Yeah but the cable sticking out of a suspicious package is a very quick and easy way to defuse such a device. And severely limits its placement, as you have to be within cable range of a phone jack you know the phone number to.
Well, I agree with some of the point but not some of the details.
You'd have to know the number anyway.
It wouldn't necessarily mean "a cable" coming out of a suspicious package. It could be a couple of fine wires leading out of the phone, under the couch. In the case of a pay phone, it could actually be inside the phone.
But I agree; in general a cell phone is more mobile and more concealable. Even so, I don't think there's enough of a difference to justify shutting off cell phones but not landlines.
all those tin-star dictator countries where people are fed into the meat grinder if they spit on the sidewalk. dude, shut down my iPhone and I'm throwing my sledgehammer right through your blue-tint screen.
Funny... they never even considered "turning off" land-line phones to prevent them being used to detonate bombs... though they are at least as capable and always have been.
In fact, a landline phone has enough voltage and current to ignite a fuse or squib all by itself... a lot easier than a cell phone.
An embedded microchannel in a MEMS plate resonator for ultrasensitive mass sensing in liquid. This is one published paper on (proteomics) mass spec using MEMS.
It's happening, you just don't notice it.
Have a toy helicopter or drone with a gyro or accelerometer or both? Guess what those are.
Etc. Like most true innovations that are adopted, it affects us mostly in a quiet way, used in things you don't even think twice about.
Really? Because from what I've seen, most forms of tyrannies take from those who have less and give to those who alrady had more. Please explain why you think that situation is better than the reverse?
Anybody who takes from you without permission and gives to others is a tyrant. It doesn't matter who it comes from, or who it goes to. Taking is taking.
There are a few rare times when that is justified (certain forms of taxation, for example), but it isn't justified nearly as often as it actually happens.
Tell the people who lead the California Republican Party to pick candidates who are closer to the center.
WTF? What does that have to do with Feinstein, who has been a radical Left-winger from Day 1?
I hate to tell you this, but California has been failing in many ways, and weather is only one of them. CA government has gone broke twice in recent memory, and it never managed its water, despite all the decades of warnings. That's not a climate fault, it's a fault on the part of the people who live there, and their government.
Because there is clearly a high level and consistent level of loss each and every year as is quite clear from the graphs.
It is true, deforestation in places like rainforest is very bad and we should do something about it. But as usual, this alarmist paper only covers one aspect of a much larger picture.
Australia's one of the few parts of the developed world you could find where the ISPs are ripping people off even more than in the USA.:-)
This is one of the points I was going to make.
Why don't they lower prices on their services, as OP asks? Simple. Because they haven't had to. ISPs in the U.S. do not compete. There is no market, so there are no market forces driving cost down.
The few places where Google has installed fiber are "the exception that proves the rule", as they say.
The reason we're hearing about making voting mandatory (almost exclusively from the Left), is that the poor and the minorities have tended to vote overwhelmingly for the Left... when they bother to vote, that is, which is relatively seldom compared to the rest of the population.
Making voting mandatory would pull in those votes from the poor and minorities.
Note that around the last election, there was also a lot of pushback from the Left against laws that require voters to supply identification in ordeer to vote... even though most states have required such for at least 80 years. And the reason is exactly the same.
Every state I've ever lived in requires some form of identification, in order to verify THAT you have voted... but every one of them also took great pains to make sure nobody knew HOW you voted.
Even 10 times would far too often. And nobody was whining.
while ignoring the people who are being robbed every day
Who was ignoring this? Certainly not me, and I don't think anyone else.
Framing the debate as the guilty and the never charged, is terrible to the point of being a straw man, which makes your anti-civil-forfeiture position confusing.
Again, nobody did this. Not me, and not GP.
GP mentioned losing a house. There was an actual case like this in California. An innocent elderly couple lost their home and large plot of land to civil forfeiture because somebody had planted a few pot plants OUTSIDE their property line.
Ignoring the outrageous cases that do occasionally happen is no less erroneous than what you accused us of. Nobody should be treated like that.
---
"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." -- Thomas Jefferson
He was watching a movie while playing a game. Take your trolling elsewhere
That was way up the thread. I was replying to a general comment to the effect of "running a program isn't work". There was nothing suggesting that comment was in the context of playing a game or watching a movie.
It's not unreasonable if you can convince a judge to sign a warrant.
Strictly speaking, that's not true either. There are an uncountable number of cases where judges were convinced to sign a warrant based on false statements or false evidence, for example.
So the warrant was not a legal warrant, and the search was therefore not legal, either.
I'll grant you that civil forfeiture is a form of search and seizure, but is it unreasonable in all contexts?
Of course not. However, we do know of quite a few cases of abuse occurring. And for every one we know about, there are probably at least several we don't.
I don't think GP was referring to the basic concept of any civil forfeiture, though I could be wrong. I think it was a reference to the many cases of abuse.
You are dangerously misinformed on this issue. The latter case mostly does not exist.
Uh... if that's what you think, GP might actually be more informed about the issue than you are.
I am reminded back when I first started reading electronic bulletin boards, and I found EFFector Online from EFF, and the pubication from EPIC, whatever that was called.
At the time, civil forfeiture was a big deal as it related to online crimes, and the publications were chock full of examples of abuse. Like the greenhouse operator who liked to order his annual shrubs at market using cash... stopped at the airport, and was deemed to be a drug dealer because of his old jeans and excessive cash.
He was never charged with a crime. He never had a forfeiture hearing. But he never got his $30,000 back, either.
There are LOTS of such stories, from very reliable sources. I would consider EFF to be one such.
I'll still cheer their doing the right thing this once, but if they want my general approval they still have way more to do.
They've made a decent start for 2015, though. Among other things, I am holding onto hope for a ruling on King v. Burwell that reflects the actual law and Constitution, rather than ideology.
As a programmer, often running a program IS work, and what I'm getting paid for.
And if I write a script to update the database this way, and it runs all night, then that's my work that's being done. Of course, I'm not charging by the hour. But still. If I wrote it, and it's running, that's my work. That's what computers are for, and why people are paid to program them.
And if, for any reason, I have to sit there and watch it run (which does occur, for various reasons not necessarily related to the code) then it most definitely is work. For example: sometimes it's not possible or practical to do THIS until THAT finishes running.
If you are running a program which costs money or time, you should be considering whether it is worth running periodically regardless of whether it's a program to collect phone data or bringing donuts to the office. If you aren't revisiting that decision, you're doing your job badly.
Besides, I don't buy the line that Snowden "forced the agency's hand". I call bullshit. They could have done any number of things at that point: modify their program, reduce their program, or even eliminate it entirely. What they did instead was double down. That was THEIR decision, nobody else's. Trying to cast blame doesn't change that.
No. Within a narrowly defined market, money is just another type of 'goods' of which there's a vastly larger supply (and hence, a relatively stabler valuation)
You're not contradicting me here. You're reinforcing what I said.
GP confused inflation and deflationwithin a specific market, with how it is measured. My comment was about price point as an indicator. I did not mean that it was, by itself, inflation or deflation. I wasn't trying to "define" deflation.
In this context, M2 and M3 have very little relevance.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah but the cable sticking out of a suspicious package is a very quick and easy way to defuse such a device. And severely limits its placement, as you have to be within cable range of a phone jack you know the phone number to.
Well, I agree with some of the point but not some of the details.
You'd have to know the number anyway.
It wouldn't necessarily mean "a cable" coming out of a suspicious package. It could be a couple of fine wires leading out of the phone, under the couch. In the case of a pay phone, it could actually be inside the phone.
But I agree; in general a cell phone is more mobile and more concealable. Even so, I don't think there's enough of a difference to justify shutting off cell phones but not landlines.
all those tin-star dictator countries where people are fed into the meat grinder if they spit on the sidewalk. dude, shut down my iPhone and I'm throwing my sledgehammer right through your blue-tint screen.
Funny... they never even considered "turning off" land-line phones to prevent them being used to detonate bombs... though they are at least as capable and always have been.
In fact, a landline phone has enough voltage and current to ignite a fuse or squib all by itself... a lot easier than a cell phone.
An embedded microchannel in a MEMS plate resonator for ultrasensitive mass sensing in liquid. This is one published paper on (proteomics) mass spec using MEMS.
It's happening, you just don't notice it.
Have a toy helicopter or drone with a gyro or accelerometer or both? Guess what those are.
Etc. Like most true innovations that are adopted, it affects us mostly in a quiet way, used in things you don't even think twice about.
Really? Because from what I've seen, most forms of tyrannies take from those who have less and give to those who alrady had more. Please explain why you think that situation is better than the reverse?
Anybody who takes from you without permission and gives to others is a tyrant. It doesn't matter who it comes from, or who it goes to. Taking is taking.
There are a few rare times when that is justified (certain forms of taxation, for example), but it isn't justified nearly as often as it actually happens.
XOR is much much faster than your run-of-the-mill encryption algorithm.
OP and TFA are very misleading. XOR is not a "worthless" encryption method in itself... it all depends on how it is used.
For example, if used with a good quality key in a one-time pad, it is one of the few encryption methods that is even theoretically unbreakable.
But it does require a well-constructed key, and as with any one-time-pad scheme, key management is everything.
Why state the states are obviously unstated?
Well stated.
Actually, I don't think Alaska is at all obvious, with its relative "frontier" attitude.
Tell the people who lead the California Republican Party to pick candidates who are closer to the center.
WTF? What does that have to do with Feinstein, who has been a radical Left-winger from Day 1?
I hate to tell you this, but California has been failing in many ways, and weather is only one of them. CA government has gone broke twice in recent memory, and it never managed its water, despite all the decades of warnings. That's not a climate fault, it's a fault on the part of the people who live there, and their government.
This time they won't get a bailout.
Wow, it's truly too bad you can't read. "Each year, the planet balances its budget.
I'm not the one who has trouble reading. You apparently missed everything past the first paragraph. Because the second paragraph starts with:
But the budget has gotten bigger.
The article says exactly what I stated it did.
LOL Slashdot is telling us things we either don't give a shit about, or are already well aware of.
Not to mention: if price were really their top consideration, they'd probably have included Rhodes.
Because there is clearly a high level and consistent level of loss each and every year as is quite clear from the graphs.
It is true, deforestation in places like rainforest is very bad and we should do something about it. But as usual, this alarmist paper only covers one aspect of a much larger picture.
Total carbon sequestration due to plant life has actually been increasing.
Due to RE-forestation in China, and many other factors, the actual total mass of photosynthesizing plants has gone UP.
Also according to satellites. But this time, not just from eyeballing pictures.
It's this simple.
Anybody who asks me for a Facebook account in the process of hiring isn't worth MY time.
Australia's one of the few parts of the developed world you could find where the ISPs are ripping people off even more than in the USA. :-)
This is one of the points I was going to make.
Why don't they lower prices on their services, as OP asks? Simple. Because they haven't had to. ISPs in the U.S. do not compete. There is no market, so there are no market forces driving cost down.
The few places where Google has installed fiber are "the exception that proves the rule", as they say.
The reason we're hearing about making voting mandatory (almost exclusively from the Left), is that the poor and the minorities have tended to vote overwhelmingly for the Left... when they bother to vote, that is, which is relatively seldom compared to the rest of the population.
Making voting mandatory would pull in those votes from the poor and minorities.
Note that around the last election, there was also a lot of pushback from the Left against laws that require voters to supply identification in ordeer to vote... even though most states have required such for at least 80 years. And the reason is exactly the same.
Every state I've ever lived in requires some form of identification, in order to verify THAT you have voted... but every one of them also took great pains to make sure nobody knew HOW you voted.
If that was the case, it would be trivial to get the evidence thrown out.
It's seldom trivial to get evidence thrown out. You pretty much have to show that they were lying. Not always easy.
Whining about an absurdly uncommon occurrence,
Even 10 times would far too often. And nobody was whining.
while ignoring the people who are being robbed every day
Who was ignoring this? Certainly not me, and I don't think anyone else.
Framing the debate as the guilty and the never charged, is terrible to the point of being a straw man, which makes your anti-civil-forfeiture position confusing.
Again, nobody did this. Not me, and not GP.
GP mentioned losing a house. There was an actual case like this in California. An innocent elderly couple lost their home and large plot of land to civil forfeiture because somebody had planted a few pot plants OUTSIDE their property line.
Ignoring the outrageous cases that do occasionally happen is no less erroneous than what you accused us of. Nobody should be treated like that.
---
"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." -- Thomas Jefferson
He was watching a movie while playing a game. Take your trolling elsewhere
That was way up the thread. I was replying to a general comment to the effect of "running a program isn't work". There was nothing suggesting that comment was in the context of playing a game or watching a movie.
It's not unreasonable if you can convince a judge to sign a warrant.
Strictly speaking, that's not true either. There are an uncountable number of cases where judges were convinced to sign a warrant based on false statements or false evidence, for example.
So the warrant was not a legal warrant, and the search was therefore not legal, either.
I'll grant you that civil forfeiture is a form of search and seizure, but is it unreasonable in all contexts?
Of course not. However, we do know of quite a few cases of abuse occurring. And for every one we know about, there are probably at least several we don't.
I don't think GP was referring to the basic concept of any civil forfeiture, though I could be wrong. I think it was a reference to the many cases of abuse.
You are dangerously misinformed on this issue. The latter case mostly does not exist.
Uh... if that's what you think, GP might actually be more informed about the issue than you are.
I am reminded back when I first started reading electronic bulletin boards, and I found EFFector Online from EFF, and the pubication from EPIC, whatever that was called.
At the time, civil forfeiture was a big deal as it related to online crimes, and the publications were chock full of examples of abuse. Like the greenhouse operator who liked to order his annual shrubs at market using cash... stopped at the airport, and was deemed to be a drug dealer because of his old jeans and excessive cash.
He was never charged with a crime. He never had a forfeiture hearing. But he never got his $30,000 back, either.
There are LOTS of such stories, from very reliable sources. I would consider EFF to be one such.
I'll still cheer their doing the right thing this once, but if they want my general approval they still have way more to do.
They've made a decent start for 2015, though. Among other things, I am holding onto hope for a ruling on King v. Burwell that reflects the actual law and Constitution, rather than ideology.
But they are working on support of hippie stuff like client side ruby. Mozilla, the hippie dragon!
Not only is this just wrong, but where the heck do you get the idea that Ruby is a "hippie" language?
I mean seriously. WTF?
Running a program isn't work.
Yes, it is. Or at least it can be.
As a programmer, often running a program IS work, and what I'm getting paid for.
And if I write a script to update the database this way, and it runs all night, then that's my work that's being done. Of course, I'm not charging by the hour. But still. If I wrote it, and it's running, that's my work. That's what computers are for, and why people are paid to program them.
And if, for any reason, I have to sit there and watch it run (which does occur, for various reasons not necessarily related to the code) then it most definitely is work. For example: sometimes it's not possible or practical to do THIS until THAT finishes running.
Windows 10? No thanks, I'll wait for Windows 9, the good version they skipped.
Who knows? Maybe they mean "spartan" in the sense of the opposite of "bloat".
One can only hope.
If you are running a program which costs money or time, you should be considering whether it is worth running periodically regardless of whether it's a program to collect phone data or bringing donuts to the office. If you aren't revisiting that decision, you're doing your job badly.
Besides, I don't buy the line that Snowden "forced the agency's hand". I call bullshit. They could have done any number of things at that point: modify their program, reduce their program, or even eliminate it entirely. What they did instead was double down. That was THEIR decision, nobody else's. Trying to cast blame doesn't change that.
No. Within a narrowly defined market, money is just another type of 'goods' of which there's a vastly larger supply (and hence, a relatively stabler valuation)
You're not contradicting me here. You're reinforcing what I said.
GP confused inflation and deflation within a specific market, with how it is measured. My comment was about price point as an indicator. I did not mean that it was, by itself, inflation or deflation. I wasn't trying to "define" deflation.
In this context, M2 and M3 have very little relevance.