And I am probably more familiar with computers than you are.
You're missing the point. The timing itself could be spoofed. If you have a strong enough signal, it's going to override whatever the plane is sending anyway. The exact means are not important. All it needs to do (if we assume the goal is to mess up Control's knowledge of the plane's location and path) is beam a stronger signal at the antenna.
And the 4-digit octal (who came up with that?) is not secured in any way. At least according to the articles I read about it.
Don't be like the makers of the foolproof electronic safe locks who put them on stupidly designed locking mechanisms. Having tunnel vision in relation to how it is supposed to be used often has little relationship to how it could be used in unscrupulous hands.
"If collecting DNA this way is wrong, it's not wrong because it's against the Constitution; that's backwards. Rather, the Constitution should prohibit it because it is wrong."
Of course. But the Constitution does prohibit it, because it is wrong. It is very obviously an egregious -- I would go so far to say outrageous and criminal -- intrusion into the rights and privacy of the "person" of the individual. But people must be secure in their persons, according to the 4th Amendment.
I want to emphasize this again: it is not the "search" itself that is terribly intrusive, but the consequences of that search. This is the very same reasoning behind why it also says people must be secure in their "papers". Searching one's papers may not be terribly intrusive in many cases, but the consequences of such a search could be devastating. Well, so could the consequences of the government having your DNA in its database.
The Constitution does prohibit it, and it does so because it is wrong. What more is there to say?
"Everyone is so damned beholden to copyright that it more or less constrains how you do anything."
No, you are confused. The issue here is about monopoly and market abuse, not Copyright.
Nobody says you have to sign your copyright over to a publisher. There's no law to that effect. It's just that a few publishers have locked up the market. That's monopoly (or oligopoly, if you want to get technical). It's not a matter of copyright, because the researcher can sell to whoever he wants to, or not at all. It's not a matter of capitalism, because monopoly is not part of a free market.
Stop blaming the things, and start blaming the people. That should be a mantra.
I answered it in the context of the comment it was in reply to.
And in that context, the answer is: no. Being detained is NOT the same as being arrested, and a detainment cannot be "turned into" an arrest. There are completely different legal standards for detainment and arrest. At least, in most states.
While you CAN be detained and then arrested, you can't "turn one into the other". Example: a person might be detained, and then arrested based on evidence gathered during the detainment.
Maybe being detained and then arrested is what Golddess meant, but that's not what she said. So I could have misunderstood.
In the example you gave, the woman was likely just "detained", from a legal standpoint. While I disagree with the practice, some states have held that even cuffing and taking to the station does not constitute an actual arrest.
Why are the grants drying up? Despite the much-hyped "austerity", in reality the government has spent more money in each of the recent years than ever before.
It has RELATIVELY LITTLE effect on the problem. Not none.
If it is moving with the treadmill, its airspeed will increase faster and it will become airborne faster.
If it is moving against the treadmill, its airspeed will take longer to build up. How much longer depends on the speed of the treadmill. Granted, the thrust is dependent on the engines which are independent of the wheels. Nevertheless it will affect airspeed until its effect is overcome by the thrust.
I don't mean to nitpick. But those who say it will never get into the air, and those who say it has no effect, are both wrong. But those who say it has no effect are far less wrong than the other school.
It *IS* the Court's job to block actions by the Executive that are unconstitutional. This is a 4th Amendment issue.
It is very clear -- and the Court has itself ruled in the past -- that it is not just the search itself that must be considered in deciding whether it is intrusive. It also must consider the consequences of that search.
Thus, searching through your papers willy-nilly, while it may not be physically intrusive in many or even most cases, is a 4th Amendment violation: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
But note that it is not just papers that must be secure, but "their persons" as well. While the act of collecting DNA may not be physically intrusive (see the example I just gave), the consequences of that act may indeed be -- in this case would almost certainly be -- highly intrusive.
That same Court has ruled that while it is not explicit in the Constitution, we have a Constitutional right to privacy, because without it our other rights would be impossible.
"Lego mindstorm might be a toy designed for children, but that doesn't disqualify it from being a tool you can use if you're serious about robotics and/or programming. Just as an example, when I taught at the university we used Lego mindstorm for the introduction course for automation and control engineering. And believe me, we're very serious about both programming and robotics."
It was just my opinion. As you say, it was an introductory course.
For a hobbyist, where possible, I would recommend where practical to learn on the same platform you intend to use later. Of course, that is not always practical. But since Arduino has a very low learning curve and is also suitable for professional and permanent projects, I believe it is a better fit in this case.
And frankly, it's probably cheaper. For the brains, that is. Mindstorms is probably cheaper if you count both the control and mechanical components. But for "serious" construction, FishcherTechnik, while expensive, is unquestionably the superior product.
"Difficult to believe Schmidt put his name to that crap, there's no reason to open Air Traffic control to hackers."
It's already almost unbelievably open to hackers. No "opening" is necessary.
Even the fairly recent new plane tracking protocol has no encryption or security whatever. Anybody with a big directional antenna could send false data either to a plane or to "control". I mean, this is something a backyard hardware hacker, the electronics hobbyist equivalent of a "script kiddie", could do pretty easily these days.
"For some nebulous, highly in flux definition of "privacy" that we need to keep being reminded is both real and scaryscary, because fuck all if anyone outside the tinfoil hat community has the slightest clue how this is so horribly evil."
I have a feeling that the group you call "the tinfoil hat community" is a hell of a lot larger than you think.
Your failure to understand does not equate to a similar failure on the part of others.
"You know...I like many of Dick's stories, and some of the movies from them have been very interesting....I've never really seen the appeal of Blade Runner, certainly not enough for a sequel."
If you like Dick stories, but thought Blade Runner was "meh"... imagine a sequel-cum-knockoff that wasn't even written by Dick.
As it is, the original movie distorted -- although thankfully only a little -- the original story's message. Or at least did not make it terribly clear.
The good news is: after many years, it has been announced that they are making a movie out of Ubik.
It's an epic story, and should be a great movie... if they can capture it well on film. It's likely to be a tough job, and it would have to be a relatively long movie (at least 2 hrs., I would think).
"Get a kit, start building/programming. Work from there."
Definitely not, in my opinion. Lego Mindstorms are toys designed for children, not something for someone serious about either robotics or programming.
For the mechanical components, FischerTechnik is vastly superior, and has been for decades. It is used at universities for mechanical engineering and robotics projects.
For real-world programming and automation that are suitable for both hobbyists and professionals, few things beat the Arduino family of devices.
"Interesting breakdown. Scalia joined 3 of the 4 liberals (Ginsberg, Sotomayer, and Kagan. Breyer broke with the liberals and voted in favor of the opinion. It also means a rare moment where Thomas didn't vote in lockstep with Scalia."
What amazes me is that the majority only considered whether the physical search is "intrusive", but not whether the results (being in a database) would be intrusive. As such, they left out at least half of the real 4th Amendment issue, which is great opportunity for this to be re-visited later.
If there were ever a SCOTUS decision that deserved to be reversed, this is definitely one of them.
There is no doubt that the Government has "an interest" in collecting the DNA for identification. At the same time, the potential for abuse is ENORMOUS. Much higher than with just about anything else. And not just abuse, but mistakes of epic proportions.
This was a BAD DECISION. Period. One of the giant elephants in the room of the Supreme Court's recent history of bad decisions.
"IANAL, but is there any reason the officer cannot decide to turn it into a full-blown arrest? After all, you are being charged with having committed a crime, right?"
No. There is (usually) a legal difference between being detained and being arrested. Of course, if you are arrested, by definition you have been detained. But you can be detained without being arrested. In this context "detained" usually means just detained, not detained and arrested.
While the context of your comment might have been what YOU were replying to, your comment also created its own context:
"... it is the responsibility of all good citizens to end the police state as quickly as possible. If you believe that you are in a police state, then now is not the time to wait for the day that it gets so bad. Now is the time to make it that bad."
Either you are talking about pressuring politicians, or you are talking about what to do if you "believe you are in a police state".
You can't have it both ways. If you believe you are already in a police state, "pressuring politicians" in any normal sense simply isn't going to work.
Slashdot Mirror
And I am probably more familiar with computers than you are.
You're missing the point. The timing itself could be spoofed. If you have a strong enough signal, it's going to override whatever the plane is sending anyway. The exact means are not important. All it needs to do (if we assume the goal is to mess up Control's knowledge of the plane's location and path) is beam a stronger signal at the antenna.
And the 4-digit octal (who came up with that?) is not secured in any way. At least according to the articles I read about it.
Don't be like the makers of the foolproof electronic safe locks who put them on stupidly designed locking mechanisms. Having tunnel vision in relation to how it is supposed to be used often has little relationship to how it could be used in unscrupulous hands.
"If collecting DNA this way is wrong, it's not wrong because it's against the Constitution; that's backwards. Rather, the Constitution should prohibit it because it is wrong."
Of course. But the Constitution does prohibit it, because it is wrong. It is very obviously an egregious -- I would go so far to say outrageous and criminal -- intrusion into the rights and privacy of the "person" of the individual. But people must be secure in their persons, according to the 4th Amendment.
I want to emphasize this again: it is not the "search" itself that is terribly intrusive, but the consequences of that search. This is the very same reasoning behind why it also says people must be secure in their "papers". Searching one's papers may not be terribly intrusive in many cases, but the consequences of such a search could be devastating. Well, so could the consequences of the government having your DNA in its database.
The Constitution does prohibit it, and it does so because it is wrong. What more is there to say?
"Everyone is so damned beholden to copyright that it more or less constrains how you do anything."
No, you are confused. The issue here is about monopoly and market abuse, not Copyright.
Nobody says you have to sign your copyright over to a publisher. There's no law to that effect. It's just that a few publishers have locked up the market. That's monopoly (or oligopoly, if you want to get technical). It's not a matter of copyright, because the researcher can sell to whoever he wants to, or not at all. It's not a matter of capitalism, because monopoly is not part of a free market.
Stop blaming the things, and start blaming the people. That should be a mantra.
"(The money got spent on War, mostly.)"
Very possibly. Which pisses me off to no end.
I answered it in the context of the comment it was in reply to.
And in that context, the answer is: no. Being detained is NOT the same as being arrested, and a detainment cannot be "turned into" an arrest. There are completely different legal standards for detainment and arrest. At least, in most states.
While you CAN be detained and then arrested, you can't "turn one into the other". Example: a person might be detained, and then arrested based on evidence gathered during the detainment.
Maybe being detained and then arrested is what Golddess meant, but that's not what she said. So I could have misunderstood.
In the example you gave, the woman was likely just "detained", from a legal standpoint. While I disagree with the practice, some states have held that even cuffing and taking to the station does not constitute an actual arrest.
I meant as a practical matter. Still, legally, I think you are correct.
"He said significant and virtually."
I also said "relatively little".
But your point is taken. Somehow my eyes skipped over the "(virtually)" in his post.
Why are the grants drying up? Despite the much-hyped "austerity", in reality the government has spent more money in each of the recent years than ever before.
So where is all the damned money going???
It has RELATIVELY LITTLE effect on the problem. Not none.
If it is moving with the treadmill, its airspeed will increase faster and it will become airborne faster.
If it is moving against the treadmill, its airspeed will take longer to build up. How much longer depends on the speed of the treadmill. Granted, the thrust is dependent on the engines which are independent of the wheels. Nevertheless it will affect airspeed until its effect is overcome by the thrust.
I don't mean to nitpick. But those who say it will never get into the air, and those who say it has no effect, are both wrong. But those who say it has no effect are far less wrong than the other school.
It *IS* the Court's job to block actions by the Executive that are unconstitutional. This is a 4th Amendment issue.
It is very clear -- and the Court has itself ruled in the past -- that it is not just the search itself that must be considered in deciding whether it is intrusive. It also must consider the consequences of that search.
Thus, searching through your papers willy-nilly, while it may not be physically intrusive in many or even most cases, is a 4th Amendment violation: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
But note that it is not just papers that must be secure, but "their persons" as well. While the act of collecting DNA may not be physically intrusive (see the example I just gave), the consequences of that act may indeed be -- in this case would almost certainly be -- highly intrusive.
That same Court has ruled that while it is not explicit in the Constitution, we have a Constitutional right to privacy, because without it our other rights would be impossible.
"Lego mindstorm might be a toy designed for children, but that doesn't disqualify it from being a tool you can use if you're serious about robotics and/or programming. Just as an example, when I taught at the university we used Lego mindstorm for the introduction course for automation and control engineering. And believe me, we're very serious about both programming and robotics."
It was just my opinion. As you say, it was an introductory course.
For a hobbyist, where possible, I would recommend where practical to learn on the same platform you intend to use later. Of course, that is not always practical. But since Arduino has a very low learning curve and is also suitable for professional and permanent projects, I believe it is a better fit in this case.
And frankly, it's probably cheaper. For the brains, that is. Mindstorms is probably cheaper if you count both the control and mechanical components. But for "serious" construction, FishcherTechnik, while expensive, is unquestionably the superior product.
Felony evasion *IS* resisting arrest. Just a higher form of it.
And again, that is state-specific. Those aren't "national" laws.
"Difficult to believe Schmidt put his name to that crap, there's no reason to open Air Traffic control to hackers."
It's already almost unbelievably open to hackers. No "opening" is necessary.
Even the fairly recent new plane tracking protocol has no encryption or security whatever. Anybody with a big directional antenna could send false data either to a plane or to "control". I mean, this is something a backyard hardware hacker, the electronics hobbyist equivalent of a "script kiddie", could do pretty easily these days.
"For some nebulous, highly in flux definition of "privacy" that we need to keep being reminded is both real and scaryscary, because fuck all if anyone outside the tinfoil hat community has the slightest clue how this is so horribly evil."
I have a feeling that the group you call "the tinfoil hat community" is a hell of a lot larger than you think.
Your failure to understand does not equate to a similar failure on the part of others.
"You know...I like many of Dick's stories, and some of the movies from them have been very interesting....I've never really seen the appeal of Blade Runner, certainly not enough for a sequel."
If you like Dick stories, but thought Blade Runner was "meh"... imagine a sequel-cum-knockoff that wasn't even written by Dick.
As it is, the original movie distorted -- although thankfully only a little -- the original story's message. Or at least did not make it terribly clear.
The good news is: after many years, it has been announced that they are making a movie out of Ubik.
It's an epic story, and should be a great movie... if they can capture it well on film. It's likely to be a tough job, and it would have to be a relatively long movie (at least 2 hrs., I would think).
I think they have an unofficial modeling requirement, but I don't think it's only Lego.
"Get a kit, start building/programming. Work from there."
Definitely not, in my opinion. Lego Mindstorms are toys designed for children, not something for someone serious about either robotics or programming.
For the mechanical components, FischerTechnik is vastly superior, and has been for decades. It is used at universities for mechanical engineering and robotics projects.
For real-world programming and automation that are suitable for both hobbyists and professionals, few things beat the Arduino family of devices.
"You can have a police state that is not enough of an irritant for the common folk to do so."
I don't think that matches what most people mean when they say "police state".
"Interesting breakdown. Scalia joined 3 of the 4 liberals (Ginsberg, Sotomayer, and Kagan. Breyer broke with the liberals and voted in favor of the opinion. It also means a rare moment where Thomas didn't vote in lockstep with Scalia."
What amazes me is that the majority only considered whether the physical search is "intrusive", but not whether the results (being in a database) would be intrusive. As such, they left out at least half of the real 4th Amendment issue, which is great opportunity for this to be re-visited later.
If there were ever a SCOTUS decision that deserved to be reversed, this is definitely one of them.
There is no doubt that the Government has "an interest" in collecting the DNA for identification. At the same time, the potential for abuse is ENORMOUS. Much higher than with just about anything else. And not just abuse, but mistakes of epic proportions.
This was a BAD DECISION. Period. One of the giant elephants in the room of the Supreme Court's recent history of bad decisions.
"The police have 48 hours to charge you with a crime after your arrest."
This is not universal. I believe it is state-specific.
"You can be charged with resisting arrest, but you can't be arrested for resisting arrest (you're already under arrest)."
Yes, you can. If you successfully resist arrest (i.e., you escape), you can be arrested later for resisting arrest.
"IANAL, but is there any reason the officer cannot decide to turn it into a full-blown arrest? After all, you are being charged with having committed a crime, right?"
No. There is (usually) a legal difference between being detained and being arrested. Of course, if you are arrested, by definition you have been detained. But you can be detained without being arrested. In this context "detained" usually means just detained, not detained and arrested.
It was just a slip of the finger. "X" is right under "S".
"... it is the responsibility of all good citizens to end the police state as quickly as possible. If you believe that you are in a police state, then now is not the time to wait for the day that it gets so bad. Now is the time to make it that bad."
Either you are talking about pressuring politicians, or you are talking about what to do if you "believe you are in a police state".
You can't have it both ways. If you believe you are already in a police state, "pressuring politicians" in any normal sense simply isn't going to work.
THE IPCC makes those claims, you moron.
I even linked to their own diagram earlier in this discussion, which is based on actual calculations in climate models that appear IN THEIR REPORTS.
Jesus Christ, man. Learn a little about what you're talking about before trying to argue.
Or better yet, don't even bother. Over a period of months it has been a huge waste of my time even responding to you.
No, but they will have to hire someone to put in the English subtitles.