Here's the interesting thing larger (tall, obese or both) flyers AND the airlines should be aware of. Numerous airplanes (except the small ones) have varying sized seats (even in coach) - just like many movie theaters. Simply accomodating a larger passenger by placing them in a larger seat seems to be a viable method of ensuring people's comfort.
I've flown on flights with very very tall people, who erroneously booked a seat under the baggage rack next to the window (DUH!), and the stewardess has moved them to a more comfortable seat without having been asked. I've also seen them move wider customers to wider seats.
Yeah, not all planes are configured in that fashion... but both (a) care should be taken by the customer to choose the correct seats (WHEN available) and by the airline in making the availability of such seats known (though I guess that could be a problem when thin customers who simply want a lot of room grab those seats for themselves).
I agree too... but I am pointing out that such may not be the only problem... as it is, the "high end" HP at one of the companies we support, even after a fresh install (and installing all the updates) would be inadequate for 30 users that moderately to heavily use the machine - such was not the case when it was purchased.
Keep in mind that the memory and CPU requirements for the same OS (Windows XP, Windows Server ____) have doubled to quadrupled since their initial releases. Remember the days of XP coming preloaded on machines with 128MB of RAM? I do... Can you even imagine it booting on that now? Not just can I not imagine it... but SP3 (and possibly SP2) wont even install and report that there is not enough memory to support the service pack (or some such... I should remember the exact wording, as I just got that message today on a customer's machine). I've got another machine in here now with a "whopping" 256MB and preinstalled XP. "It used to be so fast... but now it's slow as a dog... I dont know why. It's a new installation and all" - of course, you and I know that's simply because XP with SP3 and the 60+ fixes since then, requires a lot more than 256MB to run - much less run itself and this customer's selection of either Word 2003 or WordPerfect 11.
As for the VM issue... well, I've run Windows XP and Windows Vista in VMs on rather ancient machines (including one being an ancient AMD Athlon 1200), and run Windows XP in a VM on a PII 300. So... though we both would suspect that the hardware shouldn't be that ancient, we may both be wrong.
So, I agree with you... heck, any time a server slows down beyond the norm, it's time to check for a cause... just saying without more details, the hardware can indeed be the bottleneck with a fully up to date version of Windows.
If your domain controllers take 15 minutes to shut down, then:
- your domain controllers are running on very dilapidated old hardware
- your domain controllers are sluggish because they are infested with spyware & rootkits
- you have the biggest active directory installation anyone has ever seen
Domain controllers should take less than a minute to shut down, and typically much less.
- Or you are running Windows Server with a lot of services that need to be stopped.
- Or you are running Windows Server on an older box that used to be overkill for it, but since all the years worth of updates is just marginal (yet too expensive to replace... as an example, we just had to purchase a new WS2003 license for a client to do a reinstall. MS recommends WS2008... but when you look at the resource requirements, you realize that the (used to be top of the line) HP server that's 6 years old doesnt even come halfway to the required specs... meaning upgrade the HP as much as possible due to performance loss after all the service packs and hotfixes, or replace it with another $20,000 server so they can run WS2008 - no, a generic, build at home, server is not an option. They require the redundancy and high end components that are in their current server).
- Or there are client stations that are taking forever to honor the disconnect request, forcing the server to wait for the timeout period before force-disconnecting them - and then it can start the shutdown of the services in it's goal of shutting down the server.
So, no, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with their setup.
- Look at the runtime specs (at that load) for a new UPS
- Purchase the new UPS.
It's really almost that simple. Really.
The only other considerations are
(a) Realizing getting an "el-cheapo" UPS is often a great way of ensuring failure
(b) Properly determining any other needs the UPS should handle (active line filtering, etc)
That's pretty much it. Yes, it may cost you more money than you want to spend, but sometimes spending the money is the only option.
Now, there are other alternatives that may save some money.
- Find a used UPS that has inexpensive batteries. Before purchase, make sure all the electronics/charging circuit(s) are functional. Then purchase it and replace the batteries. I've scored 3 decent APC UPS that way and then replaced the batteries in them, leaving me with three "virtually new" UPS units for far cheaper than buying the exact same units new.
- Find a new or used UPS that does NOT meet your needs but allows adding battery expansion modules. But first, research it for "aftermarket" expansion methods. As an example, the APC UPS units I have allow such. I can "simply" find the correct AGM batteries, wire them correctly and hook them up directly to the battery harness for my unit... apparently, some crafty people out there have used the same model UPS in such manner and gotten DAYS worth of runtime. Of course, it also means DAYS worth of charging time.
- Look for an alternative method of power backup, such as an "instant" on generator that is "electronics AND computer rated" (and then still run the UPSs on the inside end of it and ensure they do line filtering, sine wave correction and power out-of-range (brownouts, over-voltage) protection.
- Create your own UPS units using high quality true-sine inverters and decent deep-cycle batteries. You can find the inverters for such at any decent "off-the-grid"/solar supplier. Get one that will recharge the batteries when main power is restored. Also ensure it can charge as many batteries as you need for the required runtime. The advantage of this method is, with the correct inverter, you can add a ton (possibly literally) of batteries to have massive amounts of runtime - and you can buy higher Ah batteries cheaper. Ensure the batteries are properly cabled, stored and (sealed or otherwise) vented.
You could always ask Microsoft... that sounds like almost every piece of software they currently (or even previously) sell or sold (with of course differences in the amounts of code). Maintaining it properly seems to be working fi.....
...ummmm, never mind. Perhaps you should simply learn how to market it really well, kill the competition via anti-competitive actions, and kludge on a thing or two so that you can claim you've "improved" it.
OK, example 1, due process if followed, and yes in Bltimore, upon a tip and due process followed, they can invade if they "witness a crime in progress" which must be completely documented. They can NOT just "break in" on a tip. You have not studied that case law.
Who's definition of "Due Process"? All they need is the tip... no warrant... no nothing.
You still dont get the point. If I hate my neighbor, I can make the tip... anonymously or not... and then my neighbor is screwed.
Illegal car on your property, that's all they nbeed to know. bot no, they won't enter the locked garrage on a tip alone,
Wrong... they will. Been there, done that.
Again, you shouldn't be discussing things you dont know about. Again, been there, done that, seen that...
but that tip might get an officer to "pay attention" and if they see the garrage open, or if you drive the car, yes, they'll document it, then come back and take it.
Again, NON WORKING CAR. NOT DRIVABLE. NEVER LEFT PROPERTY. CLOSED GARAGE. GARAGE IS STANDALONE IN BACK YARD OF PROPERTY. Do you know how much it costs to get it out of impound?
Same goes for a car parked on one's driveway in said back yard where it is NOT visible from the street. Again, do you know how much it costs to get it out of impound? I do.
In many states, your PROPERTY is not private, only the inside of your home is, since people like meter readers and public servants need access to your LAND. Further, a standing garrage qualifies differently in some states. They can't search it without a warrant, but they can impound a car inside of it then have evidence of.
(typically, they ask to see it or see it themselves, the city really doesn't care enough to risk a lawsuit over a small municipal fine).
And again, you are wrong... and again, I've been there, done that. Nor does a HOUSE have such protections in Baltimore City. "Suspicion" is more than enough. And that "suspicion" can quite easily be a tip from a neighbor that doesnt like you for whatever mundane reason (doesnt cut the grass every week, leaves his pail on the street for a day past when the garbage men empty it). Or it could simply be because that person filed a complaint with the city because the publicly owned strip of land across their small street that is owned by the city (median between the street and the 6 lane highway on the other side... street only has houses on one side, median and highway on the other) has grown grass FOUR FEET tall and the DPWs give the lame excuse that they weren't prepared for the grass growing and apparently didnt expect it to do so... (you know, like it does EVERY spring? Yeah, that would take me by surprise... why in the world would the grass grow that spring too? Even though it's done so since the beginning of recorded history in the area).
In SC driving without a license on your person is a $75 fine, but more importantly, they can't let you continue to drive without it unless you have other documents proving your identity, and your insurance on you, and they look up and validate your currently active license and lack of warrants against you.
Being in public is not probable cause. Getting pulled over is.
Ummm... what about being pulled over for being in the wrong neighborhood? So since one was pulled over, that now becomes probable cause?
Being parked in a known drug neighbood might be enough,
Not being PARKED... DRIVING THROUGH. I've watched it happen. Two white kids in a predominantly black, poor neighborhood known for drug sales. I've had it happen to friends as well.
but so long as you don;t stop there, even if a cop does pull you over, you can easily POINT AT YOUR GPS and show him you;ve been following a route, at which point, probable cause is refuted,
You really are out of touch with reality... here is what I have witnessed in Baltimore alone.
and the cop can't open an active case on that reasoning. There must first be a REPORTED CRIME.
In Baltimore, they can off of a "tip" from a neighbor... for instance, have 6 people living in a house (it's a SIX bedroom house, btw), two gfs who visit, only one person who has a car; while the rest bum rides to and from work.
Get one complaint from a neighbor that they think you are dealing drugs... see how long (errr... short) a time period it takes before your house is being staked out.
Or perhaps they will just bust in your door and search the place - guess what? No warrant needed (due to laws passed in the late 60's in Baltimore City).
Or, have an unregistered car (let's say a car you are working on fixing) in your enclosed garage that is in your back yard and have a neighbor report it to the police. Due to laws passed in 1968-1969 in Baltimore City, the police have the right to go onto your property, break into your garage and tow the car to the impound lot.
Now tell me that there isn't some sort of "active case" in those matters...
For your reasoning, hmm, you;re driving without a license in your possession. That's enough to get you arrested on it's own, whether or not you HAVE one, not having it ON you is illegal.
In many states, it's a simple fine ($5-50)
If they have existing probable cause to believe you may have paraphernalia on you, or associate you with a known criminal, then YES, they can request to search your car.
This can simply be driving through the wrong neighborhood because that is the shortest route and your GPS directed you there. Gotta remember, your GPS may have an "Avoid congestion" selection and a "Highways only" selection... but it does not have an "Avoid known drug/criminal activity neighborhoods" selection.
Is that probable cause?
If you refuse, they impound it, do some more paperwork, still don;t require a warrant, and search it anyway. if they find nothing, they apologize and send you on your way.
I've watched them "disassemble" a car on the street (or pretty close) in the neighborhood I used to live in... ripped the seats out, the trunk, carpeting and everything.
Must be nice to get a "Sorry, go on your way" when your car is literally in PIECES on the STREET and SIDEWALK.
If they find something, you are guilty, period. Evidence is evidence is evidence. Illegally found or not, YOU are guilty, sue the cop and put him in jail WITH you if he didn't follow due process...
Because THAT works... yeah right.
However, that has no bearing on this argument. This location data (which is just TOWER location data btw, not down to the meter GPS location data unless you called 911), is as easily collected by an officer legally following you, or by your purchase records which don;t require a warrant to obtain, or by your work schedule, time clock log, and just about anything else they can get. WHERE YOU GO IN PUBLIC IS NOT PRIVATE INFORMATION YOU PARANOID NUT JOB.
Access to that information however, without due process, YES, you can sue the department for that. That's why it requires a form to be filled out, and then Verizon further CHARGES for it. Do you really think a chief of police is going to look favorably on a cop who accessed your wife's records, unless there was an open case documented that she was tied to, and where those records had likelihood of having value to the case? No, he's going to deduct that charge from the cop's payroll, likely suspend him, possibly notify you (IA says he has to), and maybe fire him.
Really, get a clue... reality is not what you think it is.
Don't like someone badmouthing the government? Require them to register. Then when they (obviously) don't do it, stick 'em in jail and take their money.
badmouthing the government != subversion, since you aren't, you know, actually subverting anything.
Hmmm... maybe I should brush up on the Patriot Act - I think it disagrees with you on this.
Thanks for the clarification... I had (incorrectly) assumed they could still try to withdraw the case and invalidate the decision through such means....
And a final thing to consider is that cell phone use (texting or otherwise) may not have decreased at all, regardless of what the study cites. I know quite a few people who simply put their cell phones down when they see a cop nearby.
It is far more believable that a driver will see a cop before the cop can see that the driver is using the phone (which requires being closer) - especially as since the new laws have went into effect, the drivers (who text/talk while driving) are more likely to be using their phones more "covertly"
So, I dont see any way they can actually gauge how texting while driving has decreased.
On top of that, even under the assumption that there has been a decline in texting while driving due to the new laws, there has also been an increase in people covertly texting/talking while driving (a chunk of the remainder of people who did such but have not stopped) which is probably even more dangerous than non-covertly doing so. Inotherwords, someone hiding their phone in their lap while texting, and repeatedly having to look drastically away from the road would (in my opinion) be more distracted and less likely to see what's going on around them - as opposed to pre-this-law, where one could hold the phone in front of them and keep some sort of (if even diminished) view of the road while texting...
The RIAA will appeal the ruling that reduced Jammie Thomas-Rasset's $1.92 fine for file sharing to $54,000
That wouldn't be a reduction. That would be a dramatic increase.
The point, perhaps not spelled out too thoroughly in the summary (but covered yesterday) is related to this part:
Joe Sibley, an attorney for Thomas-Rasset, said his client would not settle for the $25,000 that the RIAA has asked for.
The RIAA wants one of two things... either the $1.92M fine (or something similarly high) reinstated, or Thomas-Rasset to settle out of court for $25,000. Anything else hurts the RIAA's chances of asking for such ridiculously high verdicts in the future.
I betcha that if Thomas-Rasset would agree to a private, sealed settlement for a dollar, the RIAA would jump on it. They simply do not want this decision to stand. Which again, brings them one of two options... convincing Thomas-Rasset to settle (for ANY amount... doesnt matter) or getting the verdict/penalty raised to something ridiculous again.
NYC where the maximum speed in the city is capped at 50mph or less as posted
But where everyone drives 70mph on the LIE. There is something fundamentally wrong with the law when most people break it day after day.
But the discussion was not what's wrong with the law... the discussion is, these laws are "supposed" to save lives - and speeding is a major cause of accidents resulting in either injury and/or death... while music sharing in this country does not result in either.
So, I think the point was (a few posts back in this thread) that it was odd that speeding results in such a small fine, while music sharing results in exhorbitant fines - yet one can cause physical injury or death, while the other does not.
This all of course leads into the next big thing at issue, which is that the RIAA has been lobbying for quite some time to make (non commercial, not-for-financial-gain) music sharing criminal.
No, she should force the RIAA to accept the lesser judgment so that this case stands and is not settled, making it at least a little more difficult for them to try for such ridiculously large awards as in the earlier verdict.
Speeding is not criminal. It is an administrative infraction. Misdemeanor and felony (i.e. criminal) traffic violations are few and far between--mostly reckless endangerment and DUIs.
You are only partially correct... as is Zordak. It depends on the state. Even then, other circumstances apply. In New York, it is generally but not always a Traffic Infraction. In New York, you may also be cited with another Traffic Infraction which is also a misdemeanor (at the same time) such as Reckless Driving (which may simply be because you were speeding in heavy rain and for no other reason; thus making your speeding the cause of you getting a misdemeanor charge even if it is listed for a separate infraction - or may be because you were driving like an idiot). Thus, in NY, even a "Traffic Infraction" (Reckless Driving) can also be a misdemeanor at the same time, and may result in the misdemeanor charge when you did nothing but speed (under the wrong conditions, over a certain speed, or whatever criteria the officer chooses).
One more example, in Virginia, speeding 20mph over the limit is automatically also a Reckless Driving charge... and again... whether "basic" speeding is an infraction or a misdemeanor varies per state. And some states move it from an infraction to a misdemeanor if the speeding is in excess of a certain number even if it does not come with a Reckless Driving charge attached (ie: speeding 1-15 over is an infraction, while speeding 16+ over is a misdemeanor).
Speeding, that is, exceeding a posted limit set by political forces and not traffic surveys, is an administrative offense with no chance of causing physical harm to anyone.
Not always true. Many states spend months or years doing traffic surveys to set speed limits. On my street alone, one such survey resulted in the speed limit being changed to 25mph (from 30mph) - and then later after another such survey, being changed back to 30mph and having stop signs added - which apparently seems to be the solution for the problem they were analyzing.
SOME speed limits are set by political forces perhaps, like the 55mph ones on highways near big cities in certain states, or the maximum speed limits set for roads of a certain type in a certain jurisdiction (like the town next to me, where any road not county or state owned cannot have a speed limit over 35mph, or NYC where the maximum speed in the city is capped at 50mph or less as posted).
If people are driving at unsafe speeds, then the risk of injury to others may increase, depending on traffic conditions.
May? Sure, technically you are correct... but those deaths have occurred and are very real. With the amount of speeding related deaths out there, may increase (the risk of) becomes already has caused - a very real statistic - and the deaths and/or injuries involved are also very real.
With file sharing, unless the RIAA manages to buy some new laws, it never results in death (at least not in this country). But who knows? Maybe in a few years, the RIAA will have lobbied successfully to make music sharing a felony punishable by death...;-)
Your interpretation really only makes sense if you assume that the steps must be done sequentially, which is usually never true for paper tests. Usually, questions are intended to be done in whatever order best suits you which, in this case, is the order that tells you to not do the rest.
Well, I would assume the same thing - at least if they were written this way...
10 READ ALL OF THE INSTRUCTIONS.
20 CLAP YOUR HANDS.
30 SHOUT OUT THAT YOU ARE AT STEP 3.
40 JUMP UP AND DOWN.
50 DO NOT PERFORM STEPS 2-4
60 FINISH TEST
Though I would have also expected an infinite loop with a PRINT statement in there someplace as well... you know... maybe finish with:
Because this is a game changing technology, if it pans out.
This is only somewhat a game changing technology.
The article cited, and virtually every big news outlet (for whatever reason, nefarious or otherwise) always seems to forget Tesla and the other startups that seem to be getting more than the cited "40-100 mile" range.
Thus, the reason this is only somewhat game changing is that the "big three" car manufacturers have no interest in using such technologies. If startups can produce cars that already get 300 miles on a charge, then they could have been as well. If these startups like Tesla can produce a more affordable version (like their upcoming Model S and Bluestar) then so could GM, Ford and Chrysler... but again, they have no interest.
Interestingly, Tesla has finally gotten a DOE LOAN to go further forward with the Model S... interesting that they had to battle for a LOAN when they already have a working, viable, 300 mile range electric - yet GM, Chrysler, Ford, Toyota and others have been given a ton of money for their (lack of) efforts.
So again, this is not really a game changing technology since it is highly doubtful that the big auto makers have any interest in it (for whatever reason) - though hopefully if it works, Tesla will increase their already impressive range from 300 miles to 500 miles...
Meh, only 5% of unemployment cases get denied due to misconduct discharges. Misconduct is
Generally "misconduct" involves an act of willful disregard of the employer's interests or a deliberate violation of the employer's rules or an intentional and substantial disregard of the employee's duty to the employer.
I thin you misread my intent. I was not saying that it happens all the time... I was saying it can happen - if even only 5% (though I know not where you got that statistic from, and am doubtful it is correct...). But that aside... my point was it can happen... regardless of how frequently or infrequently.
If you subpoena the employers timekeeping records and they only show you being late 3 times in 10 years then their appeal of your benefits will get denied.
It has happened. I've worked with people it has happened to. All you need is an arbitrator (or whatever the person's title is that decides such) that follows the law to the letter. 3 times is a violation of the company's rule (discussing theoretical company that has such a rule, like some of the ones I have worked for), thus three violations is grounds for termination per the company rules. Following the law to the letter means the person was rightfully dismissed due to a "violation of the employer's rules"
If you have that stuff documented, they can't screw you out of unemployment.
Sure they can... even if one is perfect, I am sure there are citable reasons one would have trouble defending against in an unemployment benefits battle. And if the person is not perfect, well, then, there's grounds for termination without unemployment. "Gee, that's the third time you were late... I dont care that it was only 37 seconds, or only the 3rd time in 10 years... the employee rules state that on the 3rd time, we can terminate you. This has nothing to do with that whole lost data fiasco that you documented was my fault."
Seen it happen. Fortunately never to me... though, I also never filed for unemployment...
I recall she then argued that I'd be 'sucking her d***' (yes, it didn't make sense) some day when I actually needed a lawyer. This is horrible because of course I would want a lawyer when I actually *need* one.
Damn! That's wonderful news! That means all we each have to do when we need lawyers, is find the lawyer of the right gender, make sure they are cute, and pay for their services with sex!
Of course, next time, if I were you, I wouldnt select a she-male... unless you are into that of course...;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the interesting thing larger (tall, obese or both) flyers AND the airlines should be aware of. Numerous airplanes (except the small ones) have varying sized seats (even in coach) - just like many movie theaters. Simply accomodating a larger passenger by placing them in a larger seat seems to be a viable method of ensuring people's comfort.
I've flown on flights with very very tall people, who erroneously booked a seat under the baggage rack next to the window (DUH!), and the stewardess has moved them to a more comfortable seat without having been asked. I've also seen them move wider customers to wider seats.
Yeah, not all planes are configured in that fashion... but both (a) care should be taken by the customer to choose the correct seats (WHEN available) and by the airline in making the availability of such seats known (though I guess that could be a problem when thin customers who simply want a lot of room grab those seats for themselves).
I agree too... but I am pointing out that such may not be the only problem... as it is, the "high end" HP at one of the companies we support, even after a fresh install (and installing all the updates) would be inadequate for 30 users that moderately to heavily use the machine - such was not the case when it was purchased.
Keep in mind that the memory and CPU requirements for the same OS (Windows XP, Windows Server ____) have doubled to quadrupled since their initial releases. Remember the days of XP coming preloaded on machines with 128MB of RAM? I do... Can you even imagine it booting on that now? Not just can I not imagine it... but SP3 (and possibly SP2) wont even install and report that there is not enough memory to support the service pack (or some such... I should remember the exact wording, as I just got that message today on a customer's machine). I've got another machine in here now with a "whopping" 256MB and preinstalled XP. "It used to be so fast... but now it's slow as a dog... I dont know why. It's a new installation and all" - of course, you and I know that's simply because XP with SP3 and the 60+ fixes since then, requires a lot more than 256MB to run - much less run itself and this customer's selection of either Word 2003 or WordPerfect 11.
As for the VM issue... well, I've run Windows XP and Windows Vista in VMs on rather ancient machines (including one being an ancient AMD Athlon 1200), and run Windows XP in a VM on a PII 300. So... though we both would suspect that the hardware shouldn't be that ancient, we may both be wrong.
So, I agree with you... heck, any time a server slows down beyond the norm, it's time to check for a cause... just saying without more details, the hardware can indeed be the bottleneck with a fully up to date version of Windows.
If your domain controllers take 15 minutes to shut down, then:
- your domain controllers are running on very dilapidated old hardware - your domain controllers are sluggish because they are infested with spyware & rootkits - you have the biggest active directory installation anyone has ever seen
Domain controllers should take less than a minute to shut down, and typically much less.
- Or you are running Windows Server with a lot of services that need to be stopped.
- Or you are running Windows Server on an older box that used to be overkill for it, but since all the years worth of updates is just marginal (yet too expensive to replace... as an example, we just had to purchase a new WS2003 license for a client to do a reinstall. MS recommends WS2008... but when you look at the resource requirements, you realize that the (used to be top of the line) HP server that's 6 years old doesnt even come halfway to the required specs... meaning upgrade the HP as much as possible due to performance loss after all the service packs and hotfixes, or replace it with another $20,000 server so they can run WS2008 - no, a generic, build at home, server is not an option. They require the redundancy and high end components that are in their current server).
- Or there are client stations that are taking forever to honor the disconnect request, forcing the server to wait for the timeout period before force-disconnecting them - and then it can start the shutdown of the services in it's goal of shutting down the server.
So, no, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with their setup.
- Determine your power usage per UPS
- Look at the runtime specs (at that load) for a new UPS
- Purchase the new UPS.
It's really almost that simple. Really.
The only other considerations are
(a) Realizing getting an "el-cheapo" UPS is often a great way of ensuring failure
(b) Properly determining any other needs the UPS should handle (active line filtering, etc)
That's pretty much it. Yes, it may cost you more money than you want to spend, but sometimes spending the money is the only option.
Now, there are other alternatives that may save some money.
- Find a used UPS that has inexpensive batteries. Before purchase, make sure all the electronics/charging circuit(s) are functional. Then purchase it and replace the batteries. I've scored 3 decent APC UPS that way and then replaced the batteries in them, leaving me with three "virtually new" UPS units for far cheaper than buying the exact same units new.
- Find a new or used UPS that does NOT meet your needs but allows adding battery expansion modules. But first, research it for "aftermarket" expansion methods. As an example, the APC UPS units I have allow such. I can "simply" find the correct AGM batteries, wire them correctly and hook them up directly to the battery harness for my unit... apparently, some crafty people out there have used the same model UPS in such manner and gotten DAYS worth of runtime. Of course, it also means DAYS worth of charging time.
- Look for an alternative method of power backup, such as an "instant" on generator that is "electronics AND computer rated" (and then still run the UPSs on the inside end of it and ensure they do line filtering, sine wave correction and power out-of-range (brownouts, over-voltage) protection.
- Create your own UPS units using high quality true-sine inverters and decent deep-cycle batteries. You can find the inverters for such at any decent "off-the-grid"/solar supplier. Get one that will recharge the batteries when main power is restored. Also ensure it can charge as many batteries as you need for the required runtime. The advantage of this method is, with the correct inverter, you can add a ton (possibly literally) of batteries to have massive amounts of runtime - and you can buy higher Ah batteries cheaper. Ensure the batteries are properly cabled, stored and (sealed or otherwise) vented.
[humor]
You could always ask Microsoft... that sounds like almost every piece of software they currently (or even previously) sell or sold (with of course differences in the amounts of code). Maintaining it properly seems to be working fi.....
...ummmm, never mind. Perhaps you should simply learn how to market it really well, kill the competition via anti-competitive actions, and kludge on a thing or two so that you can claim you've "improved" it.
[/humor]
OK, example 1, due process if followed, and yes in Bltimore, upon a tip and due process followed, they can invade if they "witness a crime in progress" which must be completely documented. They can NOT just "break in" on a tip. You have not studied that case law.
Who's definition of "Due Process"? All they need is the tip... no warrant... no nothing.
You still dont get the point. If I hate my neighbor, I can make the tip... anonymously or not... and then my neighbor is screwed.
Illegal car on your property, that's all they nbeed to know. bot no, they won't enter the locked garrage on a tip alone,
Wrong... they will. Been there, done that.
Again, you shouldn't be discussing things you dont know about. Again, been there, done that, seen that...
but that tip might get an officer to "pay attention" and if they see the garrage open, or if you drive the car, yes, they'll document it, then come back and take it.
Again, NON WORKING CAR. NOT DRIVABLE. NEVER LEFT PROPERTY. CLOSED GARAGE. GARAGE IS STANDALONE IN BACK YARD OF PROPERTY. Do you know how much it costs to get it out of impound?
Same goes for a car parked on one's driveway in said back yard where it is NOT visible from the street. Again, do you know how much it costs to get it out of impound? I do.
In many states, your PROPERTY is not private, only the inside of your home is, since people like meter readers and public servants need access to your LAND. Further, a standing garrage qualifies differently in some states. They can't search it without a warrant, but they can impound a car inside of it then have evidence of. (typically, they ask to see it or see it themselves, the city really doesn't care enough to risk a lawsuit over a small municipal fine).
And again, you are wrong... and again, I've been there, done that. Nor does a HOUSE have such protections in Baltimore City. "Suspicion" is more than enough. And that "suspicion" can quite easily be a tip from a neighbor that doesnt like you for whatever mundane reason (doesnt cut the grass every week, leaves his pail on the street for a day past when the garbage men empty it). Or it could simply be because that person filed a complaint with the city because the publicly owned strip of land across their small street that is owned by the city (median between the street and the 6 lane highway on the other side... street only has houses on one side, median and highway on the other) has grown grass FOUR FEET tall and the DPWs give the lame excuse that they weren't prepared for the grass growing and apparently didnt expect it to do so... (you know, like it does EVERY spring? Yeah, that would take me by surprise... why in the world would the grass grow that spring too? Even though it's done so since the beginning of recorded history in the area).
In SC driving without a license on your person is a $75 fine, but more importantly, they can't let you continue to drive without it unless you have other documents proving your identity, and your insurance on you, and they look up and validate your currently active license and lack of warrants against you.
Being in public is not probable cause. Getting pulled over is.
Ummm... what about being pulled over for being in the wrong neighborhood? So since one was pulled over, that now becomes probable cause?
Being parked in a known drug neighbood might be enough,
Not being PARKED... DRIVING THROUGH. I've watched it happen. Two white kids in a predominantly black, poor neighborhood known for drug sales. I've had it happen to friends as well.
but so long as you don;t stop there, even if a cop does pull you over, you can easily POINT AT YOUR GPS and show him you;ve been following a route, at which point, probable cause is refuted,
Wrong, at which point the cops wont
You really are out of touch with reality... here is what I have witnessed in Baltimore alone.
and the cop can't open an active case on that reasoning. There must first be a REPORTED CRIME.
In Baltimore, they can off of a "tip" from a neighbor... for instance, have 6 people living in a house (it's a SIX bedroom house, btw), two gfs who visit, only one person who has a car; while the rest bum rides to and from work.
Get one complaint from a neighbor that they think you are dealing drugs... see how long (errr... short) a time period it takes before your house is being staked out.
Or perhaps they will just bust in your door and search the place - guess what? No warrant needed (due to laws passed in the late 60's in Baltimore City).
Or, have an unregistered car (let's say a car you are working on fixing) in your enclosed garage that is in your back yard and have a neighbor report it to the police. Due to laws passed in 1968-1969 in Baltimore City, the police have the right to go onto your property, break into your garage and tow the car to the impound lot.
Now tell me that there isn't some sort of "active case" in those matters...
For your reasoning, hmm, you;re driving without a license in your possession. That's enough to get you arrested on it's own, whether or not you HAVE one, not having it ON you is illegal.
In many states, it's a simple fine ($5-50)
If they have existing probable cause to believe you may have paraphernalia on you, or associate you with a known criminal, then YES, they can request to search your car.
This can simply be driving through the wrong neighborhood because that is the shortest route and your GPS directed you there. Gotta remember, your GPS may have an "Avoid congestion" selection and a "Highways only" selection... but it does not have an "Avoid known drug/criminal activity neighborhoods" selection.
Is that probable cause?
If you refuse, they impound it, do some more paperwork, still don;t require a warrant, and search it anyway. if they find nothing, they apologize and send you on your way.
I've watched them "disassemble" a car on the street (or pretty close) in the neighborhood I used to live in... ripped the seats out, the trunk, carpeting and everything.
Must be nice to get a "Sorry, go on your way" when your car is literally in PIECES on the STREET and SIDEWALK.
If they find something, you are guilty, period. Evidence is evidence is evidence. Illegally found or not, YOU are guilty, sue the cop and put him in jail WITH you if he didn't follow due process...
Because THAT works... yeah right.
However, that has no bearing on this argument. This location data (which is just TOWER location data btw, not down to the meter GPS location data unless you called 911), is as easily collected by an officer legally following you, or by your purchase records which don;t require a warrant to obtain, or by your work schedule, time clock log, and just about anything else they can get. WHERE YOU GO IN PUBLIC IS NOT PRIVATE INFORMATION YOU PARANOID NUT JOB.
Access to that information however, without due process, YES, you can sue the department for that. That's why it requires a form to be filled out, and then Verizon further CHARGES for it. Do you really think a chief of police is going to look favorably on a cop who accessed your wife's records, unless there was an open case documented that she was tied to, and where those records had likelihood of having value to the case? No, he's going to deduct that charge from the cop's payroll, likely suspend him, possibly notify you (IA says he has to), and maybe fire him.
Really, get a clue... reality is not what you think it is.
A problem has been detected and windows has been shut down to prevent damage to your computer.
I always wondered what damage to the computer it is preventing...
Don't like someone badmouthing the government? Require them to register. Then when they (obviously) don't do it, stick 'em in jail and take their money.
badmouthing the government != subversion, since you aren't, you know, actually subverting anything.
Hmmm... maybe I should brush up on the Patriot Act - I think it disagrees with you on this.
Thanks for the clarification... I had (incorrectly) assumed they could still try to withdraw the case and invalidate the decision through such means....
And a final thing to consider is that cell phone use (texting or otherwise) may not have decreased at all, regardless of what the study cites. I know quite a few people who simply put their cell phones down when they see a cop nearby.
It is far more believable that a driver will see a cop before the cop can see that the driver is using the phone (which requires being closer) - especially as since the new laws have went into effect, the drivers (who text/talk while driving) are more likely to be using their phones more "covertly"
So, I dont see any way they can actually gauge how texting while driving has decreased.
On top of that, even under the assumption that there has been a decline in texting while driving due to the new laws, there has also been an increase in people covertly texting/talking while driving (a chunk of the remainder of people who did such but have not stopped) which is probably even more dangerous than non-covertly doing so. Inotherwords, someone hiding their phone in their lap while texting, and repeatedly having to look drastically away from the road would (in my opinion) be more distracted and less likely to see what's going on around them - as opposed to pre-this-law, where one could hold the phone in front of them and keep some sort of (if even diminished) view of the road while texting...
The RIAA will appeal the ruling that reduced Jammie Thomas-Rasset's $1.92 fine for file sharing to $54,000
That wouldn't be a reduction. That would be a dramatic increase.
The point, perhaps not spelled out too thoroughly in the summary (but covered yesterday) is related to this part:
Joe Sibley, an attorney for Thomas-Rasset, said his client would not settle for the $25,000 that the RIAA has asked for.
The RIAA wants one of two things... either the $1.92M fine (or something similarly high) reinstated, or Thomas-Rasset to settle out of court for $25,000. Anything else hurts the RIAA's chances of asking for such ridiculously high verdicts in the future.
I betcha that if Thomas-Rasset would agree to a private, sealed settlement for a dollar, the RIAA would jump on it. They simply do not want this decision to stand. Which again, brings them one of two options... convincing Thomas-Rasset to settle (for ANY amount... doesnt matter) or getting the verdict/penalty raised to something ridiculous again.
Hopefully Thomas-Rasset will stick to her guns...
The RIAA Blows More Smoke
But where everyone drives 70mph on the LIE. There is something fundamentally wrong with the law when most people break it day after day.
But the discussion was not what's wrong with the law... the discussion is, these laws are "supposed" to save lives - and speeding is a major cause of accidents resulting in either injury and/or death... while music sharing in this country does not result in either.
So, I think the point was (a few posts back in this thread) that it was odd that speeding results in such a small fine, while music sharing results in exhorbitant fines - yet one can cause physical injury or death, while the other does not.
This all of course leads into the next big thing at issue, which is that the RIAA has been lobbying for quite some time to make (non commercial, not-for-financial-gain) music sharing criminal.
No, she should force the RIAA to accept the lesser judgment so that this case stands and is not settled, making it at least a little more difficult for them to try for such ridiculously large awards as in the earlier verdict.
Speeding is not criminal. It is an administrative infraction. Misdemeanor and felony (i.e. criminal) traffic violations are few and far between--mostly reckless endangerment and DUIs.
You are only partially correct... as is Zordak. It depends on the state. Even then, other circumstances apply. In New York, it is generally but not always a Traffic Infraction. In New York, you may also be cited with another Traffic Infraction which is also a misdemeanor (at the same time) such as Reckless Driving (which may simply be because you were speeding in heavy rain and for no other reason; thus making your speeding the cause of you getting a misdemeanor charge even if it is listed for a separate infraction - or may be because you were driving like an idiot). Thus, in NY, even a "Traffic Infraction" (Reckless Driving) can also be a misdemeanor at the same time, and may result in the misdemeanor charge when you did nothing but speed (under the wrong conditions, over a certain speed, or whatever criteria the officer chooses).
One more example, in Virginia, speeding 20mph over the limit is automatically also a Reckless Driving charge... and again... whether "basic" speeding is an infraction or a misdemeanor varies per state. And some states move it from an infraction to a misdemeanor if the speeding is in excess of a certain number even if it does not come with a Reckless Driving charge attached (ie: speeding 1-15 over is an infraction, while speeding 16+ over is a misdemeanor).
Speeding, that is, exceeding a posted limit set by political forces and not traffic surveys, is an administrative offense with no chance of causing physical harm to anyone.
Not always true. Many states spend months or years doing traffic surveys to set speed limits. On my street alone, one such survey resulted in the speed limit being changed to 25mph (from 30mph) - and then later after another such survey, being changed back to 30mph and having stop signs added - which apparently seems to be the solution for the problem they were analyzing.
SOME speed limits are set by political forces perhaps, like the 55mph ones on highways near big cities in certain states, or the maximum speed limits set for roads of a certain type in a certain jurisdiction (like the town next to me, where any road not county or state owned cannot have a speed limit over 35mph, or NYC where the maximum speed in the city is capped at 50mph or less as posted).
If people are driving at unsafe speeds, then the risk of injury to others may increase, depending on traffic conditions.
May? Sure, technically you are correct... but those deaths have occurred and are very real. With the amount of speeding related deaths out there, may increase (the risk of) becomes already has caused - a very real statistic - and the deaths and/or injuries involved are also very real.
With file sharing, unless the RIAA manages to buy some new laws, it never results in death (at least not in this country). But who knows? Maybe in a few years, the RIAA will have lobbied successfully to make music sharing a felony punishable by death... ;-)
Your interpretation really only makes sense if you assume that the steps must be done sequentially, which is usually never true for paper tests. Usually, questions are intended to be done in whatever order best suits you which, in this case, is the order that tells you to not do the rest.
Well, I would assume the same thing - at least if they were written this way...
10 READ ALL OF THE INSTRUCTIONS.
20 CLAP YOUR HANDS.
30 SHOUT OUT THAT YOU ARE AT STEP 3.
40 JUMP UP AND DOWN.
50 DO NOT PERFORM STEPS 2-4
60 FINISH TEST
Though I would have also expected an infinite loop with a PRINT statement in there someplace as well... you know... maybe finish with:
70 PRINT "HELLO"
80 GOTO 70
Would I have been so forgiving if it were IE that were late with their security additions?
I dunno... though I also dont know if this security addition works in IE8 either... ;-)
Because this is a game changing technology, if it pans out.
This is only somewhat a game changing technology.
The article cited, and virtually every big news outlet (for whatever reason, nefarious or otherwise) always seems to forget Tesla and the other startups that seem to be getting more than the cited "40-100 mile" range.
Thus, the reason this is only somewhat game changing is that the "big three" car manufacturers have no interest in using such technologies. If startups can produce cars that already get 300 miles on a charge, then they could have been as well. If these startups like Tesla can produce a more affordable version (like their upcoming Model S and Bluestar) then so could GM, Ford and Chrysler... but again, they have no interest.
Interestingly, Tesla has finally gotten a DOE LOAN to go further forward with the Model S... interesting that they had to battle for a LOAN when they already have a working, viable, 300 mile range electric - yet GM, Chrysler, Ford, Toyota and others have been given a ton of money for their (lack of) efforts.
So again, this is not really a game changing technology since it is highly doubtful that the big auto makers have any interest in it (for whatever reason) - though hopefully if it works, Tesla will increase their already impressive range from 300 miles to 500 miles...
Meh, only 5% of unemployment cases get denied due to misconduct discharges. Misconduct is Generally "misconduct" involves an act of willful disregard of the employer's interests or a deliberate violation of the employer's rules or an intentional and substantial disregard of the employee's duty to the employer.
I thin you misread my intent. I was not saying that it happens all the time... I was saying it can happen - if even only 5% (though I know not where you got that statistic from, and am doubtful it is correct...). But that aside... my point was it can happen... regardless of how frequently or infrequently.
If you subpoena the employers timekeeping records and they only show you being late 3 times in 10 years then their appeal of your benefits will get denied.
It has happened. I've worked with people it has happened to. All you need is an arbitrator (or whatever the person's title is that decides such) that follows the law to the letter. 3 times is a violation of the company's rule (discussing theoretical company that has such a rule, like some of the ones I have worked for), thus three violations is grounds for termination per the company rules. Following the law to the letter means the person was rightfully dismissed due to a "violation of the employer's rules"
If you have that stuff documented, they can't screw you out of unemployment.
Sure they can... even if one is perfect, I am sure there are citable reasons one would have trouble defending against in an unemployment benefits battle. And if the person is not perfect, well, then, there's grounds for termination without unemployment. "Gee, that's the third time you were late... I dont care that it was only 37 seconds, or only the 3rd time in 10 years... the employee rules state that on the 3rd time, we can terminate you. This has nothing to do with that whole lost data fiasco that you documented was my fault."
Seen it happen. Fortunately never to me... though, I also never filed for unemployment...
I recall she then argued that I'd be 'sucking her d***' (yes, it didn't make sense) some day when I actually needed a lawyer. This is horrible because of course I would want a lawyer when I actually *need* one.
Damn! That's wonderful news! That means all we each have to do when we need lawyers, is find the lawyer of the right gender, make sure they are cute, and pay for their services with sex!
Of course, next time, if I were you, I wouldnt select a she-male... unless you are into that of course... ;-)
who's wife? ;-)
Who is wife? You are wife!
The correct word in this case is "whose."
Or... "Who is (your or this or borrowed) wife?"
Shortened to... "Who's wife?"
It actually does make sense in the context of the discussion. ;-)
LoL! Wondering if anyone would catch that. :-)
I only need a good 5 minutes with the wife.
You're on Slashdot, and claim to have a wife? Heck, even a girlfriend woulda been a stretch of the imagination...
Oh wait, you did say "with the wife" and not "with my wife" - so the question then remains... who's wife? ;-)
which estimated that the glaciers could disappear by 2350, not 2035.
Dislexyia... that would be my excuse if I were them... :-)