I would just like to respond after having read the actual decision and say I was entirely wrong.
Colleges cannot under any circumstances ban APs, or other wireless devices, just like they can't ban other antennas. It doesn't matter if they are private colleges, it doesn't matter if they put it in the housing contract, it doesn't matter if it's a ballpark and you're carrying in a satellite disk on your head, such clauses are void under the law. You. Cannot. Ban. Antennas.
This doesn't stop them from being able to ban you from connecting it to their network, but the only way they can stop you from operating a wireless network is to ban the computers. And at that point I think I'd keep running a wireless network out of spite.
It sounds crazy, and I'm sure libertarians are having kittens, but the FCC has, for years, disallowed the banning of sat disks, and this is just an extension of it. If it is legal for you to be there, it is legal for you to operate an 'antenna ' under one meter in size to access the radio spectrum, assuming you do it in a legal way...and the FCC says only they can determine that. And 'antenna' includes wireless APs.
At which point people will set up Linux boxes with wifi cards in them, and run them as APs. I'd like to them try to regulate the physical difference between that and a box with a wifi card that's getting on their network. If they're banning all wireless and just selectively enforcing it if you're not on their network, ask them why they're operating a wireless network if no one is allowed to be on it.
And, of course, nothing says the wireless routers have to be on their property, especially when you're talking about Georgia Tech, a college that does not have 'campus' per se, it's intermingled with the city. If they try to ban wireless access points, people will just set them up inside coffeehouses across the street from the dorm.
A very important question to ask them, in front of witnesses, is if they're trying to ban the equipment, student run networks, or just wireless broadcasting. And after they answer 'C', be sure to explain what 'unregulated' means. Watch them backpeddle.
I don't have the right to 'alter the appearance of your car'? WTF? So I can't shine a blue light on it to make it look different?
Of course I can. The thing I do not have the right to do is to damage your car. You don't have some magical right not to have things you own look different. That's well decided case law, and is the reason we have zoning restrictions...if you could just argue that the shopping center makes your house look different, we wouldn't need them.
As for the leaves that blow into your yard...if I see my property laying in your yard, I have the right to go in and take it.
So, if they're leaves from my tree, or that originally fell into my yard and them blew into yours, I can go in and get them? Of course not, because it's your lawn and it's nobody's leaves. If they were 'your' leaves your ownership would follow them around, and in fact would start from the tree they fell from. Sadly for you, it's quite clearly decided that leaves from your tree that end up on someone else's property are theirs to do with as they see fit, and if they blow from there to someone else they're that person's to do with as they see fit. If they're on the street anyone can do anything with them.
You can take ownership of them by moving them in some way that they no longer move around randomly, just like you can pump water from the watertable and sell it. That doesn't mean you own the watertable, it means you can legally do what is called a 'conversion' under the law, converting commonly owned property to your own uses.
Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
They are paying money to harm me, and I don't care if they get their money's worth.
No, actually, you do not have property rights to the dirt on your car. As proven by the incredibly obvious fact that you can't sue someone for hitting it with a hose, or sue God when it rains.
I know some people are pro-very strong property ownership, but that just insane. You do not own the dirt laying on your car, any more than you own leaves that have blown into your yard or CO2 exhaled from your lungs. That is all public property in the truest sense of the word..not even government owned, but not owned at all.
Now, being not owned at all, you can certainly collect it and down with as you will, and at some point claim property rights over it...but so can anyone else, assuming they do not trespass or damage your property.
If he just got fined and ordered to do community service, um, duh, the city is his enemy.
Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
I don't know much about this, not have any graffiti around here, but let me just interject with the fact I wouldn't mind grafetti over any paid-for (aka, not right in front of the business) commercial sign.
I don't understand why only certain people should be able to ruin my view, and on the whole I'd rather have some sort of art instead of an ad.
Post-dating a check and then neglecting to inform the person you're writing it to is probably illegal, assumming that actually did anything. I don't know why it would be illegal with the consent of both parties, but pretending it meant anything, I can see why it would be illegal to pay for gas with a check that was dated 6/28/3004 without them knowing..
But like I said, I was always under the impression that postdating checks did nothing, so it probably wouldn't be illegal, just like it's not illegal to draw smiley faces on your checks. The date field doesn't mean anything, you can write gibberish there. (In fact, it doesn't pretend to mean anything. It doesn't say 'current date' or 'date to execute draft', it just says 'date'. Presumably you could write 'yes' there, you wished a date.)
However, if you're talking about the common practice of postdating a check with the consent on the person you're writing it to because of your current lack of funds, that is illegal. Not because of the postdating, but because the postdating means nothing, and it's illegal to write a draft on your account without the funds there, even if the funds are there when it's finally executed.
But that is more of a problem with the law and the format of checks than anything else. There is no way to make a check only valid at a certain point, so we do it orally...and in the meanwhile violate certain banking regulations.
You can tell people whatever you want, but if someone presents a bank with a valid draft (Which is what a check is.) on one of the banks's account, there are only a few legally valid reasons to dishonor the check, and 'six months' isn't one of them.
While the easist thing is for them to get another check, it's entirely possible they could instead fine the check issuer under the same grounds as having written a bad check. And it's entirely possible that the check writer could sue the bank for failing to honor a properly executed draft on his account to recover the costs. Hell, he could probably sue anyway.
Well, you'd want to remain in the same city, otherwise they could possibly track you by traffic patterns. (Even if you regularly go to another city, you don't want them to know that.)
It seems like the more random you can be, the better, but that's not true, because acting random can make people remember you. And, those people aren't random people in the other town, they're your next door neighbor, they're people who can't find you at home, etc.
Likewise, I'd try to figure out something better than a closed motocycle helmet. That's just way too suspicious. Be sure to drive up low on cash and with a legit usable ATM card, and if it's suspicious abort by getting cash from your legit accounts.
And just for indirection, you'll want to use ATMs that are not owned by the bank your account is in. You know they'll be watching the account, so anything that can waste time before they learn about it is better.
And like I said, you can't use drive up ATMs, or any ATM where it would catch your car while you drive. Which is something like 75% of them.
What I would do is figure out an area roughly around where you live, although shifting it to one side might be a good idea. Throwing suspicion by driving thirty minute to the same, other town, sounds like a good idea, until you get a speeding ticket on the way back or hit a traffic camera or get remembered by a gas station attendent. Local is safe, local is having plausible reasons to be there.
While there may be millions of ATMs, there are not millions of ATMs useable for this scam.
You can have whatever policies you want, but checks don't ever expire, per se, at least in my state, which follows the Uniform Commercial Code for Negotiable Instruments. Even if they have expiration dates printed on them. Checks are legally drafts on someone else's bank account, they are not contracts or even promisary notes, they do not 'expire', although they can become invalid, via account closing or stop payment orders.
In theory, a draft can be set at a certain date in the future, and possibly the 'date' on the check could reflect this, but I've never heard of caselaw saying banks had to treat the date on a check as the date the transfer is to happen. But regardless, all you can set with a note is the earliest date, not the latest one.
Of course, no bank is required to accept any check at all. So if you're talking about how they wouldn't honor checks customers would bring it drawn on other banks, that's all well and good, although that would just piss their customers off.
However, if you're talking about checks you have issued, you can't even count on them not being cashed somewhere. And if someone walks in with one, legally, you must honor that check.
None of that, of course, has anything to do with money owed other people, or what you legally have to do with it. I'm just pointing out that those checks can still be cashed unless you stop payment on them.
And, of course, if your bank owes someone ten dollars, and they don't cash it, and you send it to the state, and they claim it, and then cash the original check, obviously they now owe you ten dollars.
Now, there's a new thing where you can duplicate a check, and it's legally the same as the original check. It's designed for exactly what we're talking about. You issue them the check, they don't cash it for whatever reason, so you issue a duplicate check and send it to the state, who then cashes it as abandoned property, and thus their original check is no longer valid, being already cashed. All that really saves is a 'stop payment' order in that case, though.
I know, it's fairly funny he's calling people fanboys, yet he thinks it's perfectly normal for email clients not only to display web pages, and not only to display inline images, but to display inline images from remote sites.
I feel compelled to point out that all ATMs are covered by security cameras. Duh. They're built into the ATM. And that pretty much automatically removes drive up ATMs...while you can drive up wearing a helmet, they'll get your car. Some of them have a wide enough angle to get your license plate.
However, yes, any method of payment where you can pick it up from multiple points is much better than a single point of capture. ATMs are very good because there are literally hundreds of them to choose from.
Just don't do something stupid like take a trip across the country and withdraw the money from there, because they will check flight records. And for God's sake, wipe the card free of fingerprints before sticking it in the machine.
The only thing I'm not sure about is the entire premise of this. I presume that the whole wait-a-year thing is to make sure the security tapes are gone and that one one remembers you from when you opened the account. But I'm not sure that that is enough.
A slightly more clever idea would be to set up one of those fake ATM covers to steal card numbers and PINs, but just steal a few and don't use them to steal from the accounts...use them to funnel your money through. (You'll need to explain what's going on to the guy you're blackmailing, otherwise the account owner will end up in jail and you'll have no money.) Of course that's yet another set of risks...
"Web bugs" images work in all web browsers, true. However, that is insanely stupid for tracking down someone, because if someone is downloading a web page you have control of, duh, you already know their IP. You gave it when they got the page.
So unless they were running a page they knew he'd access on a free provider that they don't have logfile access to, that makes no sense at all. (And that situtation is rather implausible.)
There are two options that makse sense here: Either they tried to hijack his web browser via an Active-X hole, so that it would phone home when attached to a different network (like his home connection), or they tried to put a web bug in his email, so they could see his IP when he checked it. (Apparently not being able or willing to hook up with his email account operators to grab his IP that way.)
And guess what? Either one of those tricks almost certainly requires Microsoft products to work.
Post ex facto only matters if it makes your behavior illegal. It's certainly legal to pass laws which devalue something of someone's...witness zoning regulations, for example. Someone purchase a property zoned one way, and then the government decides, no, that's not right. This does open the government up to lawsuits, though.
And I have to point out that it is the copyright extentions that, themselves, made things illegal, whereas repealing them would just make formerly illegal things legal.
However, while legal, it would certainly be unfair to public domain all works not formally registered since 1976. So the logical thing to do would be to give everyone five years or so to register them.
Actually, I'd keep that time limit. Let's let people have either 5 years from the passing of the law, or creation of thw work, whichever is later, to register a copyright, or the thing is public domained at the end. This removes the overburden at the copyright office, it stops people from being ripped off when they don't register, but it lets us just stop worrying about the copyright from works five years ago, unless they are explicitly copyrighted.
While we're at it, let's make that apply to pre-1976 works also...they have to go and register their copyrights again. That would get rid of all orphaned copyrights right there. Hell, let's make people re-up every 10 years, while we're at it.
Te gag is, really, all this could be fixed while leaving copyright term lengths completely broken. So I really have no idea why it's not happened yet.
There's actually a rather gray area about 'public performance' there. In a public resturant, it would probably be one, but it would be difficult arguing that five people singing one around a birthday cake in the privacy of their own home was somehow public, just like them all sitting down and watching a movie isn't a public performance.
It's rather like I can grab a cast of people and practice the musical Camelot until my ears bleed, (Assuming I don't violate copyright by copying the scripts.) but if I start inviting people to watch, I have to pay royalties.
Frankly, this public performance thing is stupid. It shouldn't count as a public performance unless you charge for it. It's absurd that, legally, I can't take a stereo and play CDs at a party without it technically being a public performance, but I could legally loan that CD to each person in order.
Nah, there are plenty of neutrinos out there. The sun is a fairly big source, for one.
Although note that while we have these magical neutrino detectors, that still doesn't mean they're going to be casting a shadow on the ground, because neutrinos don't bounch off anything, and hence it would be hard to see someone is blocking neutrinos unless they're directly in the way.
But I'm fairly certain they're common enough, (Pretending, of course, we had a way of detecting them, which is required for this to work.), for someone to notice that they are missing from a certain point. And it's even worse than wearing glasses...unlike infrared or motion detectors, if there are neutrinos missing it pretty much is required to be a human doing it. Just hook up autotargeted guns to the sensors and blow them away.
Of course, the gag here is that our neutrino detectors would also be blocking neutrinos...
However, this idea works perfectly if you ditch the neurinos and use, say, UHF. Just shift the wavelengths of light up, and back down. Sure, we don't have any known way of doing that right now perfectly, but it's more plausible than inventing a neutrino converter. And it seems, at least to me, at least slightly more plausible than bending light around something. And you can fix the 'blind spot' problem by just broadcasting static from random points and building waveform guides on equipment to delibrately screw with tracking that specific radio frequencies.
Actually, computers are quite capable for figuring out where someone's looking, we've had that technology for years. They figure out where faces are, and then they figure out where the eyes are.
Which is why I've always said this way stupid. Let's just stick a few cameras on someone so we know what the view is supposed to look like, and who's looking at them, and mount a few tiny LED projectors to project the 'correct' image onto their eyeballs. Forget 'cloaks'.
The first is, obviously, the fact there are no 'types' of neutrinos. You can't have colors. Not to mention that light doesn't really work that way...you'd need to convert from the full spectrum to RGB, which means you'd need two or even three neutrinos for each photon.
However, we can pretend neutrinos have undiscovered 'frequencies' and ignore all that.
You also have the issue that you need to remove all neutrinos that already are passing though someone so the other side doesn't show random static. That's doable if you're managed to get this far handing neutrinos, but this leads to the large disadvantage that any idiot could see you with neutrino glasses, because you'd be blocking them out.
However, all this is moot because is the insurmountable physic problem that neutrinos are fermions (basically, they're electrons without a charge) and photons are bosons, and there's no way to for them to turn into each other.
Uh, no. You don't know what a Bayesian filter is. It doesn't have anything to do with 'duplicates'.
A Bayesian filter calculates the similarity between two files for any number of aspects. With spam filters, these are normally just 'how close does this match spam', and 'how close does this match legit mail', but they can rank on anything.
It's perfectly possible to sit there and tell a filter that 'these groups of files are personal', and then when another file containing personal information comes in, it will be ranked high on the 'personal' axis.
However, that is possibly the stupidest idea for a file system I've ever heard. It might be useful for sorting random incoming files, aka, 'This file appear to contain information about goat herding. Woudl you like to save it with your other goat herding files?', or even searches if you can't remember a certain filename or any keywords in it, just what it was vaguely about, but it would be a very sucky way to actually locate files day to day.
Um, trucking companies do profit from charging people to use the roads. You think they ship all that stuff for free?
The analogy is almost letter perfect. The government builds a public resource, private industry does a tiny bit of work to add value, and resells it. With shipping companies, it's a fleet of large trucks and drivers added to public roads anyone can use, with software it would be whatever changes would be made to the public domain code.
Except that with the roads, businesses are actually 'consuming' the resource...you cannot use it while they use it, or, at least, their use cuts into yours.
I hate to sound like a bigot, and I'm normally pro-multi-lingual, but if you don't know enough to know the names of the various offices in English, you really shouldn't be voting. If you don't know what 'Sheriff' means in English, get out of the goddamn booth and go home. (Yeah, yeah, yeah, there are other instructions in voting, and multilingual is great there...but that's not my point.)
And now I've just had a great idea:
We don't put people's names with their office. It's like those matching tests. You get a column of 10 offices and 30 names or so, and you can vote for any of them for any office. No Party affilliations, either. That way, you'd have to at least know who was running for what office before voting for them. (And the question then arises...what happens if someone wins an office they aren't running for?)
Slashdot Mirror
Colleges cannot under any circumstances ban APs, or other wireless devices, just like they can't ban other antennas. It doesn't matter if they are private colleges, it doesn't matter if they put it in the housing contract, it doesn't matter if it's a ballpark and you're carrying in a satellite disk on your head, such clauses are void under the law. You. Cannot. Ban. Antennas.
This doesn't stop them from being able to ban you from connecting it to their network, but the only way they can stop you from operating a wireless network is to ban the computers. And at that point I think I'd keep running a wireless network out of spite.
It sounds crazy, and I'm sure libertarians are having kittens, but the FCC has, for years, disallowed the banning of sat disks, and this is just an extension of it. If it is legal for you to be there, it is legal for you to operate an 'antenna ' under one meter in size to access the radio spectrum, assuming you do it in a legal way...and the FCC says only they can determine that. And 'antenna' includes wireless APs.
At which point people will set up Linux boxes with wifi cards in them, and run them as APs. I'd like to them try to regulate the physical difference between that and a box with a wifi card that's getting on their network. If they're banning all wireless and just selectively enforcing it if you're not on their network, ask them why they're operating a wireless network if no one is allowed to be on it.
And, of course, nothing says the wireless routers have to be on their property, especially when you're talking about Georgia Tech, a college that does not have 'campus' per se, it's intermingled with the city. If they try to ban wireless access points, people will just set them up inside coffeehouses across the street from the dorm.
A very important question to ask them, in front of witnesses, is if they're trying to ban the equipment, student run networks, or just wireless broadcasting. And after they answer 'C', be sure to explain what 'unregulated' means. Watch them backpeddle.
Of course I can. The thing I do not have the right to do is to damage your car. You don't have some magical right not to have things you own look different. That's well decided case law, and is the reason we have zoning restrictions...if you could just argue that the shopping center makes your house look different, we wouldn't need them.
As for the leaves that blow into your yard...if I see my property laying in your yard, I have the right to go in and take it.
So, if they're leaves from my tree, or that originally fell into my yard and them blew into yours, I can go in and get them? Of course not, because it's your lawn and it's nobody's leaves. If they were 'your' leaves your ownership would follow them around, and in fact would start from the tree they fell from. Sadly for you, it's quite clearly decided that leaves from your tree that end up on someone else's property are theirs to do with as they see fit, and if they blow from there to someone else they're that person's to do with as they see fit. If they're on the street anyone can do anything with them.
You can take ownership of them by moving them in some way that they no longer move around randomly, just like you can pump water from the watertable and sell it. That doesn't mean you own the watertable, it means you can legally do what is called a 'conversion' under the law, converting commonly owned property to your own uses.
They are paying money to harm me, and I don't care if they get their money's worth.
I know some people are pro-very strong property ownership, but that just insane. You do not own the dirt laying on your car, any more than you own leaves that have blown into your yard or CO2 exhaled from your lungs. That is all public property in the truest sense of the word..not even government owned, but not owned at all.
Now, being not owned at all, you can certainly collect it and down with as you will, and at some point claim property rights over it...but so can anyone else, assuming they do not trespass or damage your property.
The obvious solution is to pick up the trash and shove it into the guard's hand.
...unless you live in a country with freedom of speech, in which case racial slurs aren't illegal at all.
If he just got fined and ordered to do community service, um, duh, the city is his enemy.
I don't understand why only certain people should be able to ruin my view, and on the whole I'd rather have some sort of art instead of an ad.
But like I said, I was always under the impression that postdating checks did nothing, so it probably wouldn't be illegal, just like it's not illegal to draw smiley faces on your checks. The date field doesn't mean anything, you can write gibberish there. (In fact, it doesn't pretend to mean anything. It doesn't say 'current date' or 'date to execute draft', it just says 'date'. Presumably you could write 'yes' there, you wished a date.)
However, if you're talking about the common practice of postdating a check with the consent on the person you're writing it to because of your current lack of funds, that is illegal. Not because of the postdating, but because the postdating means nothing, and it's illegal to write a draft on your account without the funds there, even if the funds are there when it's finally executed.
But that is more of a problem with the law and the format of checks than anything else. There is no way to make a check only valid at a certain point, so we do it orally...and in the meanwhile violate certain banking regulations.
While the easist thing is for them to get another check, it's entirely possible they could instead fine the check issuer under the same grounds as having written a bad check. And it's entirely possible that the check writer could sue the bank for failing to honor a properly executed draft on his account to recover the costs. Hell, he could probably sue anyway.
It seems like the more random you can be, the better, but that's not true, because acting random can make people remember you. And, those people aren't random people in the other town, they're your next door neighbor, they're people who can't find you at home, etc.
Likewise, I'd try to figure out something better than a closed motocycle helmet. That's just way too suspicious. Be sure to drive up low on cash and with a legit usable ATM card, and if it's suspicious abort by getting cash from your legit accounts.
And just for indirection, you'll want to use ATMs that are not owned by the bank your account is in. You know they'll be watching the account, so anything that can waste time before they learn about it is better.
And like I said, you can't use drive up ATMs, or any ATM where it would catch your car while you drive. Which is something like 75% of them.
What I would do is figure out an area roughly around where you live, although shifting it to one side might be a good idea. Throwing suspicion by driving thirty minute to the same, other town, sounds like a good idea, until you get a speeding ticket on the way back or hit a traffic camera or get remembered by a gas station attendent. Local is safe, local is having plausible reasons to be there.
While there may be millions of ATMs, there are not millions of ATMs useable for this scam.
In theory, a draft can be set at a certain date in the future, and possibly the 'date' on the check could reflect this, but I've never heard of caselaw saying banks had to treat the date on a check as the date the transfer is to happen. But regardless, all you can set with a note is the earliest date, not the latest one.
Of course, no bank is required to accept any check at all. So if you're talking about how they wouldn't honor checks customers would bring it drawn on other banks, that's all well and good, although that would just piss their customers off.
However, if you're talking about checks you have issued, you can't even count on them not being cashed somewhere. And if someone walks in with one, legally, you must honor that check.
None of that, of course, has anything to do with money owed other people, or what you legally have to do with it. I'm just pointing out that those checks can still be cashed unless you stop payment on them.
And, of course, if your bank owes someone ten dollars, and they don't cash it, and you send it to the state, and they claim it, and then cash the original check, obviously they now owe you ten dollars.
Now, there's a new thing where you can duplicate a check, and it's legally the same as the original check. It's designed for exactly what we're talking about. You issue them the check, they don't cash it for whatever reason, so you issue a duplicate check and send it to the state, who then cashes it as abandoned property, and thus their original check is no longer valid, being already cashed. All that really saves is a 'stop payment' order in that case, though.
I know, it's fairly funny he's calling people fanboys, yet he thinks it's perfectly normal for email clients not only to display web pages, and not only to display inline images, but to display inline images from remote sites.
However, yes, any method of payment where you can pick it up from multiple points is much better than a single point of capture. ATMs are very good because there are literally hundreds of them to choose from.
Just don't do something stupid like take a trip across the country and withdraw the money from there, because they will check flight records. And for God's sake, wipe the card free of fingerprints before sticking it in the machine.
The only thing I'm not sure about is the entire premise of this. I presume that the whole wait-a-year thing is to make sure the security tapes are gone and that one one remembers you from when you opened the account. But I'm not sure that that is enough.
A slightly more clever idea would be to set up one of those fake ATM covers to steal card numbers and PINs, but just steal a few and don't use them to steal from the accounts...use them to funnel your money through. (You'll need to explain what's going on to the guy you're blackmailing, otherwise the account owner will end up in jail and you'll have no money.) Of course that's yet another set of risks...
"Web bugs" images work in all web browsers, true. However, that is insanely stupid for tracking down someone, because if someone is downloading a web page you have control of, duh, you already know their IP. You gave it when they got the page.
So unless they were running a page they knew he'd access on a free provider that they don't have logfile access to, that makes no sense at all. (And that situtation is rather implausible.)
There are two options that makse sense here: Either they tried to hijack his web browser via an Active-X hole, so that it would phone home when attached to a different network (like his home connection), or they tried to put a web bug in his email, so they could see his IP when he checked it. (Apparently not being able or willing to hook up with his email account operators to grab his IP that way.)
And guess what? Either one of those tricks almost certainly requires Microsoft products to work.
Fanboy my ass.
And I have to point out that it is the copyright extentions that, themselves, made things illegal, whereas repealing them would just make formerly illegal things legal.
However, while legal, it would certainly be unfair to public domain all works not formally registered since 1976. So the logical thing to do would be to give everyone five years or so to register them.
Actually, I'd keep that time limit. Let's let people have either 5 years from the passing of the law, or creation of thw work, whichever is later, to register a copyright, or the thing is public domained at the end. This removes the overburden at the copyright office, it stops people from being ripped off when they don't register, but it lets us just stop worrying about the copyright from works five years ago, unless they are explicitly copyrighted.
While we're at it, let's make that apply to pre-1976 works also...they have to go and register their copyrights again. That would get rid of all orphaned copyrights right there. Hell, let's make people re-up every 10 years, while we're at it.
Te gag is, really, all this could be fixed while leaving copyright term lengths completely broken. So I really have no idea why it's not happened yet.
It's rather like I can grab a cast of people and practice the musical Camelot until my ears bleed, (Assuming I don't violate copyright by copying the scripts.) but if I start inviting people to watch, I have to pay royalties.
Frankly, this public performance thing is stupid. It shouldn't count as a public performance unless you charge for it. It's absurd that, legally, I can't take a stereo and play CDs at a party without it technically being a public performance, but I could legally loan that CD to each person in order.
Although note that while we have these magical neutrino detectors, that still doesn't mean they're going to be casting a shadow on the ground, because neutrinos don't bounch off anything, and hence it would be hard to see someone is blocking neutrinos unless they're directly in the way.
But I'm fairly certain they're common enough, (Pretending, of course, we had a way of detecting them, which is required for this to work.), for someone to notice that they are missing from a certain point. And it's even worse than wearing glasses...unlike infrared or motion detectors, if there are neutrinos missing it pretty much is required to be a human doing it. Just hook up autotargeted guns to the sensors and blow them away.
Of course, the gag here is that our neutrino detectors would also be blocking neutrinos...
However, this idea works perfectly if you ditch the neurinos and use, say, UHF. Just shift the wavelengths of light up, and back down. Sure, we don't have any known way of doing that right now perfectly, but it's more plausible than inventing a neutrino converter. And it seems, at least to me, at least slightly more plausible than bending light around something. And you can fix the 'blind spot' problem by just broadcasting static from random points and building waveform guides on equipment to delibrately screw with tracking that specific radio frequencies.
Which is why I've always said this way stupid. Let's just stick a few cameras on someone so we know what the view is supposed to look like, and who's looking at them, and mount a few tiny LED projectors to project the 'correct' image onto their eyeballs. Forget 'cloaks'.
I don't want to get into the looniness that is the 'Philadelphia Project' but Tesla didn't have anything do with, having died six months earlier.
The first is, obviously, the fact there are no 'types' of neutrinos. You can't have colors. Not to mention that light doesn't really work that way...you'd need to convert from the full spectrum to RGB, which means you'd need two or even three neutrinos for each photon.
However, we can pretend neutrinos have undiscovered 'frequencies' and ignore all that.
You also have the issue that you need to remove all neutrinos that already are passing though someone so the other side doesn't show random static. That's doable if you're managed to get this far handing neutrinos, but this leads to the large disadvantage that any idiot could see you with neutrino glasses, because you'd be blocking them out.
However, all this is moot because is the insurmountable physic problem that neutrinos are fermions (basically, they're electrons without a charge) and photons are bosons, and there's no way to for them to turn into each other.
A Bayesian filter calculates the similarity between two files for any number of aspects. With spam filters, these are normally just 'how close does this match spam', and 'how close does this match legit mail', but they can rank on anything.
It's perfectly possible to sit there and tell a filter that 'these groups of files are personal', and then when another file containing personal information comes in, it will be ranked high on the 'personal' axis.
However, that is possibly the stupidest idea for a file system I've ever heard. It might be useful for sorting random incoming files, aka, 'This file appear to contain information about goat herding. Woudl you like to save it with your other goat herding files?', or even searches if you can't remember a certain filename or any keywords in it, just what it was vaguely about, but it would be a very sucky way to actually locate files day to day.
The analogy is almost letter perfect. The government builds a public resource, private industry does a tiny bit of work to add value, and resells it. With shipping companies, it's a fleet of large trucks and drivers added to public roads anyone can use, with software it would be whatever changes would be made to the public domain code.
Except that with the roads, businesses are actually 'consuming' the resource...you cannot use it while they use it, or, at least, their use cuts into yours.
And now I've just had a great idea:
We don't put people's names with their office. It's like those matching tests. You get a column of 10 offices and 30 names or so, and you can vote for any of them for any office. No Party affilliations, either. That way, you'd have to at least know who was running for what office before voting for them. (And the question then arises...what happens if someone wins an office they aren't running for?)