Posts by Oninoshiko 1937 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Oct 2008
but how bad would it really be if they ran out of iodized salt? I think there is some condition which the iodine does actually prevent, but I would think things would be alright until they get more in. I suppose they could be needing enough individual preserving to require it, but I'm not sure.
Paris, she doesn't know either.
I thought I would go ahead and share the fine article with you:
"Chrome was able to beat the rest of the pack thanks to ongoing collaboration with Adobe that allows Google advanced access to updated builds of Flash, Adobe spokeswoman Wiebke Lips said. "
Let my try to use small words for you. Google gets a release of flash from adobe which has a fix but is not yet completely tested in all browsers by adobe. google, not needing to test in any browser but Crome, is able to verify the patch faster then Adobe is, and therefor release sooner. It is an Adobe-written fix, not a fork.
To my knowledge it's not, but it can be created during an accident.
One of the explosions at Three Mile Island was hydrogen, created when the exposed core's fuel rod cladding reacted with the steam in the reactor. The yielded zirconium dioxide and hydrogen in an exothermic reaction.
By all accounts, the hydrogen is not normally present, but is due to low coolant in this incident as well.
"To be fair new technology always takes a while to displace the incumbent technology. For example no moving parts Flash is better than spinning disks, yet we still have cheap disks which get ever better. Its going to take some time before Flash reaches the densities needed to displace spinning disk drives in all market areas."
No, flash is better than spinning disks FOR SOME APPLICATIONS. For other applications, due to densities, spinning rust is better. For even other applications, a mixture of the two is ideal. When/If flash achieves the densities of spinning rust, it will likely be better, as long as there isn't a trade off to achieve those densities, but until then it is not better.
actually, "retzach" (both Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17) translates to closer to "murder" then to "kill."
The significance of the difference is quite high. Capital punishment is not murder, killing a opponent in wartime is not murder, killing in defense of self/family is not murder.
It's quite unfortunate that Christians and Catholics have proven time and time again their propensity for inaccurate translations. I think maybe they should start requiring their members to learn the original languages of their holy works, like the Jews do.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Exodus20.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Deuter5.html
But I suppose the arguement could be made we are talking about Christians, not Jews, so I press must press on.
Despite Martin Luther's use of the "kill" translation, his interpritation of this section is fairly inline with how I would read it:
"We have now completed both the spiritual and the temporal government, that is, the divine and the paternal authority and obedience. But here now we go forth from our house among our neighbors to learn how we should live with one another, every one himself toward his neighbor. Therefore God and government are not included in this commandment nor is the power to kill, which they have taken away. For God has delegated His authority to punish evil-doers to the government instead of parents, who aforetime (as we read in Moses) were required to bring their own children to judgment and sentence them to death. Therefore, what is here forbidden is forbidden to the individual in his relation to any one else, and not to the government." (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-07.html)
With the implied extension that, when acting as an agent of the government it is not forbidden, this is a reasonable interpretation. Martin Luther doesn't directly address matters of self-defense, which one may conclude puts it in the realm of the proscribed, an interpretation (of the original work, not Martin Luther's commentary) I would reject.
So too with Matthew Henry's Interpretation:
"The sixth commandment concerns our own and our neighbour’s life (v. 13): "Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not do any thing hurtful or injurious to the health, ease, and life, of thy own body, or any other person’s unjustly.’’ This is one of the laws of nature, and was strongly enforced by the precepts given to Noah and his sons, Gen. 9:5, 6. It does not forbid killing in lawful war, or in our own necessary defence, nor the magistrate’s putting offenders to death, for those things tend to the preserving of life; but it forbids all malice and hatred to the person of any (for he that hateth his brother is a murderer ), and all personal revenge arising therefrom; also all rash anger upon sudden provocations, and hurt said or done, or aimed to be done, in passion: of this our Saviour expounds this commandment, Mt. 5:22. And, as that which is worst of all, it forbids persecution, laying wait for the blood of the innocent and excellent ones of the earth" (http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/exodus/20.html)
He includes the things that lead up to murder (which basically can be summed up as the majority of the "seven deadly sins"), as murder. I don't know if I can accept that, but I understand certainly understand it. It's worth noting, again, the emphasis is on murder, not killing (A distinction which is made clear) in this commentary.
I think maybe your interpretation of capital punishment as proscribed and therefore hypocritical for a Christen is wanting.
All that said, I am opposed to capital punishment, my reason has nothing to do with religion (catholic, jewish, or otherwise). I just have a problem with the poorly made psudo-religious arguments on this topic.
I reject calling an import "counterfeit." Provided it is the product from those companies for other nations and that is why the label is wrong, It is just "avoided taxation."
Also, if you add more occupants to your car, it will be heavier for part of the trip (there), and there will be less room for fags (back). I suppose if you knew some people looking for a one way ride, you could get them to pay part of the petrol there, so that would be a win, but taking others round trip (presuming you have the cash to fill all the room in your car) would result in lower savings.
In the case of an App-Store, the distributor is actually MS/Google/Apple/etc, not the person who uploads it. The app-store-owner would be responsible for providing the source, but they are not interested in hosting it. MS' response is quite reasonable: "we will allow licenses which do not put any obligations on us. These are the ones legal has reviewed and can approve of." They are just respecting the wishes of the authors, good job!
That said, the vendor's app-store should not be the only way (practical) way to get an app on your phone.
Nexenta is a storage vendor, while you CAN use their products for "cloudy" things, nothing about their product is could specific. So maybe you can explain how this post is any more relevant here then on the latest article about Netapp or even Intel or AMD?
Of course, maybe the Chris can explain to me why this article is filed under "cloud?"
Ahh, but they aren't enforcing their patents, that's the problem! They keep saying "we think we have patents in here" loudly, and publicly. It looks like they are just lying, trying to discourage potential users. If they really have patents, lets lay the cards down, and file a lawsuit. Until then, it's anti-competitive FUD. The talking with no action taken is what the DoJ is investigating.
Of course, proving a negative is difficult at best, and in the article you quote it also reads: "It’s quite possible that VP8 has no patent issues" and "This doesn’t mean that it’s sure to be covered by patents."
Jason Garrett-Glaser may be an expert in video compression, but I don't think he is an expert in patent law. It actually sounds to be like he doesn't even have any patents in mind when he wrote the article, exempting intra-prediction, which he had to correct in an update:
"Update: spatial intra prediction apparently dates back to Nokia’s MVC H.26L proposal, from around ~2000. It’s possible that Google believes that this is sufficient prior art to invalidate existing patents — which is not at all unreasonable!"
On the one hand, the specs look pretty nice, and I am somewhat interested in experementing with something in a tablet format.
For me (and I freely admit, this is not a main-stream opinion. so-much-so that it makes little bussness sense for Apple to cater to it.) in experementing with different ways to use the form-factor. I want to hack the thing. I want to see if there are innovative ways we can use it. So to me, it's a non-starter. Too bad, but I want something that isn't so locked down, and it's not worth my time to work around it.
Yes, they can intercept anything they want, and they end up with an encrypted bitstream. Your point?
RIM only has the keys to the bitstreams going to servers they own. Which India has been given the rights to access. They do not have the user-configured keys. India is telling RIM to provide keys they do not possess.
As long as we're picking nits, your period should be inside the quotes, and you need to capialize the first letter of each sentence.
India can demand anything they want, It doesn't mean the RIM has the ability to provide it. They might as well be asking you to provide the keys.
RIM is incapible of providing the keys because they do not have them. Every western nation understands that you cannot ask someone for something they don't have, if you (and india) do not understand that you (and they) are free to be mocked by those of us who live in the real world.
My math is clearly better then your reading comprehension.
If you ACTUALLY read my post, I was prasing this ruling becasue the fines exceeded the net income..
Contrast with the a story like this I commented on in 2009 (which not only did they not, but if you use the jailtime to make it into an hourly wage they made a KILLING per hour):
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2009/12/17/china_jails_game_trojan_vxers/#c_651177
"10 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, or twice the gain or loss on each count. He will also be required to pay restitution to each of the known victims and to the Internal Revenue Service."
Normally when we see these stories, I find myself doing the math and concluding "crime does pay." I hope more get nailed with these kind of fines for this type of scumbaggery!
My reason to contributing to F/OSS projects is always the same, "because I use it and I want a to use a better product." I suppose I could keep my changes to myself, but if they get included I don't have to patch the bug I hate every time they add a new feature I like (flip-flop those as nessicary).
So, scratch me up to "enlightened self-intrest."
Google aggrigating my block-list with everyone else's to make the results better may be done because it it in their intrest to do so, but the end result is everyone gets better results. This *IS* in my intrest. That may not be why they are doing it, but my intrests don't change with the modivation of the other party.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason still has the effect, and that is what I am interested in.
Actually, people are doing more then just talk about this. I know of atleast one former USAF base that is already utilizing this to clean up the soil where they used to train for fire-fighting. (I'm not sure what exactly was in the fuel they liked to spray all over the burnt-out airframes and set ablaze, but apparently it's something atleast somewhat bad). My understanding is it has been quite effective.
That said, if sheep can make it easier/better/faster/cheaper, I say, "go sheeps!"
I never did laugh them off, because the "value added" services where never their bread and butter. The techies I knew who wanted things on their phone, installed them from their computer. The non-techs never bothered to change their phone. The only ones who did where teenie-boppers who have no concept of their parent's money. They probibly make more off the data tarrifs now then they ever did before.
OTOH, A cable TV company's core bussness is still.... wait for it.... cable TV. I already have the cable company badgering me once a month because I wont by anthing but internet. I suspect that if they loose more clients to the likes of Netflix, Hulu, et al. They will be starting to sound like the print newspapers.
Interesting, millions got screwed out of houses they couldn't afford, but was that caused by speculators?
I dont know about Euorpe, but in the US there was a concerted governemnt policy to try to put people into homes (without regard for ability to fullfill the end-terms of the loan). (In the US atleast) This was caused by a series of failures of leadership, in all administrations (both parties) since atleast Bush Sr.'s term in 1992 (when he signed a bill to try and enforce "affordable housing goals"). In 1999 under Clinton, pressure was applied to encourage provideing loan in the inner-cities. Then Cliton, wisely forseeing the problems he had created, made an attempt to reign in "preditory lending practices." Had this survived Bush Jr. in 2004, it probably would have controlled the meltdown somewhat. But the Bush Jr. administration favored a full overhall, which likely would have also midigated the houseing crisis had it been able to pass. There was bright-spots in the efforts of both parties, but not enough to overcome the mistakes.
Yes the meltdown lead to callateral damage (those who could afford their morguages, but lost their jobs).That is unfortunate, but equally unfortunate is that it was caused by billions of "ordenary joes" who couldn't put together a proper budget.
Now here is my personal history throughout the whole situation:
Throughout the lead-up, I never considered my income enough that I could afford to buy a home. The only way I would have been possible, would be with a "balloon loan" or an Adjustable Rate Morguage., which I (rightfully, in retrospect) concluded would result in my being unable to pay eventually, so I never bothered (My thought was that a home should be I intend to live in, I didn't want to speculate on it's value rising when I went to sell it (hmm... my boss says I'm old-fashtioned. Maybe he's right)). I COULD, I just came to the conclusion that I SOULD NOT.
When the crash hit, suddenly there was a large influx of cheap housing. Mostly (at the beganning atleast) of people who should not have purchaced houses at all, at least not under the terms they did. Suddenly the cost of houses had fallen to the point where I could get one, under a Fixed Rate Morguage. I've had people ask " well what if the people who hold your note fail?" To which I reply "Then someone will buy it when they fold, my terms don't change. If noone wants to, I might offer them pennies-on-the-dollar for it. I've fullfilled my part of the terms, They have no rights to foreclose."
Maybe I'm an evil speculator, maybe I'm just old-fashtion. I'll leave determaning that as an exersize to the reader, but maybe, too, some more of the averice, needs to be attributed to main-street (where "Ordenary Joe's" lust for possessions overcame his sense), and less to to wall-street (who still have some blame for not properly realizing they where trading in junk bonds).
It's not the Federal Government's job to collect state sales-tax, and indeed, would be completely out of line. Sales tax varies widely from state to state (indeed from municipality to municipality), there are even 5 states which have no general sales tax at all. (Deleware, New Hampshire, Oregon, Montana, and Alaska although Montana and Alaska permit a local tax to be applied, and New Hampshire and Oregon tax "prepaired food" (I imagine that means restraunts))
Sales tax is not somthing actually paid by the corperation, It's paid by the purcheser. Out of convience, brick-and-morter stores collect it at check-out. Generally, if a mail-order bussness has a major presence in a state, they will collect for transcations in that state. (This is in contrast to Arizona's "transaction privilege tax" which is levied on the vendor, but then the vendor has to be IN arizona)
For transactions from out-of-state entities, the sales-tax is supposed to be reported and paid by the buyer (because it is not paid at the time of purcase). It sounds like Texas just doesn't want to have much around with tracking down all the resedents who owe.
it seem rather then "corporate freeloaders" you really mean "citizen freeloaders," because it's the citizens of Texas who have been freeloading, not Amazon.
In buying On2, Google bought any and all patents On2 held. It would be rather amusing if Google had an essental patent to implementing h.264. (remeber kiddies, MPEG-LA does not imdemnify against patents that are not a part of their patent pool!) It is possible, as On2 was around (for quite a bit) before h.264 was released.
Which is, again, a well known issue. It is reccommended that you not let a pool fall below 20% free (even with dedup disabled) in ZFS. Snapshots also prevent freeind space after a delete.
ZFS makes some trade-offs. For the most part, considering the capibilities of modern systems, they are the right ones.
Actually that's exactly why I find this believable. The operator, being a pilot, would expect that this safety was there ("hahaha, lets test the load-switch," "uhhh"), but often these types of safeties get removed from "software controlled" equipment, because "computers don't make mistakes."
I've seen this happen oftain enough that it's certainly believable.
In the late 90s I used to go to one of the local universities' student clubs (which where, as a matter of fact, open to the public). they always had a costume contenst in October, and one year someone (one of the officers, in fact (who always had the best, weakest, and most wrong costumes) . One year one of them got an olive-green vest and taped a TI calculator and some road flairs to their chest, and declared "im a TERRORIST!!" It was a riot at the time, today it would probibly cause riots.
RICO has an extensive but very spacific list of offenses that can be charged under it. The relevent ones are the fraud(s) and extortion.
until now, fraud was not relevent, and extortion really wasn't relevent because of the legal definition:
"Under the Hobbs Act, a defendant engages in extortion only if he "obtains" or attempts to "obtain" the property of another "with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, fear, or under color of official right." Since these protest activities do not obtain or attempt to obtain the property of another (they simply attempt to interfere with the business of another), it is difficult to depict them as acts of extortion."
-- http://ricoact.com/ricoact/faq.asp#peta (IANAL, but this guy is)
LOIC does not have hidden command and control, and I can find no part of RICO which applies. Extortion does not, as from the passage quoted above. The list of offenses which qualify as “racketeering activity” is in TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 96, § 1961. The full listing of the text of the RICO act can be found at Cornell University's web site, if you can find something I missed:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_96.html
There was always those who would claim that an open port was invitataion to connect, making a DDoS not unauthorized use (a theory I do not subscribe to). From the couple of writeups (although none particularly technical, unfortunately (if anyone has a more technical writeup, I'd like to see it)) I've read of this, It invovled obtaining passwords through fraud. If those who commitied the attack can be traced, there will be a much stronger case. In addition the phone-calls and threats can be construed as personal harrassment.
In the US, there is now a better claim to charge Anonymous members under RICO. Until now there where no attempts at getting anything, so it would be hard to argue under Hobbs for extortion. Now there is a pretty clear violation of the Hobbs Act (the passwords were obtained "with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, fear, or under color of official right"). Wire fraud also would have occured.
A RICO violation is up to $25,000 and 20 years per count. As far as I can tell, it requires proving beyond a resonable doubt the act occured and that the person was a member of the "crimanl enterprise" when it did occur. There is no requirement the individual commited the act. (Remember this was created to go after mafia dons, who generally didn't commit the acts themselves)
I think I'll take some of that popcorn too, this could get fun.
(IANAL, this is based on information from all over the internet, YMMV)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
