start using their lobbying power to make that cost even larger so no one else can enter the market and provide competition.
FTFY
To target everyone would be a total waste of resources
Not to mention unconstitutional and illegal Oh wait, Obama's continuing the Bush policy? Never mind. Totally different then.
I call BS on the summary. It says "The process has no fundamental experimental boundaries and it is thought it will transform sub-atomic scale transmission imaging". But TFA actually states "A typical electron or X-ray microscope image is about one hundred times more blurred than the theoretical limit defined by the wavelength. In this project, the eventual aim is to get the best-ever pictures of individual atoms in any structure seen within a three-dimensional object."
If they're measuring the wave diffraction as it passes through the atomic structure, then the diffraction limit is most definitely a "fundamental...boundary". If the addition of the word "experimental" means that they found no boundaries in their experiments, that just means they haven't gotten to the diffraction limit of the atomic aperture for those wavelengths yet (i.e. we're not even close to the fundamental boundaries, so we'll say our results are not limited in any way in our experiments). Either way, not a great way to talk about the results - too much sensationalism, not enough science.
In the past two years, Congress has returned the U.S. to good financial standing at the UN and honored its obligations by fully funding the regular and peacekeeping budgets.
FY2011 - CIPA - $1.887B, CIO - $1.518B, Regular Budget - $516M
At the very least you could have looked this up in the 11 seconds it took me. Also, the US accounts for 22% of the UN funding, which is almost twice that of the second biggest contributor (Japan). We were in arrears for not paying the full assessment, not for withholding the full amount. I can't find data on it, but the maximum amount we are quoted to be in arrears on is a little over $1B. That's less than 1/3d of what we paid in 2011 even though we've been in arrears since 1995, so clearly we're still funding a very large part of the UN, just not at the full rate they think we should fund. Most of this comes from our assertion that 25% assessment is too high, so the UN has dropped it to 22%. I'm going to guess that we were not paying the delta between those two, but can't confirm it. I'm sure someone else will provide the needed data.
Of course what's really scary are the number of evangelicals who are HOPING that the end times are here and are willing, again, to do anything to bring it about.
You're obviously not well read and don't understand what the end times as described in Christian scripture entail. They can't be hurried or brought about by anyone's actions. The bible repeatedly enjoins believers to be prepared by living righteous lives, but never once does it say you can make it happen by anything you do. Evangelicals can hope for the end times all they want - that won't make it happen any faster or slower.
Maybe that's why the founding fathers put such a clear line between Church and State (please read Jefferson's exact, specific, detailed words on the subject before claiming otherwise).
Or maybe put them in context first. Jefferson was writing to the Danbury Baptists in response to their letter expressing worry that the government will trample on their religious liberties. In fact, they say in their letter that their concern is that the government views their rights as "favors granted, and not as inalienable rights"; they then ask Jefferson to reassure them the government will not attempt to remove their liberties with laws. Jefferson responds very clearly that "religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions". There is not a single reference anywhere, in either of those communications, of a fear of religion having influence on government, which is how "separation of church and state" has been construed since. Again, you apparently have never read any of this, so please do as you encourage and go read it yourself.
blowing up the world won't automatically send them (and their families!) to Heaven
That's Islam, not Christianity. Please inform yourself. Your ignorance is stunning.
To go where you wish is a right as laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 13) and the USA is a signatory.
Interesting right. I wish to go to Area 51, followed by a tour of all the Hollywood mansions (inside each one, not just a curbside view), then into a few bank vaults. How dare anyone usurp my right to do so!
Seriously though, without a driver's license there are still ample means of going where I want to go within reason. I can take the bus, train, airplane, taxi, walk, or hitchhike. The main obstacle to my personal movement is the private property of others, which is rightly protected as well under article 17 (thus showing my previous paragraph to be utter fallacy for those too dense to understand sarcasm). The UN also acknowledges that countries can create and enforce immigration and emigration laws (they do talk about xenophobia and mistreatment of migrants, but their focus is on businesses and individuals versus governments). So in reality, that right isn't what you think it is.
In this case, the family was restricted from leaving by the airline, not a government. Ostensibly, the reason is that the airline doesn't want to be responsible for them should they arrive in their destination country and be denied access due to a bad passport. I think it's a bad call on the part of AA, and they should be duly chastised by the public, but this isn't a violation of UN Human Rights.
I leave you with a quote from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights just to bolster my argument:
To be born free means that all people have an equal right to freedom. But freedom does not mean that we can do anything we want, nor can freedom for some mean limiting the freedom of others. Though we are born free, we live in a community that functions because there is an understanding among its members; in other words, it has rules and requires responsibilities.
To back up the AC, his post is completely correct. FAA Advisory Circular 91-57 allows individuals to fly remotely controlled aircraft up to 400 feet in altitude, within visual range at all times. This does not apply to university craft, craft owned by a business, or craft owned "by the public" such as police, military, or any city/county UAVs. You have to be able to demonstrate to the FAA that you are flying solely for entertainment/education and that you are only spending your own money on it, and not making any profit off the venture. In fact, it is against FAA regulations for non-individuals to even fly remote controlled aircraft under this AC (I know this based on a very tense and bitter fight with FAA officials over an R/C club on a military installation using donated money to purchase aircraft).
There exist a wide range of technologies for sending telemetry from air to ground over the 2.4GHz and 900MHz ISM bands. (a few examples). There is no need or reason for a ham license whatsoever since it's only purpose is to allow you to fly beyond visual line of sight. The claim that it is necessary is flat wrong.
On to the "anyone can build one" discussion: it's absolutely true. I've built a total of 6 UAVs over the last 5 years. Average cost is $1k if you don't crash it during testing. The typical route is to take an ARF model, add a commercially available autopilot, hook up the servos, put in a bigger engine, battery packs, etc. On-board computers (not counting the autopilot itself) are almost never needed because these vehicles have to be operated line of sight anyway. If you want to do on-board computation, there are a wide variety of options from Gumstix, to pc104 form factor systems. All telemetry is usually handled on the 900 MHz ISM band which I have personally flown as far as 15km (in a UAV-approved range with all of the proper approvals) using a Yagi antenna that was self-steered from the telemetry data. The link still had plenty of signal left on it, but the UAV didn't have the legs to go further and still complete its mission.
Moral of the story: learn the rules and stick to them. The FAA does not accept "but I heard someone did it on
Bravo! Thank you for outlining the pressure on the IT staff and the need to "get it done right". Hopefully those on
I suspect that a much better deterrent to various nefarious telco practices is simply municipal fiber installs
Absolutely. If you want this, lobby your city council, get involved, go to meetings, get elected to the board if you have to. The whole point is that you are going to have to build grassroots support outside of the walled garden that is
In short, this doesn't need to be a federal government thing, it just needs to be done in the local community. The feds only have to get involved in fixing the long-haul problems in the network related to peering, etc.
You shouldn't operate machinery under effects of alcohol, either.
Alcohol is detectable when there is enough to impair you. Marijuana on the other hand "hangs around in your system for as long as 24 hours after smoking. The lingering effects mean you're impaired for several hours after the high wears off." http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects. There is a demonstrable difference in the duration and severity of each of these substances. Marijuana has the longest duration of the three, and the abilities that are compromised are mostly cognitive http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm.
While all three of these substances are comparable in terms of causal use, marijuana very clearly stands out from the other two in terms of effects and duration. I don't think it's a strong comparison.
Your questions forced me to look up info on NTLM and it turns out my earlier post was incorrect. LM is encoded in 7 byte chunks, not 8 byte. NTLM was the fix to the horrible LM hash that I was remember earlier. Mea culpa. LM was still used in XP to maintain backwards compatibility (thus completely circumventing the NTLM hashes of the same password). NTLM is still in use today, although it also suffers from known vulnerabilities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTLM
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
