Unremitting and dubiously voluntary childbirth....? As nature intended!
Are you meaning to imply that you dont think that women giving birth is "as nature intended"? What would you propose as an alternate method of having children?
As for "dubiously voluntary", in about 99% of the cases the actions leading to childbirth are all voluntary, so Im not seeing the problem.
Much of the discussion has been about what analogy comes closest. Prosecutors tend to view PGP passphrases as akin to someone possessing a key to a safe filled with incriminating documents. That person can, in general, be legally compelled to hand over the key. Other examples include the U.S. Supreme Court saying that defendants can be forced to provide fingerprints, blood samples, or voice recordings.
That sounds like a rather spot on analogy. Sounds like precedent is against her. The argument that the passphrase, itself, is the incriminating self-testimony seems really weak, both because the passphrase is not being required, and because the passphrase is not, in the end, what will incriminate her.
-Obama added the wars to the budget so all that military spending that was 'off the books' is now on the books making the budget look much larger when it was there before but was outside the budget!
The problem is that each person has a DIFFERENT idea of what the government should be spending money on (and what programs should be cut) and what should be taxed.
I think talking about cutting spending HAS to be on the board when the discussion is "we're spending too much". If someone has an alcohol problem, and runs out of alcohol, you dont go get them more; if the government has a spending problem and runs out of money, why do we want to entrust them with MORE money prior to seeing some good-faith cutting in spending?
the connector falls out without any regard, there's no lock
Plenty seem to exist. Do a quick google, I see cables with a locking mechanism. This has nothing to do with HDMI LLC.
the cable is way too thick
That may just be the cable you bought, try buying a different brand. Additionally, Monoprice has these, which should solve your "stiff cable" issue.
just for ruining the dvi protocol (dvi had no DRM before hdmi came along). audio and video could easily have been on separate wires. but that would have been too consumer friendly
Hurr durr, you can still use DVI+audio. The ENTIRE selling point of HDMI to consumers is that it is a single cable for video, audio, internet, peripherals (usb), and all the rest; and the entire selling point to the content makers is "it is super consumer friendly, and it includes robust DRM". Many consumers dont want to hook 3 different video cables in, and figure out which ones to hook in (RCA? VGA? Component? Svideo?).
DVI is by no means ruined, which is why my computer monitors continue to function over it.
We want you to have to buy a cable AND an adapter, (at the usual 800% markup from cost of materials) so we can collect license fees twice.
Youre blaming the wrong people for this. HDMI LLC isnt responsible for pricing the cables; if they were, you wouldnt be able to get $2 hdmi cables from Monoprice. Its the cable vendors (Best Buy, Monster, Belkin) that mark the cables up.
Refusing to let other people sell a technology developed in house HARDLY equals "rape and pillage", but thanks for bringing the discussion to that level so quickly-- it will make godwinning the thread that much easier.
Im not sure whether fans would help at 110f-- it may help your body cool evaporatively, but you will also be heating people up by blowing air warmer than their bodes over them. Seems to me it would be self defeating, and just increase the rate at which they get dehydrated.
Can anyone else comment, whether the rate of cooling would be higher than the rate of heating?
You can go anywhere in the country without papers. You could, right now, get on a bus and travel 3 states over, then jump on a train and go somewhere.
You cannot, however, enter the pentagon without authorization, and Im not sure when the last time you could was. Nor can you enter a private building where management has decided to hire security and implement metal detectors, without authorization.
And how exactly is 'showing your papers' supposed to make those buildings secure?
Im not a security expert, but I would surmise (knowing some people in that field) that the government has a list of people that it wants to keep close tabs on. For example, if you had escaped from a prison, I imagine that it would be rather difficult to get into a secured location-- you would have to get in without giving your ID, which rather complicates getting in when the elevators are locked down. There is also some screening that takes place in order to get an ID; and if something DOES go down, they have a better idea of who you are.
Regardless, my threshold of "starting to worry about police state" is when they start trying to stick cameras all over DC, or having permenant police checkpoints. Metal detectors and security guards in international trade buildings doesnt really trip my "big government paranoia" alarm.
Im not sure you know what the Secret Service IS. Its original task was to combat counterfeiting, and its role has varied over time. In this case, the link is apparently that computer fraud is something that falls into the Secret Service's jurisdiction.
Sounds to me like you assumed their role was "dealing with matters of high national security", which isnt quite the case.
Randall Munroe (XKCD dude) dealt with his time management issues by shutting his computer down every time he finished a task, making it more difficult to drift onto slashdot / drudge / whatever else. According to him, it worked quite well, even though he COULD still boot it up again.
Making "wasting time" something that youd have to go somewhere to do makes it less likely you will waste time.
At least he recognizes the issue and is taking steps to deal with it. The astonishing thing is that people are ridiculing his attempts to be responsible and deal with the issue.
Im not terribly impressed with the charges (fraud? Really?), but then Im also no terribly impressed with the artist who doesnt see any issue with his actions and thinks that "i just want to focus on my work and not a court case" is sufficient justification.
Thanks for clearing that one up. The entire country was certainly at risk and getting the Secret Service involved was definitely the right thing to do.
You do know the Secret Service has multiple roles, right?
There's no way a local policeman could have reprimanded him.
Why is it a problem which branch of enforcement got him? Did the secret service break some law or violate some principle here? I dont get it. According to the article... A Secret Service spokesman told the BBC that the investigation was taking place under US Code Title 18/1030 which relates to 'fraud and related activity in connection with computers.' So apparently thats why the Secret Service got involved. Seems a stretch to call it fraud, but then Im not familiar with that bit of law.
PS: I read the article before posting (hey, it's the way I roll!) and it mentions something about him asking permission before doing it.
Which should work out well for him if it turns out to be true; the article doesnt mention whether that was confirmed, or whether they gave him the permission.
Its the same in politics; the hope is that by discussion, at least perhaps we will all learn something, be it where we are wrong, or where our arguments are weak.
You DO realize that in order to enter the Supreme Court building, or the White House, or the Capitol, you are required to "show us your papers", right? In fact, many high-security buildings in the district require it. And yet it has not become a mandatory norm across all parts of our society-- this seems to be a classic "slippery slope" fallacy.
Actually, no, privacy and security are opposites. If you want total security, you need to live in a police state, and if you want total privacy you have to accept that someone can trivially take your life at any time (by, for example, walking into your house with a gun and shooting you).
Look at the UK; in an effort to combat crime they have cameras up everywhere in London. Im sure the cameras are effective in their task, but they also take away some privacy. The question then becomes, is it worth the cost?
I would be interested to know by what logic you think that more privacy gives more security.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats not because they dont understand how the device functions; I think they grasped that part and are objecting to the whole idea.
Unremitting and dubiously voluntary childbirth....? As nature intended!
Are you meaning to imply that you dont think that women giving birth is "as nature intended"? What would you propose as an alternate method of having children?
As for "dubiously voluntary", in about 99% of the cases the actions leading to childbirth are all voluntary, so Im not seeing the problem.
From TFA:
Much of the discussion has been about what analogy comes closest. Prosecutors tend to view PGP passphrases as akin to someone possessing a key to a safe filled with incriminating documents. That person can, in general, be legally compelled to hand over the key. Other examples include the U.S. Supreme Court saying that defendants can be forced to provide fingerprints, blood samples, or voice recordings.
That sounds like a rather spot on analogy. Sounds like precedent is against her. The argument that the passphrase, itself, is the incriminating self-testimony seems really weak, both because the passphrase is not being required, and because the passphrase is not, in the end, what will incriminate her.
IANAL, of course.
By the time the IMF gets done with Greece, the citizens of that country won't even own their own water works, Hospitals or government buildings.
So, to your mind, Greece and its citizens bear no responsibility for their debt?
-Obama added the wars to the budget so all that military spending that was 'off the books' is now on the books making the budget look much larger when it was there before but was outside the budget!
And for good measure added another war, too!
Paying extra percentages on the 14 trillion we already owe and can barely pay is a wonderful way of staying afloat.
The alternative sounds equally disastrous to my mind-- give the government free rein to spend even more of the money we dont have and dig us deeper?
The problem is that each person has a DIFFERENT idea of what the government should be spending money on (and what programs should be cut) and what should be taxed.
I think talking about cutting spending HAS to be on the board when the discussion is "we're spending too much". If someone has an alcohol problem, and runs out of alcohol, you dont go get them more; if the government has a spending problem and runs out of money, why do we want to entrust them with MORE money prior to seeing some good-faith cutting in spending?
Forgive me, but that seems bass-ackwards.
the connector falls out without any regard, there's no lock
Plenty seem to exist. Do a quick google, I see cables with a locking mechanism. This has nothing to do with HDMI LLC.
the cable is way too thick
That may just be the cable you bought, try buying a different brand.
Additionally, Monoprice has these, which should solve your "stiff cable" issue.
just for ruining the dvi protocol (dvi had no DRM before hdmi came along). audio and video could easily have been on separate wires. but that would have been too consumer friendly
Hurr durr, you can still use DVI+audio. The ENTIRE selling point of HDMI to consumers is that it is a single cable for video, audio, internet, peripherals (usb), and all the rest; and the entire selling point to the content makers is "it is super consumer friendly, and it includes robust DRM". Many consumers dont want to hook 3 different video cables in, and figure out which ones to hook in (RCA? VGA? Component? Svideo?).
DVI is by no means ruined, which is why my computer monitors continue to function over it.
We want you to have to buy a cable AND an adapter, (at the usual 800% markup from cost of materials) so we can collect license fees twice.
Youre blaming the wrong people for this. HDMI LLC isnt responsible for pricing the cables; if they were, you wouldnt be able to get $2 hdmi cables from Monoprice. Its the cable vendors (Best Buy, Monster, Belkin) that mark the cables up.
Illegal (adjective)
1.forbidden by law or statute.
Contract (noun)
1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2. an agreement enforceable by law.
Or, as wikipedia notes, a "legally binding agreement".
So answer me this-- if you break a legally enforceable, legally binding agreement, in what manner are you not doing illegal activity?
Refusing to let other people sell a technology developed in house HARDLY equals "rape and pillage", but thanks for bringing the discussion to that level so quickly-- it will make godwinning the thread that much easier.
Im not sure whether fans would help at 110f-- it may help your body cool evaporatively, but you will also be heating people up by blowing air warmer than their bodes over them. Seems to me it would be self defeating, and just increase the rate at which they get dehydrated.
Can anyone else comment, whether the rate of cooling would be higher than the rate of heating?
You can go anywhere in the country without papers. You could, right now, get on a bus and travel 3 states over, then jump on a train and go somewhere.
You cannot, however, enter the pentagon without authorization, and Im not sure when the last time you could was. Nor can you enter a private building where management has decided to hire security and implement metal detectors, without authorization.
And how exactly is 'showing your papers' supposed to make those buildings secure?
Im not a security expert, but I would surmise (knowing some people in that field) that the government has a list of people that it wants to keep close tabs on. For example, if you had escaped from a prison, I imagine that it would be rather difficult to get into a secured location-- you would have to get in without giving your ID, which rather complicates getting in when the elevators are locked down. There is also some screening that takes place in order to get an ID; and if something DOES go down, they have a better idea of who you are.
Regardless, my threshold of "starting to worry about police state" is when they start trying to stick cameras all over DC, or having permenant police checkpoints. Metal detectors and security guards in international trade buildings doesnt really trip my "big government paranoia" alarm.
Im not sure you know what the Secret Service IS. Its original task was to combat counterfeiting, and its role has varied over time. In this case, the link is apparently that computer fraud is something that falls into the Secret Service's jurisdiction.
Sounds to me like you assumed their role was "dealing with matters of high national security", which isnt quite the case.
Randall Munroe (XKCD dude) dealt with his time management issues by shutting his computer down every time he finished a task, making it more difficult to drift onto slashdot / drudge / whatever else. According to him, it worked quite well, even though he COULD still boot it up again.
Making "wasting time" something that youd have to go somewhere to do makes it less likely you will waste time.
At least he recognizes the issue and is taking steps to deal with it. The astonishing thing is that people are ridiculing his attempts to be responsible and deal with the issue.
the problem is control which I would argue is more important and running away from the issue won't help.
So if someone is an alcoholic, him staying away from bars is running away from the real issue (which is control) and wont help?
It seems to me if something is a problem, avoiding it is a valid way of dealing with it.
Wait, what? Some guy breaks law, enforcement goes after him. Farewell freedom?
Can you explain that bit for me?
Im not terribly impressed with the charges (fraud? Really?), but then Im also no terribly impressed with the artist who doesnt see any issue with his actions and thinks that "i just want to focus on my work and not a court case" is sufficient justification.
All OSX installations Ive seen are used by a single user, and many had no password, so the admin elevation prompt doesnt have a password (IIRC).
Thanks for clearing that one up. The entire country was certainly at risk and getting the Secret Service involved was definitely the right thing to do.
You do know the Secret Service has multiple roles, right?
There's no way a local policeman could have reprimanded him.
Why is it a problem which branch of enforcement got him? Did the secret service break some law or violate some principle here? I dont get it. According to the article... /1030 which relates to 'fraud and related activity in connection with computers.'
A Secret Service spokesman told the BBC that the investigation was taking place under US Code Title 18
So apparently thats why the Secret Service got involved. Seems a stretch to call it fraud, but then Im not familiar with that bit of law.
PS: I read the article before posting (hey, it's the way I roll!) and it mentions something about him asking permission before doing it.
Which should work out well for him if it turns out to be true; the article doesnt mention whether that was confirmed, or whether they gave him the permission.
Does that mean no more Smarch?
Its the same in politics; the hope is that by discussion, at least perhaps we will all learn something, be it where we are wrong, or where our arguments are weak.
You DO realize that in order to enter the Supreme Court building, or the White House, or the Capitol, you are required to "show us your papers", right? In fact, many high-security buildings in the district require it. And yet it has not become a mandatory norm across all parts of our society-- this seems to be a classic "slippery slope" fallacy.
Actually, no, privacy and security are opposites. If you want total security, you need to live in a police state, and if you want total privacy you have to accept that someone can trivially take your life at any time (by, for example, walking into your house with a gun and shooting you).
Look at the UK; in an effort to combat crime they have cameras up everywhere in London. Im sure the cameras are effective in their task, but they also take away some privacy. The question then becomes, is it worth the cost?
I would be interested to know by what logic you think that more privacy gives more security.