If you are correct that most electronic communication is in code and rendered useless, why are email and IM discovery rules still followed after a decade? The article mentions a case that started from one text message, so it seems capturing all electronic communication can be important, as there is real evidence to be found there. Watching people's email and not bothering with facebook would make it far too easy to get through the cracks, so it makes sense to cover all the bases.
I agree it wouldn't be that hard to keep incriminating statements out of electronic communication, but between people not thinking ahead and being so reliant on their Blackberries and Twitter and whatnot you should get plenty of data in plain sight upon discovery. Not to mention even innocuous statements can still be useful with the right context. For example, if you have a timeline of a crime at X company, and you have two people consistently sending emails that fit the timeline, it will at least prompt a few extra interviews.
They did, she didn't show up, and they got a default judgment. The records were all electronic, and were lost within hours due to a lightning strike. Every attempt to re-file thereafter was foiled by microbursts carrying away the documents, downed tree branches and powerlines causing outages and surges, and lightning strikes. Word has it the suit was dropped when the law firm responsible lost their office to a sinkhole.
For anyone not familiar, the cost of the lawyer helping you file the application often costs ~10x the filing fee, so the fee itself isn't the limiting cost here.
One section of ACTA says that Internet providers 'disabling access' to pirated material and adopting a policy dealing with unauthorized 'transmission of materials protected by copyright' would be immune from lawsuits
Just immune from lawsuits for aiding piracy, or immune from any lawsuit, including those from users who were affected or copyright holders who felt their material was wrongly blocked?
I was getting at the newer coal processes, which generally fall under clean coal. I'm in Terre Haute, and nearby there is a plant using a similar (if not same) process, which is high efficiency compared to conventional coal plants (therefore cleaner), and they can separate the sulfur as a liquid, which is much cheaper and more effective than typical scrubber setups (hence cleaner), in addition to sorting out a lot of the heavy metal pollutants (I don't know the specifics). I know there is no such thing as coal being as clean as wind, and I never meant that; the hyperbole is marketing hype, but clean coal simply means clean relative to normal coal plants. Coal is cheap and plentiful, so we will continue using it no matter how much people complain about it as they want expensive wind and solar without paying more for it. By investing in clean coal, we can at least reduce how much we pollute with the coal we are using. I'm all for eliminating coal, but only when it is realistic to do so.
As for the other technology becoming cost effective, yes it should- I am not proposing we stop research, simply we stop subsidizing wind farms beyond prototype runs. We over-invested in ethanol before it became cost effective, and now it's a complete disaster. If we waited until the (yet to come) efficient cellulosic ethanol before investing, it would have saved a lot of headaches. Wind is developed enough it doesn't need subsidy in ideal locations. The technology is still developing to make it effective to build large wind farms in the Great Plains, yet Indiana is already getting one of the largest US wind farms put up. If we waited 10 years I bet the windfarm could be built without subsidy.
Keep in mind money is finite (congress doesn't know this yet), so money spent on subsidies means money not going to research to better improve the technology. The subsidized windfarms help get manufacturing more efficient, but most of that money goes to businessmen and investors, not scientists and engineers.
I'm sure subsidies can be cost effective if used properly, but the way they are right now I feel research gets a much higher ROI.
Well, if you can design a windmill, solar cell, tidal turbine or other naturally-powered generator so that you can leave it alone for decades (centuries?), it can pay itself off compared to the cost of operating a traditional fuel-burning plant, although the payoff time would be so slow it may need subsidies to get investment going.
I do agree that, beyond research/prototype funding, government shouldn't subsidize these technologies until they are able to compete commercially on their own merits. Until it's cost effective, the money is better spent on clean coal or nuclear.
I know you aren't serious, but in case anyone is curious: Last I heard, this process is so slow the sun going red giant on us is a more pressing issue. Somehow changing this moon escapism process shouldn't have any real effect on people even billions of years from now.
Tidal forces are from the moon, and over time the moon is getting farther away. Clearly, if we harvest tidal energy we will force the moon away faster as it makes up for the difference. If NASA times it just right, we could put people on the moon, launch the moon at Mars and have people walking on Mars just months later. Melt the polar icecaps on Mars, use tidal kites there, and repeat as needed to keep using the moon as our Earth/Mars space shuttle. Add Phobos and Deimos into the mix and space tourism can take off.
Next, we use the tide from the sun to travel to Alpha Centauri.
Read the AC's comment, it may apply. A rational explanation is fine, but if you don't first mention you get the joke and are pretending it's serious, you won't come across as very insightful/informative.
A company with outdated infrastructure changing it's business model to adapt to changing technology- all in a quick, relatively efficient process? Yeah, you've got to be pulling my leg.
Wait, do you mean Corporate America isn't doing it right?
Telephones and railways have gone through antitrust cases. ISPs have not. My guess is we need a full-fledged monopoly to form before things get better.
Even a politician racing after power can't keep up with a corporation chasing money.
There is money to be made breaking net neutrality, so as soon as corporations think they can get away with it, they will. With politicians, though, we've seen that there is power to be had both supporting and fighting net neutrality, so at the very least we get a little longer before neutrality is gone.
I hope our US congress claims copyright over the DMCA and files a takedown notice on you Canadians. Stealing our horrible draconian legislation? You wish!
No, cutting down the file sizes won't make the SD card smaller. I thought we already covered the lack of correlation between weight/size and stored memory.
If it takes 1:1,000,000 oil to water to destroy the ecosystem, it doesn't take that concentration everywhere at once. Once the oil has destroyed an area, it can drift somewhere else to wreak havoc. It will take years (dozens? hundreds?) for any one area to recover, and that time span will only increase the larger the area that gets destroyed. Life can recover fairly readily if neighboring populations can move in quickly, but if those neighboring populations were also killed, who knows what it will take to recover.
That said, of course we still won't see all the oceans get destroyed, but worst-case the ecosystem of the gulf may be decimated for the rest of our lives and then some.
That means this is an even larger disaster than ever expected. Someone must be going around tampering with glaciers, old growth forests and all the other sources of data to fabricate this warming. Whoever is out there with the power to do all this can be extremely dangerous. He could make everyone's clocks run faster by 1/100th of a second (in America alone, this adds up to 1.5 days), he could add imperceptible inclines to roads everywhere to decrease everyones MPG by a few inches- worst of all, he could slightly increase the weight of all coins, adding to the weight we carry, stressing our joints and adding hundreds of dollars in costs to the already budget-strained Medicare program.
*Disclaimer: I know what I'm talking about as much as the average slashdotter (not at all), so I defer to anyone with real knowledge on this should they disagree with any/all of my points.
I propose long-arc series should get two run-throughs: the first one is over-milked to satisfy the suits and their desire to ruin everything for a profit. The second run-through (possibly filmed concurrently, using some of the same footage) is the story as the writers want it, with no unsolicited input, made purely to tell a good story. Because the suits already got what they wanted, they should be fine with simply getting even more money out of the series, and the people who lost interest halfway through the first try will finally get the story they were looking for.
I doubt the soldiers on the ground, the JTAC or the pilots are trying to hurt civilians (maybe a few really are, you can never really know). When the soldiers on the ground are in danger, the stress and need for quick action can easily make it hard to coordinate these airstrikes properly. If anyone is to blame, it is the higher-ups who set the policies and training procedures, and decide who should be piloting or calling in the strikes.
Using an engineering analogy, it's like an engineer designing a brake system that has unexpected failures (Toyota's specific problem is too rare to be a good analogy). The drivers who get people killed aren't at fault- they did as they were trained (through driver's ed/experience), but the system failed and people die. While no one was malicious about it, if anyone you have to blame the engineer for designing a faulty system, and to a lesser extent the government for not training drivers to better handle exceptional circumstances. The engineer has the responsibility to fix the braking system and ensure the faulty braking system is no longer used.
We make a huge deal out of civilian casualties- and we should- but I expect our military is putting more effort into balancing saving soldiers lives and saving civilian lives than any previous effort by any military since the development of long-range artillary. If we assume the military loves blowing things up as much as they can (which you seem to imply), they would still want to minimize civilian casualties. The better their track record is, the more freedom they have to keep using bombs at will. Unless you've performed these airstrikes yourself you shouldn't assume it's as easy as video games make you think.
Problem is, most people may never figure it out even when those negative effects hit. Facebook itself doesn't do anything- it's the companies paying for your information that are doing harm. Unless people learn how those marketers got your information, facebook won't have to worry about people wising up- that would only happen if mainstream news picks up the story and sells it as the latest big scare. Chances are that will never happen.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are correct that most electronic communication is in code and rendered useless, why are email and IM discovery rules still followed after a decade? The article mentions a case that started from one text message, so it seems capturing all electronic communication can be important, as there is real evidence to be found there. Watching people's email and not bothering with facebook would make it far too easy to get through the cracks, so it makes sense to cover all the bases.
I agree it wouldn't be that hard to keep incriminating statements out of electronic communication, but between people not thinking ahead and being so reliant on their Blackberries and Twitter and whatnot you should get plenty of data in plain sight upon discovery. Not to mention even innocuous statements can still be useful with the right context. For example, if you have a timeline of a crime at X company, and you have two people consistently sending emails that fit the timeline, it will at least prompt a few extra interviews.
They did, she didn't show up, and they got a default judgment. The records were all electronic, and were lost within hours due to a lightning strike. Every attempt to re-file thereafter was foiled by microbursts carrying away the documents, downed tree branches and powerlines causing outages and surges, and lightning strikes. Word has it the suit was dropped when the law firm responsible lost their office to a sinkhole.
For anyone not familiar, the cost of the lawyer helping you file the application often costs ~10x the filing fee, so the fee itself isn't the limiting cost here.
One section of ACTA says that Internet providers 'disabling access' to pirated material and adopting a policy dealing with unauthorized 'transmission of materials protected by copyright' would be immune from lawsuits
Just immune from lawsuits for aiding piracy, or immune from any lawsuit, including those from users who were affected or copyright holders who felt their material was wrongly blocked?
I was getting at the newer coal processes, which generally fall under clean coal. I'm in Terre Haute, and nearby there is a plant using a similar (if not same) process, which is high efficiency compared to conventional coal plants (therefore cleaner), and they can separate the sulfur as a liquid, which is much cheaper and more effective than typical scrubber setups (hence cleaner), in addition to sorting out a lot of the heavy metal pollutants (I don't know the specifics). I know there is no such thing as coal being as clean as wind, and I never meant that; the hyperbole is marketing hype, but clean coal simply means clean relative to normal coal plants. Coal is cheap and plentiful, so we will continue using it no matter how much people complain about it as they want expensive wind and solar without paying more for it. By investing in clean coal, we can at least reduce how much we pollute with the coal we are using. I'm all for eliminating coal, but only when it is realistic to do so.
As for the other technology becoming cost effective, yes it should- I am not proposing we stop research, simply we stop subsidizing wind farms beyond prototype runs. We over-invested in ethanol before it became cost effective, and now it's a complete disaster. If we waited until the (yet to come) efficient cellulosic ethanol before investing, it would have saved a lot of headaches. Wind is developed enough it doesn't need subsidy in ideal locations. The technology is still developing to make it effective to build large wind farms in the Great Plains, yet Indiana is already getting one of the largest US wind farms put up. If we waited 10 years I bet the windfarm could be built without subsidy.
Keep in mind money is finite (congress doesn't know this yet), so money spent on subsidies means money not going to research to better improve the technology. The subsidized windfarms help get manufacturing more efficient, but most of that money goes to businessmen and investors, not scientists and engineers.
I'm sure subsidies can be cost effective if used properly, but the way they are right now I feel research gets a much higher ROI.
Well, if you can design a windmill, solar cell, tidal turbine or other naturally-powered generator so that you can leave it alone for decades (centuries?), it can pay itself off compared to the cost of operating a traditional fuel-burning plant, although the payoff time would be so slow it may need subsidies to get investment going.
I do agree that, beyond research/prototype funding, government shouldn't subsidize these technologies until they are able to compete commercially on their own merits. Until it's cost effective, the money is better spent on clean coal or nuclear.
I know you aren't serious, but in case anyone is curious: Last I heard, this process is so slow the sun going red giant on us is a more pressing issue. Somehow changing this moon escapism process shouldn't have any real effect on people even billions of years from now.
Tidal forces are from the moon, and over time the moon is getting farther away. Clearly, if we harvest tidal energy we will force the moon away faster as it makes up for the difference. If NASA times it just right, we could put people on the moon, launch the moon at Mars and have people walking on Mars just months later. Melt the polar icecaps on Mars, use tidal kites there, and repeat as needed to keep using the moon as our Earth/Mars space shuttle. Add Phobos and Deimos into the mix and space tourism can take off.
Next, we use the tide from the sun to travel to Alpha Centauri.
Read the AC's comment, it may apply. A rational explanation is fine, but if you don't first mention you get the joke and are pretending it's serious, you won't come across as very insightful/informative.
Trying to get everyone to re-post their comments will be quite a task. Doesn't help you've ruined it- you never said "Dupe much" last time.
a large unknown is how to effectively extract water in an environment lacking gravity
Easy, bring the asteroid down to earth to extract the water. I don't see why they have to make it so complicated.
A company with outdated infrastructure changing it's business model to adapt to changing technology- all in a quick, relatively efficient process? Yeah, you've got to be pulling my leg.
Wait, do you mean Corporate America isn't doing it right?
Telephones and railways have gone through antitrust cases. ISPs have not. My guess is we need a full-fledged monopoly to form before things get better.
Even a politician racing after power can't keep up with a corporation chasing money.
There is money to be made breaking net neutrality, so as soon as corporations think they can get away with it, they will. With politicians, though, we've seen that there is power to be had both supporting and fighting net neutrality, so at the very least we get a little longer before neutrality is gone.
I hope our US congress claims copyright over the DMCA and files a takedown notice on you Canadians. Stealing our horrible draconian legislation? You wish!
No, cutting down the file sizes won't make the SD card smaller. I thought we already covered the lack of correlation between weight/size and stored memory.
No need to tie Velcro shoes.
But you can still try.
If it takes 1:1,000,000 oil to water to destroy the ecosystem, it doesn't take that concentration everywhere at once. Once the oil has destroyed an area, it can drift somewhere else to wreak havoc. It will take years (dozens? hundreds?) for any one area to recover, and that time span will only increase the larger the area that gets destroyed. Life can recover fairly readily if neighboring populations can move in quickly, but if those neighboring populations were also killed, who knows what it will take to recover.
That said, of course we still won't see all the oceans get destroyed, but worst-case the ecosystem of the gulf may be decimated for the rest of our lives and then some.
[1] In Austria. YMMV
Any Aussies here might want to let Victorians know they've been annexed by Austria.
That means this is an even larger disaster than ever expected. Someone must be going around tampering with glaciers, old growth forests and all the other sources of data to fabricate this warming. Whoever is out there with the power to do all this can be extremely dangerous. He could make everyone's clocks run faster by 1/100th of a second (in America alone, this adds up to 1.5 days), he could add imperceptible inclines to roads everywhere to decrease everyones MPG by a few inches- worst of all, he could slightly increase the weight of all coins, adding to the weight we carry, stressing our joints and adding hundreds of dollars in costs to the already budget-strained Medicare program.
*Disclaimer: I know what I'm talking about as much as the average slashdotter (not at all), so I defer to anyone with real knowledge on this should they disagree with any/all of my points.
I propose long-arc series should get two run-throughs: the first one is over-milked to satisfy the suits and their desire to ruin everything for a profit. The second run-through (possibly filmed concurrently, using some of the same footage) is the story as the writers want it, with no unsolicited input, made purely to tell a good story. Because the suits already got what they wanted, they should be fine with simply getting even more money out of the series, and the people who lost interest halfway through the first try will finally get the story they were looking for.
I doubt the soldiers on the ground, the JTAC or the pilots are trying to hurt civilians (maybe a few really are, you can never really know). When the soldiers on the ground are in danger, the stress and need for quick action can easily make it hard to coordinate these airstrikes properly. If anyone is to blame, it is the higher-ups who set the policies and training procedures, and decide who should be piloting or calling in the strikes.
Using an engineering analogy, it's like an engineer designing a brake system that has unexpected failures (Toyota's specific problem is too rare to be a good analogy). The drivers who get people killed aren't at fault- they did as they were trained (through driver's ed/experience), but the system failed and people die. While no one was malicious about it, if anyone you have to blame the engineer for designing a faulty system, and to a lesser extent the government for not training drivers to better handle exceptional circumstances. The engineer has the responsibility to fix the braking system and ensure the faulty braking system is no longer used.
We make a huge deal out of civilian casualties- and we should- but I expect our military is putting more effort into balancing saving soldiers lives and saving civilian lives than any previous effort by any military since the development of long-range artillary. If we assume the military loves blowing things up as much as they can (which you seem to imply), they would still want to minimize civilian casualties. The better their track record is, the more freedom they have to keep using bombs at will. Unless you've performed these airstrikes yourself you shouldn't assume it's as easy as video games make you think.
Problem is, most people may never figure it out even when those negative effects hit. Facebook itself doesn't do anything- it's the companies paying for your information that are doing harm. Unless people learn how those marketers got your information, facebook won't have to worry about people wising up- that would only happen if mainstream news picks up the story and sells it as the latest big scare. Chances are that will never happen.
No, please- leave him on your lawn. I don't want him wandering onto mine.