No, not incorrect. It says right there at your own link that there is no extradition treaty.
And extradition would have been extremely unlikely in China, I think, considering that China has notoriously been one of the top countries for real copyright piracy, due to the fact that they had no copyright laws. Private property is not a big concern for the Chinese government.
"Want to bet that this will be exhibited soon as a poster child of spurious significance and poor statistical analysis?"
As Darrell Huff, author of the 1954 classic How To Lie With Statistics pointed out, the salaries of Protestant ministers at the time was very strongly correlated with the price of Jamaican rum.
The point being: so what? A correlation is all well and good, but the chances are overwhelming that it means exactly shit.
I notice that the other poster, who was provably wrong (see the link I posted... the correct one that is), got modded up while I -- although I was right -- was modded down.
What does that tell you? I've had this happen left and right when it came to this particular subject matter. But no matter how much I get modded down, I'm still not wrong. Sure, I've made some mistakes. But so have everybody else.
I know what the law is. And I know about TSA luggage checks. But I also know that in every airport I have been in since the TSA started, luggage was checked in long before the passenger check. So obviously I know the diffference.
But if checked firearms are declared and checked in somewhere other than your other baggage, I didn't know about it, because I haven't done it.
"This is nonsense. How dare you post false accusations without bothering to provide a source! A real source like CNN/NYT or even any credible science magazine, not Fox or some fossil fuel lobbyist's blog."
Pardon me. That was the wrong link. Here is the correct one:
"This is nonsense. How dare you post false accusations without bothering to provide a source! A real source like CNN/NYT or even any credible science magazine, not Fox or some fossil fuel lobbyist's blog."
I don't know whether you're being sarcastic, but here's your source, right out of the horse's mouth:
I should add that Trenberth was caught some years ago at a conference telling bald-faced lies about this very subject in his presentation, resulting in the resignation of at least one expert from further involvement with the IPCC.
"If you really want to play the 'OMG Poor People!' card, it'd probably be worth considering the impact of even relatively modest shifts in climate or precipitation on the billion or two economically marginal subsistence dirt farmers and 'squalid urbanites who spend 50% or more of their household income on staple foods'..."
But considering that even the IPCC is pulling back pretty drastically on its claims of climate change driving higher-energy storms, I think maybe GP has a point.
"What do you mean by "physically spin"? They have angular momentum and behave in a way that is almost always consistent with them physically spinning."
It's that "almost always" part that gets you.
Look... let's be straight. It is analogous to physical spin in many ways, but getting into the habit of thinking of quantum phenomena like that as though they were the analogous macro phenomena is generally a mistake. Because sooner or later it will bit you in the ass, due to that "almost".
"It's exactly what you said. If leaving any detail out is an error, then logically the only correct course of action is to include everything, so you're back to BUFD by another name."
Bullshit. I explicitly stated that I was referring to Scope of Work. I'm not "back to" anything.
And I repeat: if you work in that field and don't understand the difference between Scope of Work and a work methodology, you have a big problem. It's NOT my problem.
You have done this again and again. Jumping in on something I stated and trying to blow it out of proportion or take it out of context. That, too, is your problem not mine. I've tried to be polite and tolerant of your BS in the past, but I really don't much feel obligated to do that anymore. You've pulled this shit too many times.
"So let me get this right: it's not necessary to specify everything in advance[1], but if something isn't specified than that's an error?"
That's not what I said.
Man, if you're a contract developer and you don't know the difference between Scope of Work and Waterfall management methodology, you have a REAL BIG problem.
"Byzantium is a live Linux distribution..." [emphasis added]
Further, the original post linked to this page, which says they got their Byzantium Linux (not app) to run on the Raspberry Pi.
Holy crap, man, do you even read the stuff you're arguing about?
There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between an app and a Linux distribution. Further, a Linux distribution is not "just Linux".
"Byzantium is a set of applications which run on an OS (Linux).
Byzantium is not an OS, Linux is an OS.
You could port the Byzantium set of apps to another OS."
So what you're saying is that Ubuntu is not an OS. Debian is not an OS, nor Gentoo, or Suse? Is that what you're saying? Funny, but the people who actually make them disagree with you. Because while they all might be flavors of Linux, they are far from just "apps". Just about everybody calls them OSes, including the people who work hard to make and distribute them. And they are not 100% compatible with each other. They simply share the Linux core.
"Wow, I am kind of shocked to read someone who got it right."
They got it only partly right, in this particular situation. Because while the Government is seizing these records. They are not being turned over voluntarily. There is a very damned big difference. For example: if you are Party A, and you have a contract with Party B, if the government has an issue with you they can't simply (constitutionally) take the papers from Party B as part of the investigation, without the same kind of warrant they would have had to get to search your own papers.
Now, obviously, if Party B felt like it he *might* in some circumstances be able to turn those records over voluntarily if he/she wanted.
But that is not what is going on here. Verizon is not giving them these records voluntarily; the Feds are seizing these records, as part of a huge fishing expedition. (And by the way, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that fishing expeditions are unquestionably unconstitutional.)
Having said that: ALL of the "rights" described in the Constitution and Bill of Rights were considered to be pre-existing. The government does not grant those rights. The Constitution merely acknowledges that they exist and that the government may not interfere with them. The sole exceptions are the temporary "rights" granted for copyright and patents.
A legal search has to have a reason for searching that particular person's records. The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled, more than once, that fishing expeditions are not allowed.
Slashdot Mirror
"That means don't use "cloud" anything unless it's on equipment you own, run your own email servers, etc."
OneSwarm. Simple, secure "cloud" without external servers.
Sure, you have to establish your own "networks", but all other solutions I am aware of require that too.
It was developed at the University of Washington to address this very issue.
"I'm don't know about copyright laws in China, but unless you breach your country law, the US can fuck off."
That's a dumb thing to say.
The crime was committed from China, but it was committed IN the U.S.
If you commit a crime in the U.S., then come to the U.S. and expect to not be confronted with it, then YOU can fuck off.
"Incorrect."
No, not incorrect. It says right there at your own link that there is no extradition treaty.
And extradition would have been extremely unlikely in China, I think, considering that China has notoriously been one of the top countries for real copyright piracy, due to the fact that they had no copyright laws. Private property is not a big concern for the Chinese government.
Writing something in a science article that is technically wrong is still wrong, even if it is "just" intended for the general public.
Then heâ(TM)s got to do what? Subpoena the service to see if the phone was actively used or not?
Yes. Yes he does.
According to a recent Federal court decision, indeed he does. He must have probable cause.
"Want to bet that this will be exhibited soon as a poster child of spurious significance and poor statistical analysis?"
As Darrell Huff, author of the 1954 classic How To Lie With Statistics pointed out, the salaries of Protestant ministers at the time was very strongly correlated with the price of Jamaican rum.
The point being: so what? A correlation is all well and good, but the chances are overwhelming that it means exactly shit.
A (relevant) note about modding on Slashdot:
I notice that the other poster, who was provably wrong (see the link I posted... the correct one that is), got modded up while I -- although I was right -- was modded down.
What does that tell you? I've had this happen left and right when it came to this particular subject matter. But no matter how much I get modded down, I'm still not wrong. Sure, I've made some mistakes. But so have everybody else.
No need to yell.
I know what the law is. And I know about TSA luggage checks. But I also know that in every airport I have been in since the TSA started, luggage was checked in long before the passenger check. So obviously I know the diffference.
But if checked firearms are declared and checked in somewhere other than your other baggage, I didn't know about it, because I haven't done it.
"This is nonsense. How dare you post false accusations without bothering to provide a source! A real source like CNN/NYT or even any credible science magazine, not Fox or some fossil fuel lobbyist's blog."
Pardon me. That was the wrong link. Here is the correct one:
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado
"This is nonsense. How dare you post false accusations without bothering to provide a source! A real source like CNN/NYT or even any credible science magazine, not Fox or some fossil fuel lobbyist's blog."
I don't know whether you're being sarcastic, but here's your source, right out of the horse's mouth:
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado
I also notice that some bozos took it upon themselves to mod me down. No doubt because they think they know more than they do.
"This is a hero. He deserves the protection of the public at large."
Well said. And unlike some people, I say this applies to Bradley Manning as well.
I should add that Trenberth was caught some years ago at a conference telling bald-faced lies about this very subject in his presentation, resulting in the resignation of at least one expert from further involvement with the IPCC.
"If you really want to play the 'OMG Poor People!' card, it'd probably be worth considering the impact of even relatively modest shifts in climate or precipitation on the billion or two economically marginal subsistence dirt farmers and 'squalid urbanites who spend 50% or more of their household income on staple foods'..."
But considering that even the IPCC is pulling back pretty drastically on its claims of climate change driving higher-energy storms, I think maybe GP has a point.
"What do you mean by "physically spin"? They have angular momentum and behave in a way that is almost always consistent with them physically spinning."
It's that "almost always" part that gets you.
Look... let's be straight. It is analogous to physical spin in many ways, but getting into the habit of thinking of quantum phenomena like that as though they were the analogous macro phenomena is generally a mistake. Because sooner or later it will bit you in the ass, due to that "almost".
"The summary, is lousy with, commas. I don't, know how I should, parse it and then called BEC, the lowest state of matter."
Not just lousy with commas, but just plain lousy.
For just one example: "spin" is only an analogy. It isn't real "spin like a child's top". That's just false.
The article needs lots of improvement. Interesting subject matter, but pretty shoddy treatment from something called "Science World Report".
"It's exactly what you said. If leaving any detail out is an error, then logically the only correct course of action is to include everything, so you're back to BUFD by another name."
Bullshit. I explicitly stated that I was referring to Scope of Work. I'm not "back to" anything.
And I repeat: if you work in that field and don't understand the difference between Scope of Work and a work methodology, you have a big problem. It's NOT my problem.
You have done this again and again. Jumping in on something I stated and trying to blow it out of proportion or take it out of context. That, too, is your problem not mine. I've tried to be polite and tolerant of your BS in the past, but I really don't much feel obligated to do that anymore. You've pulled this shit too many times.
"So let me get this right: it's not necessary to specify everything in advance[1], but if something isn't specified than that's an error?"
That's not what I said.
Man, if you're a contract developer and you don't know the difference between Scope of Work and Waterfall management methodology, you have a REAL BIG problem.
Thanks for that. I don't think I had run into yEd before. I now plan to use it for ERDs.
I've tried other tools for the job, and I'm just not terribly happy with them.
"I think you need to do a little remedial reading on the definition of OS and apps."
I think YOU need to practice a little remedial reading, PERIOD.
BYZANTIUM IS A LINUX DISTRO. It is not just an "app" that runs on Linux.
Quote from their own home page:
"Byzantium is a live Linux distribution..." [emphasis added]
Further, the original post linked to this page, which says they got their Byzantium Linux (not app) to run on the Raspberry Pi.
Holy crap, man, do you even read the stuff you're arguing about?
There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between an app and a Linux distribution. Further, a Linux distribution is not "just Linux".
"Byzantium is a set of applications which run on an OS (Linux).
Byzantium is not an OS, Linux is an OS.
You could port the Byzantium set of apps to another OS."
So what you're saying is that Ubuntu is not an OS. Debian is not an OS, nor Gentoo, or Suse? Is that what you're saying? Funny, but the people who actually make them disagree with you. Because while they all might be flavors of Linux, they are far from just "apps". Just about everybody calls them OSes, including the people who work hard to make and distribute them. And they are not 100% compatible with each other. They simply share the Linux core.
Read the damned article you linked to.
It is an OS, not an app. But they did get it working on the Raspberry Pi.
"Wow, I am kind of shocked to read someone who got it right."
They got it only partly right, in this particular situation. Because while the Government is seizing these records. They are not being turned over voluntarily. There is a very damned big difference. For example: if you are Party A, and you have a contract with Party B, if the government has an issue with you they can't simply (constitutionally) take the papers from Party B as part of the investigation, without the same kind of warrant they would have had to get to search your own papers.
Now, obviously, if Party B felt like it he *might* in some circumstances be able to turn those records over voluntarily if he/she wanted.
But that is not what is going on here. Verizon is not giving them these records voluntarily; the Feds are seizing these records, as part of a huge fishing expedition. (And by the way, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that fishing expeditions are unquestionably unconstitutional.)
Having said that: ALL of the "rights" described in the Constitution and Bill of Rights were considered to be pre-existing. The government does not grant those rights. The Constitution merely acknowledges that they exist and that the government may not interfere with them. The sole exceptions are the temporary "rights" granted for copyright and patents.
A legal search has to have a reason for searching that particular person's records. The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled, more than once, that fishing expeditions are not allowed.
"Using a proper suitcase also works."
This is completely irrelevant if you use TSA-approved locks.
" don't let your LOCKED luggage out of your sight until you get past the TSA luggage check."
This one won't work in any airport I have been in, since your checked luggage is taken long before you ever see TSA.
"You put an expensive, fragile item in checked luggage?"
It wasn't fragile. And considering that it would not be allowed as a carry-on, it had to go in the luggage.