most cheeses are not vegetarian, because the rennet used comes from one of the stomachs of calves.
It's not too difficult to find cheeses that use vegetable rennet. Any kosher cheese doesn't use animal rennet. You don't have quite the same variety available, but you can get the basics like cheddar and mozzarella.
I have to wonder if we lockup all websites as viewable only via SSL - does that limit access to anything (historical) ?
It would only affect servers where the admin is doing just barely enough maintenance to keep the site alive. HTTPS doesn't affect scripts running on the server, page rendering, etc. The content is not affected in any way, and really the only reason that anything at the application layer even needs to know about the encryption is because it has to listen/connect on port 443 instead of port 80.
Actually, all I want is an RDP session into my server or server cluster to get performance. I can travel with a light, low power laptop that just has to render the RDP session. This is not something I'd recommend for gaming, but it very useful for actual high performance computing applications.
Thin clients have been a thing for how many decades now?
How about digitally SELLING these old games so people don't have to download them in the first place???
Depends on which of "these" games you're talking about. They do (at least as of the Wii and WiiU; I don't own a Switch yet) sell many old games as Virtual Console downloads.
Right now courts have (incorrectly, in my view) determined that providing biometrics is not testifying against yourself, but being forced to provide a password is. It's just a really weird place.
I meant to add, it's not all that difficult to turn over a phone and/or its documents without providing the password to law enforcement. You could just change the password before turning it over. Alternatively, you could use an independent third party to get the documents from the phone (yes, I'm aware of the potential issues, which is I why I think this is the worse option).
We need to treat anything that exists in an electronic device, encrypted, as an extension of your some fact in your head that can't be compelled out by legal process.
Why shouldn't anything that exists in an electronic device instead be treated as a document that can be the subject of a search warrant?
Yes, this is a legitimate question intended to seek an explanation for the opinion.
1. The user - and only the user - has the encryption key.
2. Companies are compelled to sell devices that cannot be secured at all, because a 'master key' lives somewhere.
If Wray would like to come up with a third option that doesn't ultimately fall into the category of one of the other two, he's welcome to try. Smarter people have failed.
I suppose it's just a variation on option 1, but how about allowing judges to issue search warrants that cover materials stored on a person's phone? There would be quite a few details to work out to ensure protection from testifying against yourself, but I don't think any such issues are insurmountable. Obviously the police would have to be able to demonstrate that the phone is yours (found it in a parking lot at a mall near your office, no; found it in your pocket when they arrested you, yes). And in case someone wants to bring up the ridiculous idea that a person's password is "IKilledThatHooker", arrangements can be made to change the password before turning over the phone, most likely involving attorneys for both sides and maybe even an independent third party.
You're assuming they got 5 days of work done in 4 which I don't see written anywhere in the summary
Maybe try reading it again?
job and life satisfaction increased on all levels across the home and work front, with employees performing better in their jobs and enjoying them more than before the experiment.
But then you'd have less value to society. As long as we're capitalistic-focused, your value in society is in what you produce and what you consume. Do less of either, and you're a less valuable person to society.
A major point of this company's change to a 32-hour work week is that overall performance improved. So by working 4 days per week instead of 5, these people are producing more. Pure capitalist ideology should dictate that many more companies make the same change.
I'm not sure exactly what your point is. A couple possibilities I can think of:
1) Nobody else can manufacturer and sell "Apple" products. That's a trademark issue, which has nothing to do with this antitrust judgment.
2) Apple doesn't allow other manufacturers to use iOS for their products. There's nothing illegal about refusing to license your proprietary and/or copyright-protected software.
If Google didn't let anyone else use Android for their phones, there would be no antitrust issue. This judgment is because Google is attaching requirements to the agreements with the manufacturers that restrict what other products the manufacturers are allowed to make. That is the anti-competitive behavior that EU fined Google for.
Realistically, corporate taxes don't make sense. Tax the investors -- they can't move overseas.
If you don't tax corporations, the investors will incorporate.
At some point, though, the money has to make it to a real person, at which point you can tax it as income. I'd be perfectly fine with eliminating taxes on corporate income/profit if you shift that tax to the real people that benefit from the corporate income/profit (i.e. investors and executives). That would, however, also require closing many loopholes, such as individuals getting non-monetary benefits like use of corporate property.
wheres the fine for apple who is way more closed off then android.
Apple isn't preventing other companies from manufacturing potentially competing products. From a consumer point of view, Apple's behavior isn't any better than Google's, but legally there's a difference, since Apple isn't using their monopoly position to force behavior from other companies.
CA, NY and TX have some kind of influence or power. The other 47 or so are pretty much failed states.
Nah, Massachusetts is doing fine, and Connecticut is doing pretty well for itself as a suburb of New York City. I think the Seattle area is keeping Washington state in good shape. There are a few others that are getting by.
Around here, credit unions have some kind of membership requirement, but don't charge any kind of fee to open an account. My primary accounts are with my university's credit union, which I opened when I was a student. I also could join a credit union through my current employer, and I don't see anything about a fee to open an account.
The closest to a fee that I've had to be is at another credit union that I have an account at, which requires that you be an employee of certain companies or members of certain organizations; since my employer at the time wasn't part of the credit union, I made a donation to the FSF, which is part of the credit union.
Forbids it against other Jews. It's fine to charge interest to Gentiles.
The reason for that had nothing to do with greed or hatred of non-Jews. There's an unwritten assumption about society in Israel at the time - if you were loaning money to a Jew (i.e. a fellow citizen of your town or region), it was because they needed it to survive; if you were loaning money to a non-Jew (i.e. a foreign merchant), it was as a business investment.
SOMEBODY will be the heir. If you do not want it to be your family, you need to contact a lawer (and potentally a notary) right away to see what your options are.
Depending on where you live, it could well be that what you want is not legally possible. Imagine that it is possible where you live, then it will most likely be the state who receives your assets (including debts, assets, FB account and what not).
It's definitely possible in most, if not all, of the United States (and I would assume other similar countries). You can write a will that leaves all of your assets to a charity of your choice, and your family would get nothing.
Alas, I'll give you that, given the recent SCOTUS ruling. Sexual orientation is not yet a protected status, but perhaps someday it will be.
That isn't what the Supreme Court decided. The ruling was in favor of the baker because the state commission that heard his case were jerks that were openly hostile to his religious beliefs. If the commission had acted professionally and then decided that his religious beliefs did not override equal protection, the Supreme Court decision might have been different.
Slashdot Mirror
Others mentioned medium to large cities, but have you also never heard of colleges?
most cheeses are not vegetarian, because the rennet used comes from one of the stomachs of calves.
It's not too difficult to find cheeses that use vegetable rennet. Any kosher cheese doesn't use animal rennet. You don't have quite the same variety available, but you can get the basics like cheddar and mozzarella.
I have to wonder if we lockup all websites as viewable only via SSL - does that limit access to anything (historical) ?
It would only affect servers where the admin is doing just barely enough maintenance to keep the site alive. HTTPS doesn't affect scripts running on the server, page rendering, etc. The content is not affected in any way, and really the only reason that anything at the application layer even needs to know about the encryption is because it has to listen/connect on port 443 instead of port 80.
Nobody modded it down. It currently has +2 Funny. The poster is just such an overwhelmingly obnoxious troll that all their posts start at -1.
Actually, all I want is an RDP session into my server or server cluster to get performance. I can travel with a light, low power laptop that just has to render the RDP session. This is not something I'd recommend for gaming, but it very useful for actual high performance computing applications.
Thin clients have been a thing for how many decades now?
How about digitally SELLING these old games so people don't have to download them in the first place???
Depends on which of "these" games you're talking about. They do (at least as of the Wii and WiiU; I don't own a Switch yet) sell many old games as Virtual Console downloads.
Right now courts have (incorrectly, in my view) determined that providing biometrics is not testifying against yourself, but being forced to provide a password is. It's just a really weird place.
I meant to add, it's not all that difficult to turn over a phone and/or its documents without providing the password to law enforcement. You could just change the password before turning it over. Alternatively, you could use an independent third party to get the documents from the phone (yes, I'm aware of the potential issues, which is I why I think this is the worse option).
We need to treat anything that exists in an electronic device, encrypted, as an extension of your some fact in your head that can't be compelled out by legal process.
Why shouldn't anything that exists in an electronic device instead be treated as a document that can be the subject of a search warrant?
Yes, this is a legitimate question intended to seek an explanation for the opinion.
1. The user - and only the user - has the encryption key.
2. Companies are compelled to sell devices that cannot be secured at all, because a 'master key' lives somewhere.
If Wray would like to come up with a third option that doesn't ultimately fall into the category of one of the other two, he's welcome to try. Smarter people have failed.
I suppose it's just a variation on option 1, but how about allowing judges to issue search warrants that cover materials stored on a person's phone? There would be quite a few details to work out to ensure protection from testifying against yourself, but I don't think any such issues are insurmountable. Obviously the police would have to be able to demonstrate that the phone is yours (found it in a parking lot at a mall near your office, no; found it in your pocket when they arrested you, yes). And in case someone wants to bring up the ridiculous idea that a person's password is "IKilledThatHooker", arrangements can be made to change the password before turning over the phone, most likely involving attorneys for both sides and maybe even an independent third party.
You're assuming they got 5 days of work done in 4 which I don't see written anywhere in the summary
Maybe try reading it again?
job and life satisfaction increased on all levels across the home and work front, with employees performing better in their jobs and enjoying them more than before the experiment.
But then you'd have less value to society. As long as we're capitalistic-focused, your value in society is in what you produce and what you consume. Do less of either, and you're a less valuable person to society.
A major point of this company's change to a 32-hour work week is that overall performance improved. So by working 4 days per week instead of 5, these people are producing more. Pure capitalist ideology should dictate that many more companies make the same change.
I'm not sure exactly what your point is. A couple possibilities I can think of:
1) Nobody else can manufacturer and sell "Apple" products. That's a trademark issue, which has nothing to do with this antitrust judgment.
2) Apple doesn't allow other manufacturers to use iOS for their products. There's nothing illegal about refusing to license your proprietary and/or copyright-protected software.
If Google didn't let anyone else use Android for their phones, there would be no antitrust issue. This judgment is because Google is attaching requirements to the agreements with the manufacturers that restrict what other products the manufacturers are allowed to make. That is the anti-competitive behavior that EU fined Google for.
In the EU 'Champagne' is sparkling white wine from the Champagne region of France. Which the EU thinks it has a monopoly on.
Why shouldn't they? The US doesn't let anyone else sell "Coca Cola". "Champagne" is effectively just a trademark.
If you don't tax corporations, the investors will incorporate.
At some point, though, the money has to make it to a real person, at which point you can tax it as income. I'd be perfectly fine with eliminating taxes on corporate income/profit if you shift that tax to the real people that benefit from the corporate income/profit (i.e. investors and executives). That would, however, also require closing many loopholes, such as individuals getting non-monetary benefits like use of corporate property.
Well played, sir.
wheres the fine for apple who is way more closed off then android.
Apple isn't preventing other companies from manufacturing potentially competing products. From a consumer point of view, Apple's behavior isn't any better than Google's, but legally there's a difference, since Apple isn't using their monopoly position to force behavior from other companies.
CA, NY and TX have some kind of influence or power. The other 47 or so are pretty much failed states.
Nah, Massachusetts is doing fine, and Connecticut is doing pretty well for itself as a suburb of New York City. I think the Seattle area is keeping Washington state in good shape. There are a few others that are getting by.
So closer to 40 than 47.
We don't all live in our parents basement or in the 3rd world. Some of us require the various facilities of a proper bank to do business.
Care to give an example of such a facility that credit unions can't provide?
Around here, credit unions have some kind of membership requirement, but don't charge any kind of fee to open an account. My primary accounts are with my university's credit union, which I opened when I was a student. I also could join a credit union through my current employer, and I don't see anything about a fee to open an account.
The closest to a fee that I've had to be is at another credit union that I have an account at, which requires that you be an employee of certain companies or members of certain organizations; since my employer at the time wasn't part of the credit union, I made a donation to the FSF, which is part of the credit union.
And he will continue to attempt and fail to bring jobs back from outside the country
Fixed that for you.
Ah, gotcha. For whatever reason, that usage of "milk" as a verb didn't cross my mind. In my defense, it was before noon.
What other verb...
What's the first verb that you're talking about?
Forbids it against other Jews. It's fine to charge interest to Gentiles.
The reason for that had nothing to do with greed or hatred of non-Jews. There's an unwritten assumption about society in Israel at the time - if you were loaning money to a Jew (i.e. a fellow citizen of your town or region), it was because they needed it to survive; if you were loaning money to a non-Jew (i.e. a foreign merchant), it was as a business investment.
SOMEBODY will be the heir. If you do not want it to be your family, you need to contact a lawer (and potentally a notary) right away to see what your options are.
Depending on where you live, it could well be that what you want is not legally possible. Imagine that it is possible where you live, then it will most likely be the state who receives your assets (including debts, assets, FB account and what not).
It's definitely possible in most, if not all, of the United States (and I would assume other similar countries). You can write a will that leaves all of your assets to a charity of your choice, and your family would get nothing.
or 2 fags wanting a cake.
Alas, I'll give you that, given the recent SCOTUS ruling. Sexual orientation is not yet a protected status, but perhaps someday it will be.
That isn't what the Supreme Court decided. The ruling was in favor of the baker because the state commission that heard his case were jerks that were openly hostile to his religious beliefs. If the commission had acted professionally and then decided that his religious beliefs did not override equal protection, the Supreme Court decision might have been different.