh, wait...
THEY DON'T.
The administrator should not be able to retreive the user's actual password, merely change it to a different one. If an administrator can retreive the password, that's as much a security defect as any permissions escalation attack to the kernel is.
In this instance you would have to store the actual passwords in encrypted form and control access/decryption with a hash, but golly gee whiz Ma, Chrome won't even provide an option for that (unlike Mozilla).
Kudos to Google...
The key is to read the extra words... they mean something.
"My so-called blanket denials have been specifically directed to your initial point that a court would say "I see obligation A and consideration X, and obligation B, but no consideration Y, so there is no contract." Yes that is absolutely denied. It. Does. Not. Happen."
Show me where it has... I'm still waiting.
Here...
And here...
And the entire content of the post to which I replied.
Unless this statement doesn't mean what it seems to imply, and you did mean it... because that's how you roll.
Yet here you explicitly stated that there was not, so the "explicit statement" made four posts earlier could not have meant what that appears to imply, correct? After all, you clearly said there was no contract not once but twice, in a row, in the same post. And frankly I don't have time to read your entire literary works to decide whether you mean what you've written or the complete opposite.
TL;DR
Since nobody can rely upon what you've written to reflect your secret mind, all discussion with you becomes pointless. You're done.
You instructors did not teach you this.
Your conclusion is shockingly wrong.
You need to stop spouting egregiously wrong bullshit on Slashdot before someone files a complaint with your state's disciplinary officials. They won't care that YANAL; they will care that you're practicing law very badly without a license.