Be accountable for how information is actually used and provide mechanisms for compliance, audit, and verification; and Provide effective redress mechanisms for, and advocacy on behalf of, individuals who believe their data may have been misused
Considering we still haven't managed to do this for our electronic voting systems, I foresee a long future of this not happening if they actually put this in as one of the requirements...
Actually, it's not the result of a 9.0 earthquake. It's the result of a 9.0 earthquake, quickly followed by 14 meter (46 ft, according to Wikipedia) tsunami while the sea wall protecting it was only built to protect from 6 meters of water, destroying the plant's connection to the power grid, backup generators, backup backup generators, and coolant pumps.
Again, almost unimaginable in the intensity and destructive power, though placement of the backup generators wasn't the brightest (one thing I've learned living in a place susceptible to flooding/hurricanes: never, ever, ever put emergency [power|supplies|whatever] on or below ground level. And if you do, seal them like crazy after every check-run so they don't get flooded).
I still feel like "The manuals contained information on how SCEA is located in California? The manuals were never opened." isn't that different from shouting "NANANANANANANANACANTHEARYOUNANANANANANA" while you have your fingers in your ears, as far as a defense goes...
Don't get me wrong, I hope he wins this. I just don't know that it's quite the "slam" the submitter thinks it is...
Really? Our meters were upgraded to eliminate human readers, by sending the data over the phone line (or possibly the electric line - not sure which).
Not everyone has had their meters updated yet. I'd be willing to bet that most people's haven't. My parents just had their meter upgraded to a "smart meter" about 2 months ago, and to get that they had to sign up on a special early adopter list and then pay a few hundred dollars for the meter itself. And I'm not actually sure it transmits the data over the phone line, I think it only records time based usage, as opposed to just total usage, that the meter-reader then downloads with a PDA-like device.
I live in an apartment building, built in the 80s. I guarantee that our electric meters aren't going to be upgraded before I retire (which, at this rate, will be a few years after I die).
Point being, just because something is true for you does not, in fact, make it true for the entire rest of the US and/or world. This is a very important lesson to learn. I urge you to do so.
Hell, save time and post the checkpoint yourself, and then give a closer inspection to all of the people that take the gravel road the GPS recommends to avoid the checkpoint that NO ONE ever drives on. Your % of DUI drivers should be higher in that group.
There was a national news story about a state trooper doing just this. They put one of those big light up signs on a major highway announcing a DUI checkpoint like 2 miles up ahead (they were required by state law to put up signs warning of a checkpoint, otherwise it was an illegal search and seizure or something like that), but there was a junction 1/2 mile ahead. They then put their checkpoint 1 1/2 miles down the smaller highways. I think the story came up because someone was suing that the sign didn't meet the requirements of a sign announcing the checkpoint because it was not on the same road. Can't remember how it turned out.
I'm pretty sure the cop did say he had a much higher % of drunks vs non-drunks, because all the sober people just said "fuck it" and kept going down the main highway...
They are most definitely data entry devices. Just small amounts of data at a time. Taking quick notes, things like inventory, recording temperatures of coolers (I currently work at a grocery store where this sort of thing happens), attendance... Basically any sort of data entry that used to be done on a clipboard. Sure, you can do it on a laptop, and the registration tables out front of every conference I've ever been to are a testament to that, but the mobility a tablet provides can be extremely useful.
But yes, they are not just PC replacements. They have their purposes, which only occasionally overlap with those of a laptop...
He wasn't getting subsidies, he was going to build a dual-transmission line, water+electricity. He was going to pump water from the Ogallala Aquifer and send it down to Dallas along with electricity. That gave him water district status, so he was going to be able to pull eminent domain and take all the property he needed to build his transmission line. It failed for a set of reasons: no one invested in natural gas cars (so his major investment in natural gas wasn't going to make him money), he was having trouble with selling the water, and he was having trouble getting all the land set up for the wind farm.
I'm actually glad he failed. All those turbines will now be on the market for probably less than they originally sold for, and he's not going to drain the Ogallala Aquifer to let people in Dallas run their fountains and fill their pools. Also, pre-paying for all those turbines probably helped bring down the cost for everyone else, just for economy of scale reasons.
It is kind of funny. I rail and rail against the power and might of the military-industrial complex. Then things like this happen and I am thankful for the DoD for advancing the state-of-the-art in ways that the general market is incapable/unwilling too. It's...frustrating. Why do they have to make things so complex!
The last thing humanity needs is a bunch of angsty teenagers throwing a fit because their favorite website has to change providers. WikiLeaks violated their contract with Amazon. It is a BUSINESS matter. Get the fuck over it, pick up your toys and go to school.
I disagree. I don't think Wikileaks violated their contract. Amazon's response is here: http://aws.amazon.com/message/65348/ . Their arguments are
a) Wikileaks doesn't control the rights to the content. This is an interesting assertion. Wikileaks has as much control over the rights of the content as the New York Times did when it published the Pentagon Papers, i.e. they were publishing classified documents that were illegally obtained by a third party. However, the US Government couldn't stop the Times from publishing. This would lead to pretty strong case that they *do* have some control as to the rights of the content. The US Government certainly doesn't have a copyright over the diplomatic cables (they being produced by government officers or employees as part of their official duties are not eligible for copyright), and since Wikileaks was never under any agreement with the US Government regarding access to the cables, there is nothing stopping them from publishing, just like there was nothing stopping the Times from publishing. Yes, it was a crime for the documents to be exposed, but once exposed, there is nothing illegal about holding or distributing the documents. The documents are now public domain. To get technical, Amazon requires that you own or control all of the rights to the content you host. If they are arguing that Wikileaks doesn't own or control the content, it can only be because the content is public domain. Therefore, all public domain documents should be disallowed on Amazon AWS systems.
b) Wikileaks release of the documents could hurt people, because it is not possible for WIkileaks to have redacted the documents in such a way as to put people in jeopardy. They cite as evidence that some human rights organizations asked for Wikileaks to exercise caution in their releases. They ignore the fact that those same organizations also asked Wikileaks to continue doing what they are doing, regarding the documents. In neither of those cases are any actual specific cases where someone has been put in jeopardy cited. In fact, no cases have been reported where someone has been put in danger because of Wikileaks releases (excepting, of course, the death threats Julian Assange has received...). They are also making some pretty large leaps to say that people are being put in danger (remember, Wikileaks was booted because of the diplomatic cables, not the Afghanistan documents, which, by the way, are what those human rights organizations were referring to...Amazon is in fact using evidence from a completely separate situation and trying to pass it off as relevant...). The documents are government cables, meaning information like names and actions had to have been pretty well known to have made it as far as the people sending the cables. If they weren't known, then diplomats had to be in direct communication with the human rights activists, which leads to questions about whether they were activists or government operatives. Not that that changes much regarding whether they should be protected, but if they were operatives, it would seem that the government officials should have been protecting them even within the cables, so redaction shouldn't be that big of an issue.
Also if any content that could put people at risk should be banned, then do they ban chemistry books that explain explosives, or Dianetics (it's available on Amazon.com...)? Hell, Amazon.com sells "The Anarchist Cookbook" for goodness' sake! Search for it on Amazon and you get pages of books with bomb instructions, improvised weapon instructions, techniques to cause havoc, etc...
I simply can't take Amazon's argument seriously when it is so flimsy, if not downright fraudulent, and full of hypocrisy to begin with.
It is a business matter, but not because Wikileaks violated a TOS. It is a business matter because Amazon realized that, in a lot of other areas, remaining on Wikileaks' side here could have serious business repercussions... (remember: http://it.slashdot.org/story/10/12/11/1940252/Feds-To-Adopt-Cloud-First-IT-Policy)
And I know that's not your IP address. That's the FBI's address, according to the IRC friends I asked to look at my webserver logs.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spick-and-span
Also, from the wikipedia article on the product, someone did try boycotting it in 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spic_and_Span). I think that's stupid. "Spick and Span" was first recorded in the 16th century. "Spic" has only existed since early 1900s, wasn't documented until 1910, and even then was documented as "spiggoty" as a slur against Italians. I'd say it's pretty safe to say that when "Spic and Span" was created (1933 in Ohio), "spic" being a slur wasn't even on the radar for them.
I think the situation is similar to the word "niggardly" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22). People see something that, without any context (context like the spelling of the word or idiom...), could be conceived as racist. People take offense as something because of their own ignorance.
The problem is, you're not being color-blind. You're seeing color issues where there aren't any. You're trying to get people riled up at racism that isn't even there. You're not helping to stop racism, but you are helping to chill language and communication and encourage ignorance. You have, by trying to be on the right side of something, wound up on the wrong side of everything.
And there goes my karma...
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.
