Slashdot Mirror

1. Taxiing trials 1.1Mb
2. Takeoff 2.1Mb
3. Flying 3.35Mb

Akamai mirror of parent comment, in case it gets slashdotted.

Here and Here.

It's not slow yet - oh well.
Here.

/Me shakes his head.

The notorious cleaning lady...

Site's a little slow -
Akamai Mirror.

Red vs. Blue E3 Video

I just looked it up. The decision was Kyllo vs. US 99-8508. I am happy to read the broad language in the majority opinion discouraging infringements such as this in the future. Contrary to your statements this decision affirms that my concept of fourth amendments rights are correct. Being in a house is only relevant to the extent that the interior of a home is 'the prototypical and hence most commonly litigated area of protected privacy' as stated by Justice Scalia in the afformentioned opinion. Notice he did not say the home interior is the only consitutionally protected area of privacy! He was just pointing out that it is SO obviously a protected area that there was no need to question it.

Similarly, your other attempts at reductios (the tent and the bathroom) also run into the plain meaning of the Fourth Amendment -- good ol' "effects" and "persons", respectively.

If you go back and actually read my post which you replied to, you will find that the tent and bathroom examples were being used to point out the absurdity of spycraft-fu's comments. So despite your adverserial tone you are actually supporting my argument.

So, small towns in rural areas are police states? Public semi-anonymity is an artifact of high-density population centers. Outside of them, it does not and never has existed

This is completely false. In the very small town that I moved to only a handful of people know me. And even if all small towns were exactly like Mayberry RFD you have neglected the every other type of community in the country which all abide by the same constitutional law. So it is you who attempted a "reductio".

My original post dealt with the changes in civil rights caused by a continual assault on the very meaning of the words in the law. I never challenged the constitutionality of performing unwarranted computerized searches on citizens driving innocently through town, by using superhuman sensory equipment, but if you want to look at that, then let's.

From the same Supreme Court decision as above, here are a few choice quotes:

Held: Where, as here, the Government

uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment search, and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

Thus,

obtaining by senseenhancing technology any information regarding the home s interior that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area, Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 512, constitutes a search at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. This assures preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. Pp. 6 7.

Take special note of that statement, 'This assures preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.' This is the pith of my argument and Scalia understands too that we must not let our civil rights be eroded!

The Court rejects the Government s argument that the thermal imaging must be upheld because it detected only heat radiating from the home s external surface. Such a mechanical interpretation of the Fourth Amendment was rejected in Katz, where the eavesdropping device in question picked up only sound waves that reached the exterior of the phone booth to which it was attached. Reversing that approach would leave the homeowner

at the mercy of advancing tec

From a skimming of the syllabus for the ruling, the Court sees city and county governments as subdivisions of the state, and the state is therefore regulating itself in restricting these activities.

Title 47, 253(a), states, "No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service."

The Court sees the state as the regulator regulating itself. It sees the position taken by the defendants as denying the ability of the state to regulate itself. It also refers to historical points on language, specifically that when Congress intends that a group should include both public and private entities, it will almost always include the words "public and private" in the text of the law. A lack of these words has generally connoted reference only to private entities, and it is on this basis that the majority came to their conclusion. Congress is free to clarify this point by adding in a few words to 253.

(Note that there is a concurring opinion by two justices, and one dissenting opinion. I have not read over those yet.)

Grab a copy of the Summary Tables for the US budget and take a look at Table S-3 on page 5. It shows the budgets for various agencies and how they've grown or shrunk since 2001.

Does anyone honestly think that putting that bit of money elsewhere would solve whatever domestic problems you want fixed? Have we yet cured hunger, poverty, or undereducation? No? Well, we've been throwing billions at them so far.

Perhaps part of the problem is that the US is more interested in "solving problems" in other countries than dealing with domestic problems. The US currently spends 4-5 times more on the military than it does on educating its own citizens. See page 51.

Self-building a system, especially with a creative enclosure, is never a Bad Thing. However, there is one very important -- I would even say 'critical' -- aspect of doing so that no one seems to be paying attention to, and it applies to ANY computer case that is not a full wrap-around all-metal enclosure.

Specifically: Unless you take explicit steps to electrically shield the transparent parts, the enclosure will never meet FCC Part 15 requirements for not radiating RF energy, or being susceptible to outside RFI (Radio Frequency Interference).

Here's the filthy details, and some more info on why this is a Bad Thing. Early computer systems and peripherals were classed as "Unintentional Radiators" under part 15.3(z) of the FCC regs. Later, as processor speeds climbed, an additional category of 'Digital Device' was created under part 15.3(k).

It was under this part that two subclasses were created. You may have heard references to something being a "Class A Computing Device" in the commercial world, or a "Class B Computing Device" in the consumer world. Both of these subclasses have to do with how much RF the device radiates under normal use, and how much potential it has to interfere with other nearby devices, including TV's, stereos, etc. The ARRL's web site has a page that summarizes this, and provides a great explanation on the issue of what 'harmful interference' is, and what the rules say about responsibility for solving issues involving it.

The Reader's Disgust version is this: Sure, you can build your computer into the flashiest Lexan-and-Aluminum enclosure you can find. You can equip it with all kinds of see-through parts, flashing LEDs, and other useless fluff to your heart's content.

HOWEVER -- remember that any material other than metal, solid or mesh, is going to be pretty much transparent to whatever RF energy your system spews into the surrounding environment in the course of its normal operation. If your flashy see-through system causes interference to ANY other RF-using device that is NOT covered by Part 15, to the point where said device cannot operate properly, it is YOUR responsibility to clean it up, electrically speaking.

Transparency to RF is a two-edged sword. You might get incredibly lucky, in that your way-cool see-through system might not be causing any interference at all. But what happens when, just as one example, the ham radio operator next door to you starts transmitting with a 1,000-watt-plus signal? (Yes, we are allowed to use that kind of power, and more).

Another example: What happens if a cop, the paramedics, or anyone else with a portable transceiver happens to transmit with said portable and they happen to be close to your computer at the same time?

Either way, a good chunk of the RF energy from those transmissions are going to go straight into your computer, because all that Lexan is going to let it in like a firehose stream through tissue paper. At best, your system may lock up or reboot unexpectedly. At worst, you could be looking at hard drive corruption.

And guess who's responsible for clearing up the resultant mess? Not the ham radio op. What they're doing is covered very well indeed under FCC Part 97. (That's not to say they'd just tell you to fix it yourself -- most hams are pretty nice about helping you to fix such issues if their transmitters appear to be wreaking havoc, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the owner of the Part 15 device).

Not the cops, paramedics, or whoever else was using the portable radio either. They're operating perfectly within the limits of their FCC license as well. No, the onus for fixing the problem lands right back on your shoulders, as the computer owner, all because you wanted a

ATC authorizations. An operator may deviate from any provision of this section under the provisions of an ATC authorization issued by the ATC facility having jurisdiction of the airspace concerned. [emphasis added] In the case of an inoperative transponder, ATC may immediately approve an operation within a Class A airspace area allowing flight to continue, if desired, to the airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made, or both. Requests for deviation from any provision of this section must be submitted in writing, at least 4 days before the proposed operation. ATC may authorize a deviation on a continuing basis or for an individual flight.

So it seems you can just write a letter and get an authorization to operate without a clearance.

Go read 47CFR Part 2...

It can be found here.

Now look at the Washington regime. Do they have connections to oil industry? Who put them into position of power? Follow the money.

Bush is just a puppet. The country is run by the almighty buck. Yes the war is expensive. You, as a tax payer, are not going to get that money back. But someone else will. They made an investment and now they expect a return for that investment. Opening the gates to Iraq oil wells is that ROI.

I suggest you browse through Executive Order 13303. Bush has now exempted oil companies operating in IRAQ from liability for health and safety violations, child labour, minimum wage and other employment rights such as equal opportunity, consumer fraud, clean environment duties, etc. This under the pretext of "national security".

Oil companies rejoice. The investment paid off.

Available in Text

Domain names are included with the list of the organizations.

Xerox DocuShare software, which sounds very similar to WinFS, uses the MSDE engine for its file storage. Xerox analysts have stated a limit of approximately 400,000 object.

This may be sufficient for Docushare in which you selectively add documents into the system (don't want Docushare to be filled with Temporary Internet Files, System Files, etc.), but I have Win2000 Servers with 700,000+ files.

For Home versions of Windows, WinFS probably will use MSDE. For Server versions, it will have to be able to handle an enormous/unlimited amount of files - aka SQL Server.

Xerox's (I am not affiliated) Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) is known "As the Birthplace of technologies such as laser printing, Ethernet, the graphical user interface..."
You can read more about Xerox in their Fact Book

I think the terms should be limited to something like 7 years. This way you can not have anyone there for 2 full presidential terms.

There are currently 9 members (1 Chief and 8 Associate Justices).

I guess it is more practical to have terms of 9 years (1 new SCJ per year). Make the Chief Justice position open only to current SCJ's with 5 years of bench time or more, no more than 7 years.

Per curiam stands for "by the court"; per curiam opinions are merely unsigned, and are designated by the court as per curiam. No single justice is given credit for writing the opinion (as is the custom), but the opinion is binding. Most often, per curiam decisions are issued when a court finds that no substantial controversy or issue of law exists; however, there can still be concurring and/or dissenting opinions with a per curiam decision, or even a substantial question presented. For example, Bush v. Gore (a PDF of the opinion as published in Volume 531 of U.S. Reports; scroll to page 298 of the PDF, 98 by the page numbering, if interested) was a per curiam opinion, with five written opinions: the unsigned per curiam opinion, a concurring opinion, and three separate dissenting opinions.

Reference: Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute definition of per curiam .

Well I like your outlook, but that is almost 1/2 a billion (not trillion). You may be forgiven for this error, as computers most likely do your math for you. On the other hand, considering the US has $376B budgeted for military spending in 2003, this is less than 1/2 of one percent of the budget.

On the other hand, with the cost of a smart bomb of about $20K, this comes to something like 23.55K smart bombs that the govt isn't spending. The US dropped over 30000 smart-bombs in the first 12 days of this recent war, meaning the purchase of MS computers may cause about 11 days of relative peace...

... or it may cause a more aggressive nuclear plan because the smart bombs are not around...

MSN running on an Akami Linux server :^)

http://a1.g.akamaitech.net/6/6/6/6/www.msn.com/

maybe... now IANAL, but from my law-school wife, I get the knowledge of the "sanctity of the home"- that's why police can't barge in without a warrant, they can't peek into your windows, and this would be upheld by the supreme court.

So my thought is someone was just trying to brown nose some ultra-conservative constiuents in an effort to get more money out of them. It doesn't sound like there is a reasonable method of "getting caught"-

Again, IANAL, nor am I paranoid. I just have a low enough opinion of politicos so that I don't assume they want to fuck everyone over, I think they are just pandering "laws" for a buck. It'd be great to get some insight from Michigan police officers on this one.

It would be nice to also get the point of view of any lawyers, specifically those from Michigan.

p.s.- for those who care, some quick-o sanctity links:
social workers can't enter a home w/o a warrant , Kirk v. louisiana, you can't bust into someone's home and just arrest them ,
Illinois v. McArthur, even if I have some weed, you can't bust into my place without a warrant.

68 FR 14140. Direct link to the Federal Register. PDF format. Enjoy.

PS: Request your FBI file regularly. It's really easy.

location

If only we could mount some lasers on stars to project those helpful constellation lines.

This is not "Public Notice and Comment", but rather just "Public Notice" that a meeting will take place. As noted here [PDF] the comment deadline was 09-18-02.

That was flamebait, you know very well that porn/hentai is just a tiny fraction of anime. (The majority of it is toy commercials for 7
-year olds!)

But I must reply to tell you that "something recently in the news" was that animations of children engaged in sex is legal, even though the Republican Congress is trying to change that.

h'm, it's supposed to be the apollo 15 landing site but to my untrained eyes it looks suspiciously like dark splotches. anyone know of any better ones out there? maybe some moon rocks or golf balls all lined up to spell HELP or something?

When the SCOTUS rules along party lines, against personal precedent, in order to install a POTUS,...

After the results were certified (including only a parital recount of Miami-Dade), the Gore campaign contested the results. Because the SCOFL had moved the certification date from November 14 to November 26 while the date that electors had to be transmitted to Congress had not changed, and the fact that the law does not allow results to be contested until they are certified, the contest phase was shortened by 12 days. In response to the contest, a manual re-examination of undervotes was ordered. From the SCOTUS decision: "The (SCOFL ordered) recount process...is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter..." Thus, in a 7-2 vote (see p.12 of the decision) the SCOTUS declared that the procedures set up by the SCOFL were unconstitutional. That's not a 5-4 party-line vote. However, at the same time this decision was handed down the SCOTUS decided 5-4 that due to the short period of time before the electors had to be certified on December 12, there was no feasible way to conduct a recount that would protect the Equal Protection rights of all the voters, and so the SCOTUS would not require such recount.

Two things here are really interesting. First, the SCOTUS vote that gets all the media mention is not the 7-2 vote that the SCOFL process violated Equal Protection, but the 5-4 vote to not issue a decision requiring the state to do something impossible. Second, what really threw the monkey wrench into the whole thing was the Gore campaign's request to the SCOFL to violate the US Constitution and extend the protest (pre-certification of the votes) phase at the expense of time for the contest phase. That basically forced the SCOTUS to issue the 7-2 decision that it did, due to the lack of time before the December 12 deadline.

So, yes, you can claim a ruling "along party lines", as long as you ignore the real ruling, or assume that the SCOTUS should make rulings that violate the Constitution.

Chris Beckenbach

Are you forgetting Casey Martin who won his case in the Supreme Court to have the USGA let him use a golf cart in professional tournaments PDF version of the SC's decision?

Moral: be careful what you try to satirize.

I actually used some of these, these and these to build
some of these. They
tried to stop me by using these
and these
but I did not give in!
I know a guy and he helped me to bring these in so we could design and design some more and build some of these and these and fight everyone off and scary the rest.

So finally, I could use more of
these and these and these to get my freakingly cool nuclear powered microprocessor.

Click here

It should be re-captioned, "These dorks are playing pinball. They must not know they are in college and should be drinking beer, and having sex with girls!"

SKARO - The familiarity of the moon laser pods seen in recent coverage of the proposed NASA Comet/Asteroid Protection System is "merely a coincidence," say Langley Research Center officials.

In a written statement, CAPS project lead Dr. Alan Davros staked his personal assurance that CAPS pods are capable "only of routine extermination," given their advanced Thal technology.

- Edward Johnson; Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862- 9200

(see here and
here. )

It seems insurance companies will need to charge higher premiums for buildings that house CIA, US Secret Service, IRS and Securities & Exchange Commission files, now that they have a propensity for spontaneous collapse.

(see here and
here. )

Granted, football sucks -- but, for Jobs's sake, what's wrong with women and beer?

The ad and Here's the link to the original on the Speigel site.

It's huge. It's only hidden because it's under water. Check here for pictures of said hole in the ground.

Here is the flight path for all 4 planes. UA93 crashed almost an hour and a half after the first plane down (AA11), and half an hour after the 3rd plane (AA77).

This link at the Washington Post relates the story of two people on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania conveying to loved ones that they intended to try and overpower the hijackers before they were able to carry out their plans. If these people even tried what they were talking about, even if it wasn't the cause of the apparently pre-mature crash, IMHO they are true heros.

If I had woken up 1/2 hour earlier today I might have been at the Pentagon Bus Depot (other side of the building) when the plane crashed. That scares the hell out of me. I see that helipad every day when the bus is pulling up the the Metro stop at the Pentagon.

Another interesting thing for everyone. Apparently U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson's wife called him from her cell phone on the plane that crashed into the pentagon. Apparently the hijackers used knife-like weapons. Here is the link.

don't believe me? just look at their propaganda!!! That's right! On the "woman" explorer's (ha!) shoulder you see the rising sun of that goddamn commie facist japan. Those asians won't only collonize mars first, but they'll communize it too! My fellow countrymen, you disgusting canadians, and any of you frogs who don't piss yourself everytime a dog barks: WE MUST ERADICATE THE MENACE FROM THE EAST!!!

thank you for your time, gentlemen.

However, it looks like it's not quite working for this site. It still works for Yahoo though. Also, the /. preview is showing a space between the 'o' and the 'm'. Make sure that you don't type one there if you need to enter it manually.

Whether or not this decision was right, it's NOT good news for web users.

Perhaps, though I don't see how the Court could have found otherwise. Consider that they did decide that the freelancer's property could be confiscated without payment - what ugly precent could this have established?

Faced with that alternative, I'd have to believe that recognizing their property as such, and allowing them to rightfully negotiate the reuse of that property via contract with the publisher was the correct resolution. Which leads me to ask, per the cnn article:
Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens dissented.

What on earth were they thinking? I've been noticing these two dissenting on nearly everything associated with individual liberty, free speech, property rights, etc. I'll have to read the minority opinion to figure that out.

In fact the only surprise here is that Souter (worst appointee in the 20th century) isn't in the mix of dissenters. What did he find right with the majority?

*scoove*

The justices draw upon a specific clause in the 1976 copyright act (201(c)) designed to prevent frelancers from losing all their rights to a work. From the decision here (pdf);

JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
This copyright case concerns the rights of freelance
authors and a presumptive privilege of their publishers.
The litigation was initiated by six freelance authors and
relates to articles they contributed to three print periodicals
(two newspapers and one magazine). Under agreements
with the periodicals' publishers, but without the
freelancers' consent, two computer database companies
placed copies of the freelancers' articles-- along with all
other articles from the periodicals in which the freelancers'
work appeared-- into three databases. Whether written
by a freelancer or staff member, each article is presented
to, and retrievable by, the user in isolation, clear of
the context the original print publication presented.
The freelance authors' complaint alleged that their
copyrights had been infringed by the inclusion of their
articles in the databases. The publishers, in response,
relied on the privilege of reproduction and distribution
accorded them by 201(c) of the Copyright Act, which
provides:
"Copyright in each separate contribution to a collec-
tive work is distinct from copyright in the collective
work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of
the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer
of the copyright or of any rights under it, the
owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed
to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and
distributing the contribution as part of that particular
collective work, any revision of that collective work,
and any later collective work in the same series." 17
U. S. C. 201(c).
Specifically, the publishers maintained that, as copyright
owners of collective works, i.e., the original print publications,
they had merely exercised "the privilege" 201(c)
accords them to "reproduc[e] and distribut[e]" the author's
discretely copyrighted contribution.
In agreement with the Second Circuit, we hold that
201(c) does not authorize the copying at issue here. The
publishers are not sheltered by 201(c), we conclude,
because the databases reproduce and distribute articles
standing alone and not in context, not "as part of that
particular collective work" to which the author contributed,
"as part of . . . any revision" thereof, or "as part of . . .
any later collective work in the same series." Both the
print publishers and the electronic publishers, we rule,
have infringed the copyrights of the freelance authors.

If the publishers were to distibute a "pdf" doucument (which would be like a microfilm-the opinion specifically mentions that) of their original publication, I don't think the freelancers could do anything about that though (IANAL).

Another very interesting thing is that the decision cites the original congressional record when the 1976 copyright law was being drafted to help determine its intennt.

What is the difference in tracking from an odor or an infra red light device?

Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in gen-eral [sic] public use, to explore details of a private home that would previ-ously [sic] have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveil-lance [sic] is a Fourth Amendment "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Pp. 3-13.

Since most people come equipped with a nose as a standard option, police could use a nose to detect things.

Also, on Bill's Borg Boxes, you can run Netscape and write protect cookies.txt (after accepting the /. one for posting). Then you don't need to clean out your cookies, just close and reopen your browser.

Whatever you do, when you hit the GoTo page, make sure you see a dollar amount after each link. The value is the amount the spammer will be charged. If you have cookies turned off, the spammers do NOT get charged.

What if you don't directly link to the site, but instead use some sort of proxy (i.e. Akamai)?? For example:
&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp http://a1.g.akamaitech.net/6/6/6/6/www.yahoo.com/
Technically, you're no longer linking to the site. You're linking to Akamai (so does this make Akamai's services illegal, since they are now dynamically mirroring the content?).

Or, what if you don't actually use a link, but instead type the URL in plain text?
&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp http://www.yahoo.com
I've heard the argument made that this is analogous to personally transporting someone to a location to buy crack vs. just telling that person where it is available.

________

________

http://a6.g.akamaitech.net/6/6/6/6/www.ddj.com/col umns/history/2001/0101hc/0101hc001f1.jpg