Comment GUIDs (Score 1) 722
I used GUIDs. Which is better than our current naming "policy". Honestly, who wrote that?
I used GUIDs. Which is better than our current naming "policy". Honestly, who wrote that?
The problem with your little scheme is this bit:
"and you can increase the price per unit because you can no longer expect to recoup your losses on game software purchases."
And that's where you hit a problem. Selling something to the government at a higher rate than what you sell it at to the general public, or, really anyone else, is itself illegal, and will get your company into a mess of trouble. You're right that they could argue that it's not the same, bla bla bla, but try getting a jury to agree that the military, aka, the government, aka, the taxpayer, aka THEM, should pay MORE for a version with Fewer features, well, Best of luck with that.
And given that this "version" will have been made specifically for the military, it's going to look an AMAZING amount like them trying to overcharge and and defraud the government. This would be a huge liability for Sony, for little gain, and open a distracting front into a market they've never expressed an interest in aside from a few "Gee whiz, look what our game console can do" PR pieces.
I thought the network portion of the address (the first 64 bits) had bits allocated for region. Couldn't you just filter out those regions? Or deny all and then load allow filters. I don't know, I'm not a network guy.
Please note, when doing robotics work, calling any part of your creation "HAL" is usually a mistake...
It's even less scary than you think. They weren't deciding any Due Process issue at all. Don't just read about it. Read the decision. This is not a Due Process decision.
From the decision:
The District Court, accepting two of the respondents'
claims, granted their motion to dismiss. It agreed with
respondents that the Constitution requires proof beyond a
reasonable doubt, id., at 551-559 (citing In re Winship,
397 U. S. 358 (1970)), and it agreed that, in enacting the
statute, Congress exceeded its Article I legislative powers,
507 F. Supp. 2d, at 530-551. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the dismissal on
this latter, legislative-power ground. 551 F. 3d 274, 278-
284 (2009). It did not decide the standard-of-proof question, nor did it address any of respondents' other constitutional challenges. Id., at 276, n. 1.
The Government sought certiorari, and we granted its
request, limited to the question of Congress' authority
under Art. I, 8 of the Constitution.
The question presented is whether the Necessary and
Proper Clause, Art. I, 8, cl. 18, grants Congress authority
sufficient to enact the statute before us. In resolving that
question, we assume, but we do not decide, that other
provisions of the Constitution--such as the Due Process
Clause--do not prohibit civil commitment in these circumstances.
Cf. Hendricks, 521 U. S. 346; Addington v. Texas,
441 U. S. 418 (1979). In other words, we assume for argument's
sake that the Federal Constitution would permit
a State to enact this statute, and we ask solely whether
the Federal Government, exercising its enumerated powers,
may enact such a statute as well. On that assumption,
we conclude that the Constitution grants Congress
legislative power sufficient to enact 4248.
So, the issue of due process, as well as a couple other constitutional issues raised were never reached. This is based on the assumption that this is within state power to do. That assumption now needs to be challenged.
The District Court, accepting two of the respondents' claims, granted their motion to dismiss. It agreed with respondents that the Constitution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, id., at 551-559 (citing In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970)), and it agreed that, in enacting the statute, Congress exceeded its Article I legislative powers, 507 F. Supp. 2d, at 530-551. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the dismissal on this latter, legislative-power ground. 551 F. 3d 274, 278- 284 (2009). It did not decide the standard-of-proof question, nor did it address any of respondents' other constitutional challenges. Id., at 276, n. 1. The Government sought certiorari, and we granted its request, limited to the question of Congress' authority under Art. I, 8 of the Constitution.
So, the issue of due process, as well as a couple other constitutional issues raised were never reached. They need to reengage on these other constitutional challenges.
It serves them right for deleting all that porn. Karma's a bitch!
While jury service is commendable, you sir should be ashamed of what you've done. This guy was put in a no-win situation, one which YOU YOURSELF could someday face. To equate what he did with felony computer tampering puts us all one bad situation away from being felons, damned if we do and damned if we don't. Juries are there to ask the tough questions, to make sure laws squash people who don't deserve it. One quote from the article describes Mr Childs as "egotistical and paranoid". Well, you'd better lock a lot of us up then, because when you hold heightened responsibility and are tasked with guarding that system, that's what you're actions are going to look like.
You state you "felt terrible" about the verdict. If that's true, then you made the wrong decision. And you've made life more dangerous for all network and systems professionals.
"Public school employees are government employees. Therefore they are subject to every restriction that a police officer would be subject to with respect to dealing with citizens."
Unfortunately no. This case among many others... http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Safford_United_School_District
Among other things, the requirements for searches is much lower, no warrant requirements, etc.
"./ ? Where is dot slash?"
It's your present directory, silly!
From the pic on the article, It looks like they did, but my first thought on seeing this was "I hoped they contracted with professionals rather than having in-house employees do this!"
Won't do much good. If high school is anything to go by, being that interested in computers or even history is pretty gay. These are not the type of minds that you can use logic on to good effect.
The problem I have with European education is that once you have a little hiccup or don't find into their model of excellence, you are quickly left behind and it's off to Berufsschule for you. Perhaps the US gives too many opportunities for success, but Europe gives far too little.
What ever you want is going to cost a little more than it is worth. -- The Second Law Of Thermodynamics