The mass of C17H19NO3 is 285.1936. Now, figure out if that is the spicy peperine, or if someone is shooting up by just the mass. Sure, in conjunction with a metabolic byproduct test, you could differentiate. But the test alone is highly flawed.
So when you reload and remove the primer, you know that part that's hit by the firing pin on center fire rounds, then put in a new primer, powder, and bullet; where do you think that stamp on the old, discarded primer is going to go? Into the trash, because primers don't get used twice.
You might have a point on rim fire rounds, like a.22, where having a reloaded brass means it will be stamped with multiple firing pin numbers. But your average.38, 9mm, and near everything else for that matter, will only have your serial number on it. Now, if you were to instead just collect their casings, and leave them at the scene while not dropping any of your own, that would make more sense.
In another instance of liberal stupidity, the perpetrator of the VPI slayings was in and out of mental health treatment for many months before that tragic event. The liberals in charge of VPI Health Services did not want to disadvantage a student from future firearms ownership by registering this student with the Virginia State Police as being mentally unstable.
And that's not near the truth. The paperwork for an involuntary hold was bungled, true, but not as some liberal conspiracy in charge of the university's health care system. Either the local mental health care agency or the police, I forget which just now, checked the wrong boxes on paper work and when Cho's case went to a judge, the further paperwork to list him in the registry, and held for 72 hour eval, was not completed correctly. And, just so you know, there is still some nice deer and turkey hunting in the area. Bear isn't my thing, so I don't know how that's been.
Frankly, it boggles my mind that anyone would blame a liberal conspiracy for letting someone keep their access to guns. If everyone who went through mental health counseling had their right to bear arms revoked, you'd probably be screaming about "the lie-berals are taking all our guns!" Can't have both, ya know. Do the "evil liberals" want to take away everyone's guns? Or do they want to protect the gun rights of a psychopath?
If it's disclosed in the contract, then installing the CA list on the workstation is a way to cut down on tech support calls. Imagine every ditz in the company, trying to do company business on a remote https site, calling daily because "OMG, the computer says the site isn't secure, I should warn the company." This way, the warning isn't there for stuff that the company is monitoring, but should some third party try to intercept data, the drones aren't lulled into just clicking 'okay'.
The problem with that question is it assumes the same author for both the library and the main program. If I write a program that is not gpl and allow plug-ins by other authors under "My-License", and rogue user creates a plug-in using gpl code; that is the plug-in authors problem, not mine. The FSF would have to show that I agreed to the gpl with regard to the project; which simply having a plug-in API does not show.
You don't have to expose all of the hospital devices/systems to the Internet, just to ensure they all have the same, accurate clock time!!
You want every device to check itself against a hospital wide server, I expect most of those devices would have to do so wirelessly since transmitting data over the power line might fail certain power fluctuation hardiness tests. So, now the anesthesia device broadcasts a wireless signal that could be, oh, spoofed somehow? Maybe a rogue device that moves the clock forward just a bit too fast, or one that retards the clock a bit, and keeps it from dosing correctly?
Someone else said it right, hospital devices don't care what time it is. They only need to care about how much time has passed. If a certain device needs to know time-passage accurately, there is no need to give it an NTP client to do so.
I've been using an HP dv7 17" for a few years. The keypad is seperate keys, not emulated at buttons 1-0 above the Q row. Only downside to this particular model is that the CPU's heat sink goes directly under the left wrist rest for the keyboard. Long periods at high temps results in a very sore wrist.
I would love to see CUDA implement something along these lines. A fast, dumb, mode would be another way that a raytracer could lower quality for a preview and, if it is faster than the current double precision float math, that would be great boost to how fast one can prototype both the program (check image against reference) and a given scene. And by doing the switch in hardware, it would mean the software could focus on just having one code base and set math options, instead of having different raytraceing math for single vs double vs anythingelse.
Fact is these are serious chronic conditions that need some monitoring by doctors.
Yeah, but how much? That's the big question. For simple things like hypertension that's easily controlled with a medication or two, a script could handle it - input age, sex, weight, allergies, co morbid conditions and a couple of other things and out pops some pills. The next problem is getting the patient to take them and seeing if they work.
Carefully checking the efficacy of a blood pressure medication is probably something that needs a human, a physical exam of some limited sort and some lab work (at some point). A bit more than you could typically do in a pharmacy, but you certainly don't need a full scale medical clinic. The problem comes when the person smokes, is trying to get diabetes, has hypertension and, oh, their back hurts and 'what's this rash'. Then you need the full monty. Your typical doctor's office is designed to handle pretty much every ambulatory complaint and maybe a minor emergency or two. Pharmacists, not so much.
So, as a patient, you have a problem (actually several). Exactly who are you supposed to be seeing? Do you need to see the goofball wearing the white lab coats (why lab coats? I hate lab coats. I didn't even wear them when I did wet lab things.) Maybe. How about the nice nurse practitioner? Maybe. Nobody really knows. All of the data is horribly skewed. The nurse practitioner centric data tends to include mostly 'simple' patients with only one or two problems. The doctor centric literature has stories of edge cases that the NP missed (and likely 5/10 physicians would do exactly the same). Like much data in what essentially amounts to the social sciences, it can be read however you want to read it.
Add in that possibility of a kiosk option, and the fact that people are more likely to lie to a computer about their smoking/drinking/sugar habits, and you have a big potential for trouble.
Me, I'm fond of the way my doctor runs things. If I call and just say "I'm sick, can I see someone?" then I am more likely to see the PA or one of the RNs, who will get my doctor to sign off on any major changes. Blood-work, I get copies of the complete labs mailed to my apartment. Major incidences, I can call and say "Look, I need my doctor to straighten this out, when's her next available opening?" and get an appointment to see her directly and talk out any problems. Plus, she knows my case well enough, now, that she keeps 10 or more minutes set just for maintenance work of making sure scripts are refilled, referral numbers are up to date, and talking to make sure we are both on the same page for further treatment and available options. And that's just my general doctor; I won't see specialists who herd me through an office.
tl;dr - most people's doctor problem is the patient. Stop lying to doctors, and make sure they aren't lying to you by getting copies of labs and blood-work. And if they are incompetent, get a new doctor!
I've said it before on/. ActionScript is ECMA with a nice set of libraries, amd flashdevelop is free. It makes a great prototyping tool, can speak with networks, serial devices, and nearly everything else. But, it doesn't do everything very well. 3d libraries are painful, and SQL was all 3rd party libraries.
A lot depends on what you want to do. Processing is another great prototyping language, C# is useful in the Unity engine, and C or PIC BASIC or Arduino's Java-like are great for microcontrollers. PHP and ruby for web-aps. And the only reason I don't recommend python is that I haven't needed to use it.
1. Only federal employees can be sued under the FTCA, not independent contractors hired by the federal government (unless they are treated like employees).
2. The negligent or wrongful conduct must have been done within the scope of the defendant's employment.
3. In general, only claims of negligence -- as opposed to intentional misconduct -- are allowed (though some claims for intentional misconduct can be brought against certain federal law enforcement officers).
4. The claim must be based on -- and permitted by -- the law of the state in which the misconduct occurred.
1. The FBI can't say "Contractors did this", however, they could point the finger back at the RIAA and say, "They gave us bad info!"
File for discovery, get buried in paperwork, find evidence that FBI knew better, file to block dismissal.
2. Yeah, that meets the criteria. Of course, the FBI can also say that they were "acting in good faith" on the information they were provided by the RIAA. End of lawsuit.
File for discovery, get buried in paperwork, find evidence that FBI knew better, file to block dismissal.
3. That's kinda ambiguous. Does the FBI qualify as "certain federal law enforcement officers"??
I believe they are practically the definition of "certain federal law enforcement officers".
4. That's the killer. Where exactly did this happen? Los Angeles? (This is where the servers were.) New York? (The address of the site owner.) Who has jurisdiction, and does that state allow such a lawsuit to proceed? If they both allow it, which one will actually permit it to go ahead? Remember, "allow to go forward" does not mean "will go forward". They can still say no.
File the suit as a violation of federal rights. That has jurisdiction in all the states, and any state law that blocks them is another violation to tack on to the paperwork when you file it a second time. Or if they dismiss with prejudice, just sue the state for violating federal rights by denying rights by blocking the suit. Get enough paperwork going around, and someone will have to stop and answer you, or default by not showing up.
That would be a beautiful reading of the 3rd. Police have been using the arguement that taping a gps tracker to cars is no different than having an officer follow the suspect, but you make a good point that if the gps tracker is an 'agent' then it could become subject to the 3rd amendment. The argument would probably fall apart since the 3rd specifies 'soldiers' and not 'agents of the government', and the originalists would hate diluting the meaning of 'soldier' while progressive judges would, frankly, probably have the same problem. But, the 3rd was cited for Griswold v. Connecticut as a ground for government and laws staying out of people's bedrooms. And used said case as grounds in Roe v. Wade.
I'd actually love to see a case like that brought up. Even if the arguement failed, it would make some interesting case law.
Because GPL 3 states: 1:"The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work." 2:"To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying." In no particular order, as long as the object code is run on the server and not the user's machine, the source code does not need to be distributed. The hole that was closed was javascript/flash/etc where code was distributed and run on the user's machine, but code was not made available because 'they have to use our website to access the app, so it isn't really running on their computer'. I run GPL apps feeding data to a webpage; since people visiting my website do not interact with the code directly (webserver runs on my machine, and the output is not covered by the GPL, see part 1), I do not need to give them the source. Source is only required if the work itself is conveyed.
Now, the GNU Affero GPL is a slightly different beast. But still:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.
Your hypothetical is not access through a computer network, but to a work produced by a person using the GPL code/program. An AGPL webserver would need to have a notice of where to download the source on every page it served. Making it a crappy license for a webserver, imho.
Why are humans a valid abstraction layer? Because the license doesn't say they aren't. The license lays out what is not a valid abstraction, i.e. a computer network. Since it specifies that the output is not necessarily covered by the GPL, and does not rule out a human abstraction layer while it does rule out other abstraction layers, then humans are valid. This has been a lesson in contract law 101, please see your local bar association for more details. While there, order me a scotch, neat.
I run an open access point, sharing my connection with a few neighbors who donate a few bucks a month rather than sign up for an expensive connection they don't need for more than checking email. I'm planning to open an unencrypted access point, bandwidth limited to 2600baud just for s&g. Why? Because I live in a college town filled with geeks. If one of them wants in, they'll find a way. Safer for me to keep something open and let them know they are being toyed with; besides the challenge of keeping the wifi and wired networks separate is fun.
I broke the WEP encryption on my parent's wifi when I first set it up for them. It was all that was available at the time, and using some linux tools I was able to take a computer with no knowledge of the network and first sniff it out and then bash my way in. MAC authintication is worthless, since I had a nice old pcmcia card that used a software set-able MAC address. WPA and WPA2 are vulnerable to deauthentication attacks; unless you spend some time setting up a RADIUS server.
So, since you have no sympathy for the unsecured wifi network users, you must maintain a RADIUS server, right? If not, would you might giving me a rough idea of where your wireless devices are, so I can prove just how unsecured they are?
Therefore, public use of a modified version, on a publicly accessible server, gives the public access to the source code of the modified version.
That's what you are missing. The indirection layer of a human employee is a valid indirection, and should* get you around that clause. However, now matter how many networked misdirections you use, the public is still using the software on a publicly accessible server. Now, if there existed a front page on one server that served data to a GPL v3 app on a non-public server, and got data back and displayed that to the public, you might* have a point and a way around the license clause.
*: read as "get your own lawyer if you want to be a dink about this"
I picked up two similar to these at a thrift store for . . . let's just say less than the cost of a new video game and leave it. The ancient 10baseT hubs that were with them were marked as IRS, so government closeout probably. The top makes an excellent work surface, and the one that doesn't house working rack gear has some shelves in it to store containers full of electronic parts and pieces for future projects. University surplus auctions are another great place to get racks dirt cheap, the last I was at rarely had them going for 5$ per U height for non-enclosed, and a little more than that if you wanted wheels and doors attached.
So make this another vote for "Buy your own, and get them with wheels." The only reason I can see to put one in permanently to the basement wall is if you were going to use the equipment on it as a selling point for the house in the future; and chances are you wouldn't be leaving all the gear in the house anyways so the next buyer wouldn't know what to do with it. If you must wire the whole house, and really want that wiring to a rack and not a wall mounted Telco-style box, then get the smallest rack and just use it for a patch panel. That you will feel comfortable leaving for the next owner, and they won't necessarily feel like they need an IT guy just to manage their house.
I have a ton of photos, so do members of my family. So, we are each others off site backups. When we visit, data on external "grab and go" hard drives get synced and checked, and extra copies of the good pictures get stored on laptops or media centers, etc, to cover drive failure. At the end of a visit, there may be 6 copies of files, and only 2 stay local. No one minds encrypted files either. Need to sync something important when not visiting? Email an encrypted zip and instructions to store it.
Needless to say, this won't work in a secure corporate environment, of if all your family is in the same disaster. But for us, if the same disaster hits all of us, it probably won't be survivable at all.
Ahh, another person who believes that the only rights protected by the Constitution are the ones in amendments and the ones they agree with. Might I suggest you read both the Declaration of Independents and the Constitution? You might be surprised at the other rights you have that are explicitly spelled out.
I don't want to work for anyone who doesn't want to work with me. That is a bad relationship which will end in nothing but misery.
I don't care why they don't want to work with me. Pounding square pegs into round holes is a stupid idea.
So you are white and male? And don't see how these laws are meant to protect you as well as me? My answers to some of those questions would get me lynched in towns near-by, and since they don't affect my ability to perform a job, I'd like to keep the option of working available.
So both incidents I described would, as you see it, be best punished by similar sentences? The more targeted criminal action is not justly deserving of a harsher punishment?
It is difficult, but motivation is already a big part of how our justice system works: manslaughter vs. premediated murder is the good example.
That's not so much a question of motivation as intent. In other words, the difference between manslaughter and murder isn't why you did it (the motivation), but whether you set out to kill someone in the first place.
The difference between Murder 1, Murder 2, and Murder 3 is motivation and mind set. Manslaughter is broken into 1st and 2nd degree, based on either recklessness or criminal negligence.
Slashdot Mirror
The mass of C17H19NO3 is 285.1936. Now, figure out if that is the spicy peperine, or if someone is shooting up by just the mass. Sure, in conjunction with a metabolic byproduct test, you could differentiate. But the test alone is highly flawed.
By that logic, they should never offer driver updates. You bought the card, you paid already, why should they offer support and even upgrades?
So, now the 'smart' criminals just have to learn how to reload rim-fire rounds. Guess we better not tell them how easy that is
So when you reload and remove the primer, you know that part that's hit by the firing pin on center fire rounds, then put in a new primer, powder, and bullet; where do you think that stamp on the old, discarded primer is going to go? Into the trash, because primers don't get used twice.
You might have a point on rim fire rounds, like a .22, where having a reloaded brass means it will be stamped with multiple firing pin numbers. But your average .38, 9mm, and near everything else for that matter, will only have your serial number on it. Now, if you were to instead just collect their casings, and leave them at the scene while not dropping any of your own, that would make more sense.
In another instance of liberal stupidity, the perpetrator of the VPI slayings was in and out of mental health treatment for many months before that tragic event. The liberals in charge of VPI Health Services did not want to disadvantage a student from future firearms ownership by registering this student with the Virginia State Police as being mentally unstable.
And that's not near the truth. The paperwork for an involuntary hold was bungled, true, but not as some liberal conspiracy in charge of the university's health care system. Either the local mental health care agency or the police, I forget which just now, checked the wrong boxes on paper work and when Cho's case went to a judge, the further paperwork to list him in the registry, and held for 72 hour eval, was not completed correctly. And, just so you know, there is still some nice deer and turkey hunting in the area. Bear isn't my thing, so I don't know how that's been.
Frankly, it boggles my mind that anyone would blame a liberal conspiracy for letting someone keep their access to guns. If everyone who went through mental health counseling had their right to bear arms revoked, you'd probably be screaming about "the lie-berals are taking all our guns!" Can't have both, ya know. Do the "evil liberals" want to take away everyone's guns? Or do they want to protect the gun rights of a psychopath?
If it's disclosed in the contract, then installing the CA list on the workstation is a way to cut down on tech support calls. Imagine every ditz in the company, trying to do company business on a remote https site, calling daily because "OMG, the computer says the site isn't secure, I should warn the company." This way, the warning isn't there for stuff that the company is monitoring, but should some third party try to intercept data, the drones aren't lulled into just clicking 'okay'.
The problem with that question is it assumes the same author for both the library and the main program. If I write a program that is not gpl and allow plug-ins by other authors under "My-License", and rogue user creates a plug-in using gpl code; that is the plug-in authors problem, not mine. The FSF would have to show that I agreed to the gpl with regard to the project; which simply having a plug-in API does not show.
You don't have to expose all of the hospital devices/systems to the Internet, just to ensure they all have the same, accurate clock time!!
You want every device to check itself against a hospital wide server, I expect most of those devices would have to do so wirelessly since transmitting data over the power line might fail certain power fluctuation hardiness tests. So, now the anesthesia device broadcasts a wireless signal that could be, oh, spoofed somehow? Maybe a rogue device that moves the clock forward just a bit too fast, or one that retards the clock a bit, and keeps it from dosing correctly?
Someone else said it right, hospital devices don't care what time it is. They only need to care about how much time has passed. If a certain device needs to know time-passage accurately, there is no need to give it an NTP client to do so.
I've been using an HP dv7 17" for a few years. The keypad is seperate keys, not emulated at buttons 1-0 above the Q row. Only downside to this particular model is that the CPU's heat sink goes directly under the left wrist rest for the keyboard. Long periods at high temps results in a very sore wrist.
I would love to see CUDA implement something along these lines. A fast, dumb, mode would be another way that a raytracer could lower quality for a preview and, if it is faster than the current double precision float math, that would be great boost to how fast one can prototype both the program (check image against reference) and a given scene. And by doing the switch in hardware, it would mean the software could focus on just having one code base and set math options, instead of having different raytraceing math for single vs double vs anythingelse.
Given the choice between a free ... app that is a turd, and a great ... app that costs $1, I'll gladly pay the $1.
Funny, I don't think that sentiment has anything to do with the OS that the app is running on.
Fact is these are serious chronic conditions that need some monitoring by doctors.
Yeah, but how much? That's the big question. For simple things like hypertension that's easily controlled with a medication or two, a script could handle it - input age, sex, weight, allergies, co morbid conditions and a couple of other things and out pops some pills. The next problem is getting the patient to take them and seeing if they work.
Carefully checking the efficacy of a blood pressure medication is probably something that needs a human, a physical exam of some limited sort and some lab work (at some point). A bit more than you could typically do in a pharmacy, but you certainly don't need a full scale medical clinic. The problem comes when the person smokes, is trying to get diabetes, has hypertension and, oh, their back hurts and 'what's this rash'. Then you need the full monty. Your typical doctor's office is designed to handle pretty much every ambulatory complaint and maybe a minor emergency or two. Pharmacists, not so much.
So, as a patient, you have a problem (actually several). Exactly who are you supposed to be seeing? Do you need to see the goofball wearing the white lab coats (why lab coats? I hate lab coats. I didn't even wear them when I did wet lab things.) Maybe. How about the nice nurse practitioner? Maybe. Nobody really knows. All of the data is horribly skewed. The nurse practitioner centric data tends to include mostly 'simple' patients with only one or two problems. The doctor centric literature has stories of edge cases that the NP missed (and likely 5/10 physicians would do exactly the same). Like much data in what essentially amounts to the social sciences, it can be read however you want to read it.
Add in that possibility of a kiosk option, and the fact that people are more likely to lie to a computer about their smoking/drinking/sugar habits, and you have a big potential for trouble.
Me, I'm fond of the way my doctor runs things. If I call and just say "I'm sick, can I see someone?" then I am more likely to see the PA or one of the RNs, who will get my doctor to sign off on any major changes. Blood-work, I get copies of the complete labs mailed to my apartment. Major incidences, I can call and say "Look, I need my doctor to straighten this out, when's her next available opening?" and get an appointment to see her directly and talk out any problems. Plus, she knows my case well enough, now, that she keeps 10 or more minutes set just for maintenance work of making sure scripts are refilled, referral numbers are up to date, and talking to make sure we are both on the same page for further treatment and available options. And that's just my general doctor; I won't see specialists who herd me through an office.
tl;dr - most people's doctor problem is the patient. Stop lying to doctors, and make sure they aren't lying to you by getting copies of labs and blood-work. And if they are incompetent, get a new doctor!
I've said it before on /. ActionScript is ECMA with a nice set of libraries, amd flashdevelop is free. It makes a great prototyping tool, can speak with networks, serial devices, and nearly everything else. But, it doesn't do everything very well. 3d libraries are painful, and SQL was all 3rd party libraries.
A lot depends on what you want to do. Processing is another great prototyping language, C# is useful in the Unity engine, and C or PIC BASIC or Arduino's Java-like are great for microcontrollers. PHP and ruby for web-aps. And the only reason I don't recommend python is that I haven't needed to use it.
1. The FBI can't say "Contractors did this", however, they could point the finger back at the RIAA and say, "They gave us bad info!"
File for discovery, get buried in paperwork, find evidence that FBI knew better, file to block dismissal.
2. Yeah, that meets the criteria. Of course, the FBI can also say that they were "acting in good faith" on the information they were provided by the RIAA. End of lawsuit.
File for discovery, get buried in paperwork, find evidence that FBI knew better, file to block dismissal.
3. That's kinda ambiguous. Does the FBI qualify as "certain federal law enforcement officers"??
I believe they are practically the definition of "certain federal law enforcement officers".
4. That's the killer. Where exactly did this happen? Los Angeles? (This is where the servers were.) New York? (The address of the site owner.) Who has jurisdiction, and does that state allow such a lawsuit to proceed? If they both allow it, which one will actually permit it to go ahead? Remember, "allow to go forward" does not mean "will go forward". They can still say no.
File the suit as a violation of federal rights. That has jurisdiction in all the states, and any state law that blocks them is another violation to tack on to the paperwork when you file it a second time. Or if they dismiss with prejudice, just sue the state for violating federal rights by denying rights by blocking the suit. Get enough paperwork going around, and someone will have to stop and answer you, or default by not showing up.
That would be a beautiful reading of the 3rd. Police have been using the arguement that taping a gps tracker to cars is no different than having an officer follow the suspect, but you make a good point that if the gps tracker is an 'agent' then it could become subject to the 3rd amendment. The argument would probably fall apart since the 3rd specifies 'soldiers' and not 'agents of the government', and the originalists would hate diluting the meaning of 'soldier' while progressive judges would, frankly, probably have the same problem. But, the 3rd was cited for Griswold v. Connecticut as a ground for government and laws staying out of people's bedrooms. And used said case as grounds in Roe v. Wade.
I'd actually love to see a case like that brought up. Even if the arguement failed, it would make some interesting case law.
Because GPL 3 states:
1:"The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work."
2:"To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying."
In no particular order, as long as the object code is run on the server and not the user's machine, the source code does not need to be distributed. The hole that was closed was javascript/flash/etc where code was distributed and run on the user's machine, but code was not made available because 'they have to use our website to access the app, so it isn't really running on their computer'. I run GPL apps feeding data to a webpage; since people visiting my website do not interact with the code directly (webserver runs on my machine, and the output is not covered by the GPL, see part 1), I do not need to give them the source. Source is only required if the work itself is conveyed.
Now, the GNU Affero GPL is a slightly different beast. But still:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.
Your hypothetical is not access through a computer network, but to a work produced by a person using the GPL code/program. An AGPL webserver would need to have a notice of where to download the source on every page it served. Making it a crappy license for a webserver, imho.
Why are humans a valid abstraction layer? Because the license doesn't say they aren't. The license lays out what is not a valid abstraction, i.e. a computer network. Since it specifies that the output is not necessarily covered by the GPL, and does not rule out a human abstraction layer while it does rule out other abstraction layers, then humans are valid. This has been a lesson in contract law 101, please see your local bar association for more details. While there, order me a scotch, neat.
I run an open access point, sharing my connection with a few neighbors who donate a few bucks a month rather than sign up for an expensive connection they don't need for more than checking email. I'm planning to open an unencrypted access point, bandwidth limited to 2600baud just for s&g. Why? Because I live in a college town filled with geeks. If one of them wants in, they'll find a way. Safer for me to keep something open and let them know they are being toyed with; besides the challenge of keeping the wifi and wired networks separate is fun.
I broke the WEP encryption on my parent's wifi when I first set it up for them. It was all that was available at the time, and using some linux tools I was able to take a computer with no knowledge of the network and first sniff it out and then bash my way in. MAC authintication is worthless, since I had a nice old pcmcia card that used a software set-able MAC address. WPA and WPA2 are vulnerable to deauthentication attacks; unless you spend some time setting up a RADIUS server.
So, since you have no sympathy for the unsecured wifi network users, you must maintain a RADIUS server, right? If not, would you might giving me a rough idea of where your wireless devices are, so I can prove just how unsecured they are?
That's what you are missing. The indirection layer of a human employee is a valid indirection, and should* get you around that clause. However, now matter how many networked misdirections you use, the public is still using the software on a publicly accessible server. Now, if there existed a front page on one server that served data to a GPL v3 app on a non-public server, and got data back and displayed that to the public, you might* have a point and a way around the license clause.
*: read as "get your own lawyer if you want to be a dink about this"
I picked up two similar to these at a thrift store for . . . let's just say less than the cost of a new video game and leave it. The ancient 10baseT hubs that were with them were marked as IRS, so government closeout probably. The top makes an excellent work surface, and the one that doesn't house working rack gear has some shelves in it to store containers full of electronic parts and pieces for future projects. University surplus auctions are another great place to get racks dirt cheap, the last I was at rarely had them going for 5$ per U height for non-enclosed, and a little more than that if you wanted wheels and doors attached.
So make this another vote for "Buy your own, and get them with wheels." The only reason I can see to put one in permanently to the basement wall is if you were going to use the equipment on it as a selling point for the house in the future; and chances are you wouldn't be leaving all the gear in the house anyways so the next buyer wouldn't know what to do with it. If you must wire the whole house, and really want that wiring to a rack and not a wall mounted Telco-style box, then get the smallest rack and just use it for a patch panel. That you will feel comfortable leaving for the next owner, and they won't necessarily feel like they need an IT guy just to manage their house.
Scudder was elected in 2012, so we may not be that far off.
I have a ton of photos, so do members of my family. So, we are each others off site backups. When we visit, data on external "grab and go" hard drives get synced and checked, and extra copies of the good pictures get stored on laptops or media centers, etc, to cover drive failure. At the end of a visit, there may be 6 copies of files, and only 2 stay local. No one minds encrypted files either. Need to sync something important when not visiting? Email an encrypted zip and instructions to store it.
Needless to say, this won't work in a secure corporate environment, of if all your family is in the same disaster. But for us, if the same disaster hits all of us, it probably won't be survivable at all.
Ahh, another person who believes that the only rights protected by the Constitution are the ones in amendments and the ones they agree with. Might I suggest you read both the Declaration of Independents and the Constitution? You might be surprised at the other rights you have that are explicitly spelled out.
I don't want to work for anyone who doesn't want to work with me. That is a bad relationship which will end in nothing but misery.
I don't care why they don't want to work with me. Pounding square pegs into round holes is a stupid idea.
So you are white and male? And don't see how these laws are meant to protect you as well as me? My answers to some of those questions would get me lynched in towns near-by, and since they don't affect my ability to perform a job, I'd like to keep the option of working available.
So both incidents I described would, as you see it, be best punished by similar sentences? The more targeted criminal action is not justly deserving of a harsher punishment?
It is difficult, but motivation is already a big part of how our justice system works: manslaughter vs. premediated murder is the good example.
That's not so much a question of motivation as intent. In other words, the difference between manslaughter and murder isn't why you did it (the motivation), but whether you set out to kill someone in the first place.
The difference between Murder 1, Murder 2, and Murder 3 is motivation and mind set. Manslaughter is broken into 1st and 2nd degree, based on either recklessness or criminal negligence.