I have the address C800 in my head, but $deity knows if that’s relevant!
I think that C8000 (with an additional zero) was the start of the XT hard disk BIOS.
985 posts • joined 5 Aug 2008
An ancient network share at Deficiency House only supports the SMB1 protocol. To get a Windows 10 machine to connect to it, the following steps were necessary:
get-windowsoptionalfeature -online -featurename smb1protocolin Windows PowerShell;
enable-windowsoptionalfeature -online -featurename smb1protocolin Windows PowerShell, and cleanly restart the Windows 10 machine to complete its enabling.
Note that security is lessened when running Windows 10 with SMB1 support enabled. To disable SMB1 support under Windows 10 after a previous enabling, run
disable-windowsoptionalfeature -online -featurename smb1protocol in Windows PowerShell, and cleanly restart the Windows 10 machine to complete its disabling.
In some cases, e.g. “20# bond paper” *, “#” is pronounced “pound” because ”#” is a substitute for the avoirdupois pound sign, “℔”. When handwritten hurriedly, ℔ looks something like #. It’s still common in the States to use # for pounds mass when # follows a number.
* — Used to express paper density; in this case, 500 sheets of “bond” (17″ × 22″) paper weighing 20 pounds, which is about 75.2 g ⁄ m² . Note that “20# bond paper” only expresses the paper’s density, and paper of this density is rarely sold in a 17″ × 22″ size.
… and I needed to get to an address.
I ended up using the basic map I got from the hotel (old habit that saved me more times than I can count)
If your hotel has English-speaking staff behind the front desk, perhaps one of them could advise you on how to get to a particular address? (A hotel’s basic map generally shows the main thoroughfares, which is certainly useful, but doesn’t always show side streets in sufficient detail.)
The Royal Mail scheme sounds quite similar to that of the USPS. US postal barcodes (both types, viz “POSTNET” and “Intelligent Mail”) include an extra two digits as a “delivery point routing code”, which technically extends ZIP codes to 11 digits, but those extra two digits are never used with human-readable ZIP codes. Their primary use is for presorted bulk mail to qualify the sender for postage discounts. (A past job required me to become acquainted with the USPS Domestic Mail Manual and USPS Publication 28, Postal Addressing Standards.)
There are two varieties of US ZIP codes: a five-digit version and a nine-digit version (which is the five-digit version plus a four-digit extension, separated by a figure dash). The five-digit version generally identifies an area that is associated with a particular post office (and the area tends to be larger for rural locations than for urban locations), although organizations that receive a large volume of mail can have their own unique ZIP codes (e.g. the headquarters for Walmart has one of its own). Some five-digit ZIP codes are only associated with a block of post office boxes, which is different to the ZIP code for the hosting post office. The nine-digit ZIP code can, but does not necessarily, identify a particular city block, a specific group of apartments/flats, an individual building, or a unique post office box.
… “penta-phibians”, using a mashup of Latin and Greek
First of all, congratulations to General Sanders, after all that time of being a colonel.
Regarding “penta-phibian”, it is actually a mashup of Greek and Greek (πέντε + ἀμφίβιον), although “-phibian” represents a lousy surgical site, since the proper place for the knife in ἀμφίβιον is ἀμφί- (“both”) + -βιον (“life”). Something like “quinque-phibian” would be a mashup of Latin and Greek. Given what the general believes the MoD should be developing, Greek πέντοδοί → Latin pentodi → English “pentods” (/ˈpɛn.tədz/, “five-ways”, to demonstrate the plural) would be closer to the mark.
Price controls do not violate the US constitution; the “Nixon shock” of ending the US dollar’s convertibility to gold also instituted price controls (and wage controls). Both wage and price controls were also in place during World War II.
“This new initiative seems to be a strategy for them to recruit and retain workers during a time when labor supply is scarce,” said Audrey Guo, assistant professor of economics at Santa Clara University, in an email to The Register. “Given how high turnover is at a company like Amazon, this type of benefit could also potentially attract more serious/better quality workers than a simple hourly wage increase would.”
Since $5,250 per year ≈ $100 per week ≈ $2.50 per hour for a full-time worker, I’d guess that a larger simple hourly wage increase at another firm would act as a greater motivation to change jobs for more serious/better quality workers.
The Latin plural declension depends upon the case: omnes for the nominative, accusative, and vocative; omnibus for the dative and ablative; and omnium for the genitive. The English word “omnibus” came from the Latin dative plural (“for all”) via French; the French plural of omnibus is omnibus.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the plural of Hippopotamus is Hippopotamuses (see also Octopus and Octopuses)
The entry for “hippopotamus” in my copy of the OED begins
hippopotamus (hɪpəʊˈpɒtəməs). Pl. -muses, -mi.
reflecting the use of either “hippopotamuses” or “hippopotami” in English.
Its entry for “octopus” begins
octopus (ˈɒktəpəs, ɒkˈtəʊpəs). Pl. octopodes (ɒkˈtəʊpədiːz), anglicized octopuses.
reflecting the use of either “octopodes” or “octopuses” in English.
Spring’s legal team is spreading the manure thick. Only certain combinations of Greek letters (and their English names) are trademarked in the US for the specific purpose of identifying specific fraternity and sorority organizations — e.g. “ΔΓ” and “Delta Gamma” are trademarks that identify the Delta Gamma Fraternity, but no one holds (or could hold) a universal trademark on any of “Δ”, “Γ”, “Delta”, or “Gamma”.
In the particular case of Spring’s braindead filter reacting to “zeta” in the descriptive text, one workaround could be to use the Greek name for the Greek letter instead — either “ζήτα” (monotonic) or “ζῆτα” (polytonic).
According to Fred Shapiro in The New York Times Magazine, it started to be attributed to Bismarck in the 1930s, but the earliest known laws-and-sausages aphorism was by the US poet John Godfrey Saxe in 1869:
Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made.
No — neither text exactly describes a “prawn”. The Leviticus text states that “whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers” is permissible to eat, and whatever lacks fins and scales there is forbidden to eat. The Quranic text states that “Lawful to you is the game of the sea and its food”. Finer distinctions can be drawn by the dietary laws of each religion; perhaps the Torah and the Quran could be thought of as constitutions, under which Jewish and Islamic dietary laws act as legislation for their respective constitutions.
… unless the Quran overrides it, e.g. chapter 5, verse 96.
Note that it’s only the Halafi school of Sunni jurisprudence that considers prawns to be makruh (disapproved), but not haram (forbidden); the other Sunni schools, all of the Shia schools, and the Ibadi school regard prawns as halal (permissible). These are in contrast to Leviticus 11:9–12, where prawns are forbidden.
“Norway’s collaboration with Hitler” was in fact the Reichskommissariat Norwegen, the German occupation’s administration, with Quisling and company being the collaborationist handpuppets of Reichskommissar Josef Terboven; Haakon VII. and the legitimate Norwegian government were in exile in London. You’re correct that there were Norwegians fighting against Russia, but they were Wehrmacht (and SS) volunteers, not the Norwegian army, and thus not representing the country of Norway; therefore, yes, those Norwegians’ actions don’t count as Norway, the kingdom, being at war with the USSR.
Lars, given the paragraph in which the statement is found,
Norway’s 197,7 km long land border to Russia is likely the most peaceful border of all Russia’s external borders. Unchanged since agreed in 1826, the border is also a sign of peace; Norway is the only neighbor that Russia has not been at war with.
I disagree that “of Norway and Finland” is the applicable context for “the only neighbor”. In my view, “the most peaceful border of all Russia’s external borders” is highly relevant to the phrase’s meaning; it indicates to me that “of all Russia’s neighbors” is the applicable context for “the only neighbor”.
After the Kalmar Union, Denmark-Norway was never opposed to, and sometimes allied with, Russia in various wars, until the Napoléonic War of the Sixth Coalition, in which the alliance of Denmark-Norway with France (a result of the British bombardment of Copenhagen) resulted in the breakup of Denmark-Norway. Since Norway was a separate kingdom with a separate army (but a common navy) in personal union with the Danish kingdom until 1814, and the bombardment of Copenhagen destroyed that navy, it would be reasonable to conclude that Norway is one of the neighbors that Russia has not been at war with.
To my knowledge, Russia has not been at war with either Belarus or North Korea, although it has been at war with other countries that controlled their current territories (e.g. the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Empire of Japan respectively).
Getting a good street view of the border with Russia is difficult for that same security reason.
The relevant law which was linked to in the article in The Barents Observer even states (in Norwegian) that within 1 km of a Norwegian border, photographing any neighboring country’s territory is prohibited, and the possession or use of photographic equipment is prohibited to visitors to such areas unless special permission has been granted. (Residents of such areas are allowed to possess or use photographic equipment unless they’ve been naughty, e.g. caught taking snapshots of a neighboring country’s territory.)
Or which have most job opportunities?
That would seem to favour languages for which there are the most empty desks. The reason they are not filled may be that few want to use that language.
You might have left out a bit from that last sentence — “The reason they are not filled may be that few want to use that language at the offered wage.”
Here in the States they can’t be called milk shakes as there’s no milk in them.
According to the US tentacle of the McDonald’s Web site, the base for their Stateside shaken products is reduced fat vanilla ice cream, of which the first ingredient is milk and the third ingredient is cream. (The fourth ingredient, corn syrup, might be of some concern, though.) Its whipped light cream topping also contains cream and nonfat milk.
Curiously, according to its UK tentacle, four different bases are used for the analogous products in Blighty, each with its own combination of dairy products drawn from cream, whole milk, 2.9% fat milk, skimmed milk, reconstituted skimmed milk, skimmed milk powder, and whey powder; the last of these is the only dairy ingredient that is found in all four bases.
A handy PDF from its CA tentacle shows that its milkshakes there share a single base of vanilla ice milk, but its dairy content is rather coyly listed as including “milk ingredients” and “modified milk ingredients”.
I’d argue that the UK’s East India Company (hereafter “EIC”) was the second such example, with the Netherlands’ East India Company (hereafter “VOC”) being the first. The EIC was restructured in the 1650s to more closely parallel the VOC structure, and Charles II. was the one who granted the EIC
the right to acquire territory, coin money, command fortresses and troops, form alliances, make war and peace, and exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction
(to quote the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica). Thus, “out of control” should not be interpreted as “uncontrollable”, but rather as “overly powerful”. The competition between the EIC and the VOC was a large factor in the four Anglo-Dutch wars of the 17th and 18th centuries.
Strictly, both lifts and elevators are (semantically speaking) one-way devices.
Perhaps the downward motion of lifts and elevators could be compared to negative acceleration, since acceleration is also semantically one-way.
I’m not immediately sure what a “lift” should be called when going down, but when going down an elevator might more accurately be called a “subsider” or maybe a “depresser”.
I’d call a downward lift a “sink”, and (on an etymological basis) a downward elevator an “egravator”.
under that Amendment other laws state what are rightful searches and who can perform them.
It doesn't mean that everybody has a right to search everybody else unless the law says otherwise.
The majority decision in United States v. Jacobsen suggests otherwise:
This Court has also consistently construed this protection [from the first clause of the Fourth Amendment] as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable“to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official.”
Since that protection is wholly inapplicable to a non-governmental search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual, any restraint on searches or seizures by non-governmental persons must have its basis in some other source. Just because that basis is not the first clause of the Fourth Amendment does not mean that every non-governmental person has a right to search or seize anyone else.
Or do you mean that even the right to Life is not protected but by plain law that can be changed at will by politicians?
I have only been discussing the Fourth Amendment’s applicability, or lack thereof, to the Apple CSAM scan plan. Would you prefer to discuss the right to life instead? If so, do you mean in terms of abolishing capital punishment? Do you mean in terms of prohibiting abortions?
… but only the government today has a right to search your properties (with a warrant, of course).
The government does not always need a warrant — if consent is given to a search, then no warrant is needed. A search in an open field does not require a warrant, but searching a house’s curtilage would require a warrant. With the exception of the contents of an arrestee’s cell phone, warrants are not needed for a search that is incident to an arrest. Warrants are not needed for searches at a port of entry, with the possible exception of electronic devices — some Federal circuits require reasonable suspicion for such a search, and some don’t, and the Supreme Court has not yet granted review of a circuit case to settle on one rule for all ports of entry.
Or do you mean any individual or organization can search you and your properties at will?
My meaning can be found in my linked comment above, and I’ll repeat it here:
A legal defense against non-governmental searches by individuals or organizations would need to based on other areas of the law, e.g. on trespass or online privacy legislation.
Because the Fourth Amendment only constrains the government, it is irrelevant with regards to non-governmental searches by individuals or organizations.
The Fourth Amendment only constrains the government; it does not constrain non-governmental searches by individuals or organizations.
Since the US Senate has not yet voted on the infrastructure bill (apart from a vote to invoke cloture to prevent the bill from being filibustered), the possibilities are either that this was announced before the Senate approved the bill, or that this was announced before the Senate rejected the bill.
What do “our memes” have to do with the Senate vote on the infrastructure bill? Is there some sort of anti-meme legislative proposal buried within it?
No one stated that a private individual should not abide by the US constitution. If you read the US constitution, you will find that much of it does not directly affect private individuals; Article I. primarily deals with the powers of and limitations on Congress, Article II. primarily with the powers of and limitations on the President and Vice-President, Article III. ditto with the Supreme Court and its inferior Federal courts, &c.
New states had to accept the US constitution, but I don’t know if “signing” it was part of that acceptance. New territories were creatures of Congress that were organized as such only once controlled by the US, so any acceptance in their case was performed by Congress.
The Supreme Court did not state that only Federal agencies had to abide by the constitution. As was quoted in the case above, the opinion stated that the first clause of the fourth amendment to the constitution only applied to the government (and you could follow the links to past cases within the case link above to find the opinions that served as precedents); that case made no other determination on any other part of the constitution.
Regarding your second question, unlike the first clause of the fourth amendment, the first amendment explicitly constrains Congress, and the thirteenth amendment still allows slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for crimes, and explicitly gave Congress the power to enforce the amendment through legislation.
There needs to be “probable cause” to carry out any search.
Note that the Fourth Amendment only constrains searches by the government — see the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in United States v. Jacobsen :
The first Clause of the Fourth Amendment provides that the“right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . .”
This text protects two types of expectations, one involving “searches,” the other “seizures.” A “search” occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. A “seizure” of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property. This Court has also consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable“to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official.”
A legal defense against non-governmental searches by individuals or organizations would need to based on other areas of the law, e.g. on trespass or online privacy legislation.
Proceedings in the wrongful death lawsuit revealed that she was an employee of the CIA, though to my knowledge what her rôle was there was not noted. If that agreement regarding intelligence officers at RAF Croughton was in force at the time of Dunn’s death, why did the High Court there rule that she had diplomatic immunity at that time?
The 2003 extradition treaty does not require violence to be involved in the alleged offense; it requires that the punishment for the alleged offense be at least one year’s “deprivation of liberty” in both jurisdictions. The involvement of violence in the alleged offense was also not required for extradition in the 1972 extradition treaty, which the 2003 extradition treaty replaced.
Regarding the number of US citizens extradited from the US to the UK, note that the entirety of Article 3 of the 2003 extradition treaty is “Extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought.” (which applies to extradition in both directions).
How many extradition requests by the UK for US citizens in the US were refused by the US government? If that number is above zero, what were the reasons given for each refusal? If that number is zero, then how could that be a basis of complaint?
One is an allegation (suspicion), one is evidence of a crime (“probable cause”). US citizens are protected at the higher “probable cause” level, this treaty set the bar at the lower “reasonable suspicion” for UK citizens.
Have you read Part 7 of the Baker Report on extradition? Under the current (2003) treaty, extradition requests to the US include information that satisfies the probable cause test, and extradition requests to the UK include information that satisfies the reasonable suspicion test; evidence is no longer required for requests in either direction.
It was under the previous (1972) treaty that extradition requests to the US included probable cause evidence, and extradition requests to the UK included prima facie evidence.
Satisfying the current reasonable suspicion test requires information that would justify an arrest or the issuance of a UK arrest warrant. The reasonable suspicion test replaced the prima facie test because the Extradition Act 2003 in the UK had to comply with Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which only requires reasonable suspicion for an arrest for a criminal offence.
To quote §§7.43 and 7.44 from the Baker Report,
We believe that any difference between the two tests [probable cause and reasonable suspicion] is semantic rather than substantive, and the challenge to those who suggest that the tests are in some way different is to articulate precisely what the difference is and how the difference would apply in any particular case.
In our opinion it is significant to note that:
(i) Both tests are based on reasonableness;
(ii) Both tests are supported by the same documentation;
(iii) Both tests represent the standard of proof that police officers in the United States and the United Kingdom must satisfy domestically before a judge in order to arrest a suspect.
The US isn’t “holding onto” Anne Sacoolas; the High Court there ruled in November 2020 that she had diplomatic immunity at the time of Harry Dunn’s death. If she were a responsible human being, she would waive that diplomatic immunity and return to the UK to face her accusers; in the interim, she and her husband are defendants in a wrongful death lawsuit in Virginia brought by Dunn’s family.
The UK is still extraditing people to the USA because there is an extradition treaty in force between the two countries.
The problem is that although the UK accepted the extradition treaty, the US Senate has refused to vote it into law in the USA.
The second half of this statement is false. The US Senate ratified the current (2003) extradition treaty on 2006-09-30; the 2003 treaty entered into force for both parties with the exchange of the instruments of ratification on 2007-04-26.
the USA uses the previously accepted treaty to assess whether their own nationals can be extradited to the UK.
This statement is false. When the 2003 treaty went into force, the previous (1972) treaty “ceased to have any effect”, except for  extradition proceedings for which the extradition documents had already been submitted as of that date, and  UK jurisdictions that were not covered by the 2003 treaty as of that date (i.e. Guernsey and the Isle of Man).
The entirety of Article 3 of the current treaty, which applies to both parties, is “Extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought.”.
The previous treaty requires the courts in the USA to use the probable cause requirement when considering extraditing a US national to the UK, not reasonable suspicion.
The previous (1972) treaty does not contain the phrase “probable cause” at all. See its Article IX. to see what was required of both parties to grant extradition to the other party. It is the fourth amendment to the US constitution that requires probable cause for a lawful seizure of a person, US citizen or not, within the US. If there were no probable cause for a seizure, then that seizure would be unlawful, and thus there would be no associated crime in the US on which an extradition could be based (because extradition requires that a crime applies in both jurisdictions).
I’ve never seen such an abbreviation for the halfpenny, but I have seen “q.” (“quadrans”) for the farthing in some 18th century documents, extending £sd to £sdq.
As an American, note that there were five separate £sd-to-Spanish dollar systems in use among the British colonies in North America in the 1770s. Many people in the US continued to reckon in their state’s £sd system as a unit of account until the 1850s (these systems wew even adopted in new states, as late as Texas, according to which states their early anglophone populations came from), when the coins of the newfangled $d¢ system finally became common enough to replace the mishmash of international coinage that made up most of the circulating coin.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021