This is a bug in the Bill of Rights. It was hacked together all too hastily, therefore it isn't very good about laying out actual rights. It's more focused on curbing specific abuses.
As an individual, I prefer it that way.
Do you really want a written code that grants explicit rights to people? Or, would you rather a written code that restricts the government?
Actually, this was the original controversy over the Bill of Rights. The controversy necessitated the inclusion of Amendment #9 ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") and Amendment #10 ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.").
The Bill of Rights is really a Bill of Protections.
If you view the Bill of Rights as only granting rights, then people only expect 10, as written in those amendments. Amendments #9 and #10 reverses that perspective - people have 10 protections with (theoretically) an infinite number of rights.
It's a oddity of human nature that, the more people there are around, the more likely that people are to dismiss your presence because "someone must know them, and know what they're doing" otherwise someone would be acting, right?
Yup. From what I remember, a few in that group were casually sitting/reading/whatever nearby. This gave the impression to anyone encountering the scene that 'others' in the immediate area saw nothing wrong with the heist being committed. If anyone then talked to them, these people could reinforce the impression.
Your position may be true for local operations that very directly affect you, but applied to D.C. it is absolutely false.
If your work is a shameful disgrace that you don't want people talking about, you do it right before the weekend (ideally after 5PM on a Friday). The reason is two-fold: the reporters that would usually notice these things already left for happy hour and the average citizen pays less attention to politics over the weekend. By the time Monday rolls around, a bunch of other events occurred and the attention is shifted away from that shameful disgrace.
This is especially true for holiday weekends. Think of it - your attention is focused on the details of that gathering/vacation/whatever and not on some interesting legalese document recorded in the Federal Register that the reporters haven't looked at yet either (since they too are on holiday).
This technique has worked countless times for the last 7.5 years. And in most cases, almost nobody notices. It's the most practical method of recording a major shift in policy as a minor footnote.
How are unions to blame for whatever is wrong with flying in the US?
"select money from taxpayers UNION select money from industry;" The output is then utilized by politicians. It's really the politicians that made the mess, but they skillfully blame it on a "union".:)
Conventional military is bound by the Geneva convention. To date, there is no international law governing military info-war. Are you therefore no longer bound not to attack civilian targets? Is scrambling hospital records to create civilian deaths by mistreatment considered a valid attack?
What a horribly worded question - it immediately invalidates itself. How did this get to +5 Interesting?
The question starts with "Conventional military is bound by the Geneva convention." The interviewee is known to be a uniformed member of a conventional military. The question ends with "Are you therefore no longer bound not to attack civilian targets? Is scrambling hospital records to create civilian deaths by mistreatment considered a valid attack?"
Here's an easy way to understand the Geneva Conventions: any technique that is intended "to create civilian deaths" will NEVER EVER be allowed by Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions were devised with the SOLE purpose of protecting both captured soldiers and regular civilians - that's all that it covers. If you want to discuss war conventions, then look elsewhere (like the Hague Conventions of 1899 & 1907 or the Geneva Protocol).
I'll offer to rephrase the question. If someone can do better, then by all means...
Question: the conduct of warfare by the military is bound to international conventions (such as the Geneva and Hague conventions). Given the relatively new theater of "Cyber Warfare", specific conduct has not been codified in depth. What types of limitations/restrictions do you observe in this area?
If they're already fabricating evidence for the people that directly granted these powers (Senate in this case), what's to stop them from fabricating evidence for your arrest? Even better: secret evidence that you can't contest. They don't need to tap your phone to do that.
If you're only concern is with breach of privacy, I say that you're being optimistic.
The "Monty Hall problem" link in the summary informed me that I need Flash to understand the problem. However, on that page they then offer "Need to know more? 50% off home delivery of The Times."
This confuses me terribly - if I now pick the home delivery choice, does the probability of learning about the Monty Hall problem go down 50%?
Damn - I should have picked the Flash answer from the start.:(
...it suddenly makes the spying part of the "War on Terror", a military operation, and therefore not covered by the 4th Amendment.
Then what about the 10th amendment:
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What I'm learning from this memo is that we are no longer a nation of laws and legally tested precedent, we are a nation of memos. Wait, you didn't get that memo? Oh, of course you didn't - it was secret. I guess a nation of secret memos, then.
...(due to the government saying terrorism to justify the spying even if no terrorism occurred)...
How about in cases where terrorism DID occur (2001 anthrax attacks), did they actually use these spying powers as they suggest? Given the 6.5 years without even an arrest, it seems that they're not using these powers to catch actual terrorists.
Secondly, we knew of the mistake almost as soon as it happened.
Quoting the article:
Four of the cone-shaped fuses were shipped to Taiwanese officials in fall 2006 instead of the helicopter batteries they had ordered. Despite quarterly checks of the inventory, defense officials said they never knew the fuses were gone. Only after months of discussions with Taiwan over the missing batteries did the Pentagon finally realize -- late last week -- the gravity of what had happened.
So, in your opinion, 1.5 years is equivalent to "... almost as soon as it happened"?
orclevegam (940336) writes:
It's just that we only recently finished processing the paperwork. The next step is to file the paperwork that gets those fuses sent back over here. ETA is somewhere in 2015.
What are you talking about? Where are you getting your information?
Let's look at the article:
Once the error was discovered, the military quickly recovered the four fuses.
"Quickly recovered" here has an absolute theoretical maximum of 1.5 years, and to you that is equivalent to a future delivery in 7 years?
A classmate of mine in a chemistry class was discussing with the instructor some potential practical applications for fullerenes, and the only example I can remember was that of hydrogen storage for automobile fuel. I also remember him referring to Popular Science Magazine for that example.
This scene occurred in late July of 1992.
I never saw the actual article, but maybe someone here can confirm this. I would assume it to have been published sometime within 1 year before that date.
That shouldn't be a crime, it's your blood, and selling a fairly small amount of it won't harm you.
Even if you didn't bother to look at the link, the way I described it as "from a farm of living people" would hopefully indicate that the people were not selling their own blood to the bank, but rather that a broker/intermediary was selling it. If you did read the link it includes a witness quoting, "They could barely stand and on medical examination their haemoglobin levels were found to be very low", which indicates to me that the amounts involved were far from "a fairly small amount". The situation resembles vampires rather than properly compensated donors.
They don't like the idea of people selling blood, because then they won't be able to continue getting free donations. On the other hand, the number of people giving blood would increase massively if people were paid for it.
There is no profit motive on the demand side that is restricting the change. The patient already pays for any consumables during surgery so, in a situation where blood/organs are bought and sold, adding blood/organs to the cost of surgery would be identical (increased costs are always passed on to the consumer). The main incentive for a system that requires free donations is that it eliminates many forms of corruption.
Some businesses just should not exist. I'm not completely convinced that the business of blood/tissue sale is in that group, but I'm most of the way there.
I agree with your interpretation, but have my own way of explaining it. The quick summary is that I have a problem with the word 'addiction', mostly due to it's association with narcotics and especially to their physical dependence characteristics.
I like the first line of TFA for another reason (emphasis mine):
Compulsive e-mailing and text messaging could soon become classified as an official brain illness.
If an act is already being described as compulsive, then that already seems to be classifying the act.
Internet 'addiction' is a simple umbrella term to describe compulsive behavior over a variety of topics (porn, email, IM, games, whatever), but I doubt that it's ever about the medium itself (addicted to TCP/IP, UDP, and so on). In all cases the Internet is just a delivery vehicle of the content, but the content is what matters.
Analogy time: a cocaine abuser is not addicted to condom pouches.
Of all the mammals being slaughtered, cows have one of the worst public relations representatives (after rats). Anyway, whales are very well represented
I think there's a legimate reason for the double standard when you consider that cows aren't remotely an endangered species- quite the opposite.
You omitted the remainder of the second sentence. Specifically, how it ends with:
(from a marketing perspective).
Although the endangered aspect is important in the case overall, I was exploring a potential rational behind the 'research'.
By the way, you did quote me as saying that rats have the worst public relations representatives. So, where's the outrage for the endangered rats? Saving rats is just not front-page material. They have a bad image, while whales do not.
But no two scans of one fingerprint are identical pixel for pixel. If you scan one thumb ten times, you get ten different hashes.
Then that's not the way it should be done. For one thing, while the angle of the print may change, the relative size will not.
I think you can create fingerprints based off of a formula. All you need is to supply a set of variable coefficients. The hash would be that set of coefficients for your formula.
It's been a very long time since I had studied fingerprints, and that was rather cursory.
From what I know, every print has at least one point. The alternative is that some prints have ridges going straight across, which doesn't sound right to me.
- Focus on the most prominent one or the one ranked highest in priority. - Measure the distances between unique points and their angles relative to each other. - A left loop will always be a left loop no matter the rotation, and has an apex. - Same with a tented arch, except it will also have a triangular shape. - A whorl has two epicenters of a given distance.
I never worked in the field, but the above plan seems obvious to me. I also don't have a large sample set to help refine that formula - maybe having two whorls or two similar loops or some other combo never happens.
With any authentication, the important thing is that it be easy to produce the key and make it very hard to fake it. Therefore, the biggest problem with fingerprint authentication is that the user keeps leaving their key everywhere they touch. It's like mentioning your passwords in plaintext within every conversation you have. One solution may be to use toeprints instead.
With blanket immunity, all civil trials will stop completely.
Without blanket immunity, the civil trials will expose any wrong doings that did occur. If the telcos were persuaded illegally by law enforcement to commit wrong doing, then such evidence will be used in oversight and criminal investigations against the law enforcement offices and officers themselves.
Analogy time: 1. A cop threatens to kidnap/disappear you unless you kill someone. 2. You kill that someone and now face trial for the murder. Two outcomes: A. the cop 'silences' you before trial. B. the cop has serious connections and manages to get you immunity, hoping you shut up about the whole affair.
To protect the law enforcement offices, they have to protect the telcos.
Don't think about this as some cultural thing: it's strictly about covering up previous wrong doing. If it happens to allow for future wrong doing, well that's just an added bonus.
Of all the mammals being slaughtered, cows have one of the worst public relations representatives (after rats). Anyway, whales are very well represented so, if you want whale meat, it makes sense to attempt mixing cows and whales (from a marketing perspective).
This news does not surprise me in the least. Prior to the recent high-profile protests, the last time I discussed this issue was in science and world studies classes in high school and, whenever I had asked teachers about the research, the best answer I could get was that they were checking the diet (with gutting them as the easiest method). They were already gutting them so might as well get the meat too, right?
I always assumed there was other research being done (how many stomachs do they really need to check?) but I never bothered to investigate for myself. If the purpose is political charade, any research is seen as good research.
Good that this specific info is finally getting some attention, within its context (as presented in FTA). Bad that the summary only focuses on the weird aspect.
Management rejected the hostile offer. Insiders hold 12% in TakeTwo which, is not an insignificant amount, but it is far from a majority.
EA announced this almost three weeks ago so that outside investors holding shares of TTWO would potentially sell the company to them. Due to the rejection, one such investor has sued. Others have sold off much of their stake, cashing in on the rise in price while (I presume that) everything else in the market is tanking.
This time, EA is just stating that they are committed to the original offer.
I've been following this since before the original announcement - super pissed at myself that I didn't set up the brokerage account a week earlier than I did (initial funding delay absolutely killed this one). +50%... man, I hope I learned my lesson. Anyway, all I needed to know was: (1) I'm buying GTA4 when it comes out (a very unusual practice for me), and when reflecting on the Activision/Blizzard deal (2) a similar move by a software giant seemed obvious, and (3) nobody in financial news was talking about TakeTwo's highly anticipated sequel.
I most certainly don't. Unless they can take out Cheney at the same time. You know why the democrats haven't had Bush impeached? Because they'd rather have him than President Evil.
So instead, we have both. What then, for all these years, has been stopping them from impeaching/convicting Cheney? It's not like he's squeaky clean, right?
And how about this: due to inaction by Congress, there's even less accountability now as well as for the foreseeable future.
The process has happened before, and not too long ago: Spiro Agnew was forced to resign almost a year prior to Richard Nixon's own resignation.
Today's Democratic party leadership must be seriously disorganized.
Actually if you're following at the correct distance you shouldn't need your brakes in all but the most extreme situations like getting cut off.
Catch-22: if you're following at that correct distance, then the most extreme situations occur (you will get cut off). Correct distance in theory is different from correct distance in practice.
I know I try to minimize breaking most of the time and in non-gridlock situations I can keep from touching my break pedal probably 80% of the time when the car in front of me touches theirs. It requires looking several cars ahead and easing off the gas well ahead of the ripple location but if more people drove like this I bet most of those stupid sudden stop points could be eliminated.
I don't drive a truck so, in heavy traffic, I normally can't see beyond an average of two vehicles.
Your advocacy is appropriate for moderate traffic, and I would add that generally more-aware drivers would lead to fewer traffic fatalities.
Unfortunately, I've noticed different driving practices in different regions. For example, Boston driving has a very aggressive POV ("I'm merging NOW") while NYC driving has a very defensive POV ("You're not getting in front of me") while LA driving is more like sitting in a parked car.
I say 'unfortunately' because proper safe driving, if applied to extreme environments, may promote unsafe situations. If you react unexpectedly to regionally expected behavior, then the surrounding locals may then react to your move unexpectedly - which can cascade into a traffic accident.
As for me, I refrain from driving in heavy traffic - too much drama. Usually, I'm the guy going the speed limit in the slow lane and, in moderate traffic, I usually apply the method you describe. My attitude is: I don't care if you pass me, just don't surprise me or anyone around me.
Slashdot Mirror
As an individual, I prefer it that way.
Do you really want a written code that grants explicit rights to people?
Or, would you rather a written code that restricts the government?
Actually, this was the original controversy over the Bill of Rights. The controversy necessitated the inclusion of Amendment #9 ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") and Amendment #10 ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.").
The Bill of Rights is really a Bill of Protections.
If you view the Bill of Rights as only granting rights, then people only expect 10, as written in those amendments.
Amendments #9 and #10 reverses that perspective - people have 10 protections with (theoretically) an infinite number of rights.
How about more than a billion in profits a year. :)
If anything, Vivendi (Blizzard's owner) might mess around with Activision.
From a different article:
But that's all a minor point since, as a consumer of both brands, the same concern applies whichever side has ownership.
Yup. From what I remember, a few in that group were casually sitting/reading/whatever nearby. This gave the impression to anyone encountering the scene that 'others' in the immediate area saw nothing wrong with the heist being committed. If anyone then talked to them, these people could reinforce the impression.
Your position may be true for local operations that very directly affect you, but applied to D.C. it is absolutely false.
If your work is a shameful disgrace that you don't want people talking about, you do it right before the weekend (ideally after 5PM on a Friday). The reason is two-fold: the reporters that would usually notice these things already left for happy hour and the average citizen pays less attention to politics over the weekend. By the time Monday rolls around, a bunch of other events occurred and the attention is shifted away from that shameful disgrace.
This is especially true for holiday weekends. Think of it - your attention is focused on the details of that gathering/vacation/whatever and not on some interesting legalese document recorded in the Federal Register that the reporters haven't looked at yet either (since they too are on holiday).
This technique has worked countless times for the last 7.5 years. And in most cases, almost nobody notices. It's the most practical method of recording a major shift in policy as a minor footnote.
The output is then utilized by politicians.
It's really the politicians that made the mess, but they skillfully blame it on a "union".
The question starts with "Conventional military is bound by the Geneva convention."
The interviewee is known to be a uniformed member of a conventional military.
The question ends with "Are you therefore no longer bound not to attack civilian targets? Is scrambling hospital records to create civilian deaths by mistreatment considered a valid attack?"
Here's an easy way to understand the Geneva Conventions: any technique that is intended "to create civilian deaths" will NEVER EVER be allowed by Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions were devised with the SOLE purpose of protecting both captured soldiers and regular civilians - that's all that it covers. If you want to discuss war conventions, then look elsewhere (like the Hague Conventions of 1899 & 1907 or the Geneva Protocol).
I'll offer to rephrase the question. If someone can do better, then by all means...
Question: the conduct of warfare by the military is bound to international conventions (such as the Geneva and Hague conventions). Given the relatively new theater of "Cyber Warfare", specific conduct has not been codified in depth. What types of limitations/restrictions do you observe in this area?
Would it really matter if they tap your phone?
If they're already fabricating evidence for the people that directly granted these powers (Senate in this case), what's to stop them from fabricating evidence for your arrest? Even better: secret evidence that you can't contest. They don't need to tap your phone to do that.
If you're only concern is with breach of privacy, I say that you're being optimistic.
The "Monty Hall problem" link in the summary informed me that I need Flash to understand the problem.
However, on that page they then offer "Need to know more? 50% off home delivery of The Times."
This confuses me terribly - if I now pick the home delivery choice, does the probability of learning about the Monty Hall problem go down 50%?
Damn - I should have picked the Flash answer from the start.
Wait, you didn't get that memo? Oh, of course you didn't - it was secret. I guess a nation of secret memos, then.How about in cases where terrorism DID occur (2001 anthrax attacks), did they actually use these spying powers as they suggest? Given the 6.5 years without even an arrest, it seems that they're not using these powers to catch actual terrorists.
If a false statement doesn't use it, it's usually called trolling.
Was the first part of orclevegam's comment also humor? How do you know?
orclevegam (940336) writes:What are you talking about? Where are you getting your information?
Let's look at the article:"Quickly recovered" here has an absolute theoretical maximum of 1.5 years, and to you that is equivalent to a future delivery in 7 years?
A classmate of mine in a chemistry class was discussing with the instructor some potential practical applications for fullerenes, and the only example I can remember was that of hydrogen storage for automobile fuel. I also remember him referring to Popular Science Magazine for that example.
This scene occurred in late July of 1992.
I never saw the actual article, but maybe someone here can confirm this. I would assume it to have been published sometime within 1 year before that date.
Some businesses just should not exist. I'm not completely convinced that the business of blood/tissue sale is in that group, but I'm most of the way there.
How about this very recent article, also from BBC. The crime they describe is blood donations (for cash) from a farm of living people.
I like the first line of TFA for another reason (emphasis mine):If an act is already being described as compulsive, then that already seems to be classifying the act.
Internet 'addiction' is a simple umbrella term to describe compulsive behavior over a variety of topics (porn, email, IM, games, whatever), but I doubt that it's ever about the medium itself (addicted to TCP/IP, UDP, and so on). In all cases the Internet is just a delivery vehicle of the content, but the content is what matters.
Analogy time: a cocaine abuser is not addicted to condom pouches.
A troll mod? That was very unexpected.
Maybe the mod could explain how this is trolling in an AC reply?
Although the endangered aspect is important in the case overall, I was exploring a potential rational behind the 'research'.
By the way, you did quote me as saying that rats have the worst public relations representatives. So, where's the outrage for the endangered rats? Saving rats is just not front-page material. They have a bad image, while whales do not.
Then that's not the way it should be done. For one thing, while the angle of the print may change, the relative size will not.
I think you can create fingerprints based off of a formula. All you need is to supply a set of variable coefficients. The hash would be that set of coefficients for your formula.
It's been a very long time since I had studied fingerprints, and that was rather cursory.
From what I know, every print has at least one point. The alternative is that some prints have ridges going straight across, which doesn't sound right to me.
- Focus on the most prominent one or the one ranked highest in priority.
- Measure the distances between unique points and their angles relative to each other.
- A left loop will always be a left loop no matter the rotation, and has an apex.
- Same with a tented arch, except it will also have a triangular shape.
- A whorl has two epicenters of a given distance.
I never worked in the field, but the above plan seems obvious to me. I also don't have a large sample set to help refine that formula - maybe having two whorls or two similar loops or some other combo never happens.
With any authentication, the important thing is that it be easy to produce the key and make it very hard to fake it. Therefore, the biggest problem with fingerprint authentication is that the user keeps leaving their key everywhere they touch. It's like mentioning your passwords in plaintext within every conversation you have. One solution may be to use toeprints instead.
You're thinking about this wrong.
With blanket immunity, all civil trials will stop completely.
Without blanket immunity, the civil trials will expose any wrong doings that did occur. If the telcos were persuaded illegally by law enforcement to commit wrong doing, then such evidence will be used in oversight and criminal investigations against the law enforcement offices and officers themselves.
Analogy time:
1. A cop threatens to kidnap/disappear you unless you kill someone.
2. You kill that someone and now face trial for the murder.
Two outcomes:
A. the cop 'silences' you before trial.
B. the cop has serious connections and manages to get you immunity, hoping you shut up about the whole affair.
To protect the law enforcement offices, they have to protect the telcos.
Don't think about this as some cultural thing: it's strictly about covering up previous wrong doing. If it happens to allow for future wrong doing, well that's just an added bonus.
Of all the mammals being slaughtered, cows have one of the worst public relations representatives (after rats). Anyway, whales are very well represented so, if you want whale meat, it makes sense to attempt mixing cows and whales (from a marketing perspective).
This news does not surprise me in the least. Prior to the recent high-profile protests, the last time I discussed this issue was in science and world studies classes in high school and, whenever I had asked teachers about the research, the best answer I could get was that they were checking the diet (with gutting them as the easiest method). They were already gutting them so might as well get the meat too, right?
I always assumed there was other research being done (how many stomachs do they really need to check?) but I never bothered to investigate for myself. If the purpose is political charade, any research is seen as good research.
Good that this specific info is finally getting some attention, within its context (as presented in FTA).
Bad that the summary only focuses on the weird aspect.
TakeTwo already did say that.
... man, I hope I learned my lesson. Anyway, all I needed to know was: (1) I'm buying GTA4 when it comes out (a very unusual practice for me), and when reflecting on the Activision/Blizzard deal (2) a similar move by a software giant seemed obvious, and (3) nobody in financial news was talking about TakeTwo's highly anticipated sequel.
...super super pissed...
Management rejected the hostile offer. Insiders hold 12% in TakeTwo which, is not an insignificant amount, but it is far from a majority.
EA announced this almost three weeks ago so that outside investors holding shares of TTWO would potentially sell the company to them.
Due to the rejection, one such investor has sued.
Others have sold off much of their stake, cashing in on the rise in price while (I presume that) everything else in the market is tanking.
This time, EA is just stating that they are committed to the original offer.
I've been following this since before the original announcement - super pissed at myself that I didn't set up the brokerage account a week earlier than I did (initial funding delay absolutely killed this one). +50%
What then, for all these years, has been stopping them from impeaching/convicting Cheney? It's not like he's squeaky clean, right?
And how about this: due to inaction by Congress, there's even less accountability now as well as for the foreseeable future.
The process has happened before, and not too long ago: Spiro Agnew was forced to resign almost a year prior to Richard Nixon's own resignation.
Today's Democratic party leadership must be seriously disorganized.
Your advocacy is appropriate for moderate traffic, and I would add that generally more-aware drivers would lead to fewer traffic fatalities.
Unfortunately, I've noticed different driving practices in different regions. For example, Boston driving has a very aggressive POV ("I'm merging NOW") while NYC driving has a very defensive POV ("You're not getting in front of me") while LA driving is more like sitting in a parked car.
I say 'unfortunately' because proper safe driving, if applied to extreme environments, may promote unsafe situations. If you react unexpectedly to regionally expected behavior, then the surrounding locals may then react to your move unexpectedly - which can cascade into a traffic accident.
As for me, I refrain from driving in heavy traffic - too much drama. Usually, I'm the guy going the speed limit in the slow lane and, in moderate traffic, I usually apply the method you describe. My attitude is: I don't care if you pass me, just don't surprise me or anyone around me.