I wasn't aware that the model of the phone was part of the GSM protocol. Even if it was, if you can program the phone to lie about the IEMI or IMSI, then you can program the phone to lie about the phone model to the provider.
Maybe, maybe not. It is a particular model made in a particular factory. Changing the model may break the hack since the provider may talk to the device differently since it now thinks it is a different handset. There is something very specific about the phones in question and reprogramming the model type/number may or may not work. Frankly, I don't know one way or the other.
My point was that since these devices require an outside service to operate it is far easier to target them for bans than other types of prohibitions which target mainly consumables that require no outside entity to function as desired.
Yeah, legal prohibition is an excellent way to prevent people from using something. It works so fantastically well for drugs, guns and pirated music/movies.
A little bit different here though. The device in question requires a service in order to work. If all the carriers discontinued service to these models they would render them useless. You could find them anywhere you wanted, but without a way to connect, it is just another paper weight. Almost like in the Matrix when Agent Smith tells Neo "What good is a phone call, when you are unable to speak?"
What good is a hackable phone, if you are unable to get a dial tone?
Now, they may or may not go down that route, but I think if they choose to do so, they will have a much more successful time removing them from use than with consumable items.
I hated it when a few years ago...I actually discovered what a hangover REALLY meant. Oh sure, in the past...I'd wake up a little 'slow'...not feeling that great, but, was functional.
At 46 I still have no concept of what a hangover is. I have been told but still have never experienced it. This having spent 6 years in the Marines with countless nights of complete liquor destruction where one time I literally crawled back to my room (I had 27 Jack and Cokes at the E-Club on base and was walking back to the barracks. I fell down in the parking lot just outside and couldn't stand back up...so crawled the last 100ft or so to the barracks - down the hallway - into my room and fell asleep half in the rack, half out). I have never woken with a headache, nausea or anything described to me by my friends and unfortunately always remember everything (see above) I did the night before and believe me there were quite a few I really wanted to forget.
I don't know if it was the fact that I never did all this stuff every weekend or even every month or not. When I did drink back then, it was pretty heavy but never very often. While I never drink as much as I did back then, I will occasionally grab a good bottle of scotch and finish it off in an evening and wake up no worse for wear. Maybe I never built up a good enough resistance that required enough alcohol to induce the hangover everyone talks about. I really don't know but I guess I will count my good fortune and continue to keep my indulgences to a minimum since it has worked for me thus far.
Tickets for parking too long in one spot should be accompanied by proof that you did exceed the time, including photos showing the wheels in the same position at the start time and stop time
When I lived up near Chicago I noticed in one suburb that the police would go through the parking areas that were limited to a 2 hour parking limit with a stick of chalk on a stick. They would tag the front or rear tire of every car parked there and come back 2 hours later. If your tire still had the chalk mark you got a ticket. Granted, they were not required to show a picture.
I always thought you could claim you drove around the block and parked in the same spot, but try as I might I could never get the chalk mark to appear in the right spot and twice around the block usually wore off the mark since the police tried to get the mark across the tread if they could. Not a bad system - doesn't damage the vehicle, works on motorcycles as well as cars and is hard to defeat in court. Yes, you could come out and wipe off the mark but most people are lazy and few will actually do that. A time stamped picture would be proof positive, but in most cases when you come out to your car, see the chalk mark and the ticket you just send in the fee. You know you're caught.
#1 - OJ fleeing from the police was public knowledge. It was broadcast on live TV. Broadcasting the trial was the decision of the court was it not? It was determined in a court of law to allow it. Did they release evidence prior to OJ being arrested or charged? Hardly. ALL of these releases were after OJ had retained council and had surrendered to the Police. The Police also retained information that was NOT released to the public as well or do you dispute that? The point isn't that they released SOME information it is that they WITHHELD some that others in this thread had claimed we do not do and the timing of when they release it. Prior to OJ being charged just how much information did the media get?
You should also note that the DNA evidence was NOT directly released to the media only the claim of evidence so your example does not satisfy my request. The statement to the police, while I feel it was inappropriate to be leaked, does not constitute evidence neither does the prosecutor's claim that their dna evidence proves OJ guilty. Since it obviously did not impress the jury.
Rodney King does not even apply since it was not filmed by the Government but by a private individual. That individual sent it to the media NOT the government and I believe it makes my point that releasing such information taints the case and makes prosecuting after the fact difficult. Do you think that same video would have made it to the media so fast if it had been a dash camera in one of the squad cars? AGAIN, once suspects are charged and have the benefit of council by all means go in front of a judge and argue to release the video. After the trial release it all you want. Before anyone is charged, arrested or tried it is wrong and prejudicial to release a video like that.
I do not get how you or others get the idea that I am against releasing these videos eventually. I am against allowing videos to be released that identify persons that may or may not be guilty. What is the problem with releasing the videos with faces obscured until such time as we can investigate and determine their guilt? We still get to see what actually happened. We just won't know who is responsible until after the investigations are completed. After that, then yes those videos need to be released. We don't need to be jumping to conclusions and rendering our verdict before anyone has even been charged with anything.
Your persistent belief that government has the right to shield itself from public accountability indefinitely by not declaring an investigation of its own potential wrongdoing "complete" is noted, but I continue to think that it is both ridiculous on its face and absolutely contrary to the fundamental concept of government of the people.
Your attempt to put words in my mouth that I did not state are noted. What I DID say is that you do NOT have the automatic right to know the identities of persons who may or may not have been guilty of anything. You have the right to know what your government is doing, but do not necessarily have the right to know who they have do it. Elected or appointed personnel - you have every right to know who they are. Persons that are hired, not so much and until they are determined to have done anything improper you have no such right to that information. These photos should be obscured to protect both the innocent and the guilty. Apparently you believe that by taking a government job you lose all your rights. Military personnel? Possibly. Civilian personnel? not so much.
They have every right not to be slandered in the media as you do. They do not lose these rights merely because they work for a government agency.
Then you haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention, which is hardly anyone's fault but your own. The amount of media attention the various investigations and prosecutions received was immense.
Since when did this sidewind into Abu Gharib. This is about the CIA facilities and suspected torture tactics at Guantanamo and other places. Obviously you didn't feel the need to read my other posts specifically about Abu Gharib. THOSE videos and pictures have already been extensively broadcast, those investigations have already been completed and any and all videos from THOSE specific investigations I have no issue with.
As for you other assertions:
(1) They are government agents acting lawfully in their official capacity, in which case neither the acts nor their identities deserve protection against public scrutiny and accountability (barring some other reason than "people might not like what they've done")
Sorry, I disagree. Once again, AFTER any investigation is completed. Which you have not proved has even started with regards to the secret CIA prisons and Guantanamo. Only with regards to Abu Gharib which I already agreed should be disclosed as those investigations are complete. I do not agree that personnel that were deemed not to have been guilty or charged with any crime need to be identified in any photographic evidence released to the public. The photo evidence of the events should be sufficient without identifying personnel deemed to have been innocent. I highly doubt there will be many in this category if the rumors of the content of the photos holds true, but then again that's all we have don't we? Rumors only. You seem to think that just because they are agents of the government you are entitled to know who they are? You think they are going to give you the photos and names of CIA personnel just because you want them? Think again.
(2) They are government agents acting unlawfully and contrary to their official responsibilities, in which case neither their acts nor their identities deserve protection against public scrutiny (again, barring some other reason than "people might not like what they've done").
Same as above, once the investigation is completed full disclosure is warranted. Until then, no disclosure beyond the acts themselves is warranted until the investigation is completed. Once they are charged the public is entitled to know who they are.
So, every time police release surveillance video of a criminal act to the public, when no particular person has yet been accused or formally charged, its wrong? Or is just that agents of government are specially protected from public scrutiny?
See my other comments. That is in support of an ongoing investigation where the suspect is unknown. That is a totally different situation. In this case the principals are known. There is no value in disseminating to the public to engage in identification of the suspect. Other videos released by the police occur after the suspect is in custody. Again, different from here as I have seen no reports of anyone arrested or even charged with any crimes....yet.
No one is saying that any people in these pictures do not deserve the full protection of due process under the Constitution and laws of the United States. What people object to is the invention from whole cloth of a completely new protection that has never been recognized in law or practice for any other people just for these particular agents of the government.
Sorry, that is not what I am reading. Some are stating, quite plainly, that they do not deserve any protection. Until people are charged, which I have not seen happening, their identities should be obscured as they may be innocent or found innocent.
The events at issue have been investigated, supposedly thoroughly, and a handful of people have been charged and convicted. The inforamtion now has bearing on whether or not the government adequately discharged its duties.
[citation needed]
I have seen no investigations as yet, only the threat of same. I have not seen a single report of anyone charged, arrested or tried. IF people have been charged and or tried then THEIR images could be revealed with no complaints. HOWEVER, any images that show persons that have not been tried, charged or even detained for questioning should be obscured until such time that their status changes.
I have no problems with releasing these videos and/or pictures. Only with the total identification on those videos of any and all persons including those that may or may not be found innocent of any wrong doing. If those displayed have already been investigated and charged, then they made their bed they can lie in it. If others displayed are found to have been innocent, we have no right to associate them with these events as they are innocent.
Prior to him being charged? While the investigation was underway?
When did they release evidence to the public? Did they release the dna results to the LA Times? hmm? It is NO different from OJ's case. Prior to him being charged show me where the prosecutor was releasing evidence to the media. Had there not been enough evidence to convict do you really believe they would have released ANYTHING to the media? They would have held onto it in the hopes of obtaining evidence in the future to convict. I seriously doubt they would have released much of anything if they could not charge or convict OJ.
Who has been charged here? Has the investigation even been started? We have the potential for an investigation and we already have a witch hunt before any investigation has even started. Let them investigate and charge someone first, then release everything they feel will not prejudice their case and the remainder after someone is convicted. In the meantime, obscure the pictures to protect the innocent as well as the guilty and only release those pictures that will not hinder your investigation.
I am not stating that these pictures and/or videos should not EVER be released. I am against them being released prior to any investigation or suspects even being charged. After that point is another matter. Investigate first, file charges arrest then release the information.
Its worth noting that photos of the abuse at Abu Ghraib with many of the perpetrators (including those who were subsequently tried) not obscured have been broadcast all over the world.
So because it was done previously automatically makes it correct? The fact that photos were leaked to the press makes it acceptable? Also, I would suggest you take a look at the Abu Gharib timeline. Those photos were not released prior to the Army initiating their investigation. In fact they did not make it to the press for some 3 months after the CIS investigation began. It even appears, from what I can find, that the soldiers involved were already charged by the time the photos were released. That makes it a very different situation than what is presented here where no investigation, from what I can see, has even been started.
We do not try defendants in the court of public opinion we try them in a court of law. Disseminating these photos prior to anyone being accused or charged is wrong, period. This is nothing different than mob rule and vigilante justice. If we want to hold our legal system up as a model for others we must protect the very lowest of defendants no matter how reprehensible or abhorrent we deem the actions they are accused of.
Everyone is deserving of a fair trial. You cannot get a fair trial when selected "evidence" is paraded around in the street by the government that is or will be prosecuting you. It really doesn't matter to me how we ended up down this thread. The fact that some feel that due to snippets of information, they deem untried and unconvicted citizens/soldiers unworthy of being protected makes me sick. Innocent until proven guilty anyone? Look at the reactions to just the IDEA of videos and photos. All we need is a face and/or name and these defendant's lives are over regardless of whether they are eventually charged with anything or not.
I am not going to get into this yes we do, no we don't issue. I know that we do withhold information to protect defendants, especially prior to them being charged and arrested. We do not disclose information prior to arrest EXCEPT in the furtherance of an investigation. After that point it is a different story since they are in custody but even then we have to be careful what is and is not released. BUT, we do not arbitrarily dump evidence into the media before we even investigate the event. Is it partly to protect the defendant? Yes, because we don't know yet if this particular suspect is the one responsible and labeling them PUBLICLY as a suspect serves no purpose and can be detrimental to your investigation. Labeling them wrong and having them injured or killed as a result could make the department that released that information prematurely liable.
In this case there is no investigation to find out who did this. We know to a certainty who was present. We are not asking the public to identify the person or persons on the video. There is no compelling reason to disseminate an unobstructed video prior to completing an investigation and filing charges. Once charges have been filed then it would be the prosecutor's call whether to release them or not. I am not opposed to this video being released eventually, but not until the legal procedures are at least started. I find the claim of potential for retaliation in this particular case lacking, but it is not without precedent. There is a real potential to harm the suspect(s) who may end up never being charged with anything.
Editing to obscure information is withholding information, and we don't do that to protect the identity of people who may have perpetrated crimes in any other circumstances to protect their identities.
Actually, yes we do that all the time. The police routinely withhold evidence from public dissemination, both to protect the integrity of the investigation and to protect the ability of the prosecutor to seat an untainted jury. They don't drop videos of the suspect committing crime to the news media routinely. Evidence is withheld until trial. That is not to say that it never happens, it does, and the defendant's Lawyers have a field day with it immediately demanding a change of venue. If you broadcast these pictures over the entire nation exactly how is the defendant to get a fair trial anywhere?
It is less about vigilante justice than it is about the ability to provide these defendants a fair an impartial jury untainted by preconceived guilt.
And if true they should be tried in a court of law not the court of public opinion. Protecting their identities allows prosecution at a later date. Predisposing the entirety of the populace to their assumed guilt does a disservice to the innocent as well as making prosecuting the guilty more difficult.
Look at it this way: how many people buy mice for their notebooks, because they don't like the touchpad? And how many people buy touchpads for their desktops because they don't like the mouse?
I would argue it is more because the touchpad is affixed to their notebook rather than they dislike it so much. I have no issue with touchpads either on my laptop or otherwise, but would much rather have the device in a location near where my hand naturally rests instead of having to place my hand in an uncomfortable position to use it.
I thought about that, and while it would be a nice idea the same problem keeps recurring. Tactile feedback is a must. You have to know when a keystroke is entered. Those who type for a living could not use such a device without some retraining. Also, as some have indicated, using the screen for input brings up a host of ergonomic issues. Input needs to remain at the desk level so workers do not incur stress injuries. Even using it at home would become tiring after even a short time using a screen based touch device. I doubt you could share it between the mouse and keyboard because there are many reasons to use both simultaneously and switching between the two would quickly become an issue.
Again, I can see where a touch environment would work in "specific" situations and jobs, but for the majority of home and business users, this will not work. I think the "mouse" device needs to remain at the desk level along with and separate from the keyboard. Whether that means a touch device or the conventional mouse remains to be seen.
Actually, I think it will take a different direction for the desktop. We might be looking at a large touchpad to replace the mouse rather than touchscreens. I can see where in certain situations a touchscreen might succeed, but for most users, business and home alike, a touchpad might be the next direction if mice are to be replaced, say one on the order of 6 X 6" (approx 15x15cm for the metric types) square or similar sizing in another shape.
Of course, we would still need to address all the issues current touchpads have, but year after year I have seen issue after issue resolved. As for keyboards, I really don't see those going away anytime soon. Data input with the use of the mouse, or whatever other pointing device is common, simultaneously precludes the use of any touch devices currently available. Add to that the need for tactile feedback so that you know when you actually typed something and the issues with replacing the keyboard become very apparent.
I think data entry will remain at the desk level and even if they find a way to use touch technology there, moving it to a different location becomes very problematic. The mouse, on the other hand, is just point, selection and control. I could see that going touch either at the desk level or screen, but I think the screen would be troublesome unless it was dropped to within easy reach which then causes ergonomic issues which leaves us with a touch interface at the desk level.
Another way to get your foot in the door is through contractor firms. They will be the quickest to look past that degree. I used them many times to land jobs at IBM and now at FedEx. I have the stack of certifications that others spoke of but not a single degree. I am the Sr. SQL DBA in our division as well as handle the SANs, Netbackup, Cisco Network and Fiber switches, etc, etc. I love learning about technology and exhibiting that attitude while a contractor will make you stand out among all the other contractors who are just there to collect a paycheck. I now have 15yrs of experience and I can't put my resume on the net without getting calls pretty much round the clock even without the degree, not that I am looking.
Start with what you know. I ran a BBS (anyone remember them?) and got my first contract job doing phone tech support while I was currently driving a truck. Worked my way into being hired permanent then used the company perks to pay for training and certifications. When the company left the state I went back to contracting with my acquired certs until I landed another perm job at FedEx and have been here ever since. I make a decent living now and can afford many things my parents never could. I probably will never be rich, but I am comfortable.
It may not be easy to do, but getting and keeping IT jobs without a degree is doable. You just have to do the time and get the experience. In the end you will be the employee that knows how everything works and how to fix everything as well.
I'll agree as much as most people don't care about DRM, but as far as Gamers go it is a fairly big issue for them. The amount of public outcry and people boycotting the game for EA's ridiculous new model of DRM would beg to differ with the statistics. Then again most gamers have a weak will when it comes to games, even if the DRM is heinous most will eventually break down just so they can experience the hype.
I will agree up to this point. Gamers breaking down and getting the game. Most gamers I know are completely competent in finding and retrieving torrents. If DRM is too intrusive they *will* go pirate it even if they had intended to buy it. Others will actually buy the game, park in on a shelf and download the torrent. DRM, in some cases, can actually encourage piracy due to the intrusiveness of it. I, personally, will never buy another EA game due to this thinly veiled virus masquerading as DRM. I know other gamers that will pirate it instead because they don't want their game systems compromised. EA apparently doesn't understand the gaming community especially on the PC side. Even the 80% number that some have purposed as more accurate may be a bit high.
If the DRM is not that intrusive (only makes copying the CD difficult but not impossible) then, while I still dislike it, I will deal with it. Otherwise, I will just take a pass.
Young people think they're invincible and fail to realize that actions they take now can hurt themselves for the rest of their lives-- News at 11.
Actually, I think it is more than that. Thinking back when I was young I remember going to concerts, getting close to front row due to friends working at the radio station and coming out with my ears ringing for 2-4 hours afterwards. Did I know it was harmful to my hearing? Yup. Did I care? Nope.
It's not that they think they are invincible (tho there probably is some of that too), it's just that they don't care. They realize (for the most part) that these actions will hurt them in some way. They just don't care about it. They want to be able to listen to their music as loud as they want and will deal with whatever fallout happens later. As parents we will do our best to protect them from their own indifference, but in the end they are going to do what they want. I do my best to not do any more damage to my hearing than already done due to loud music and 6 years in the military operating Field Artillery. You would think I'd already be stone deaf by now.
Even now, I know that listening to my iPod at max volume is bad and I still do it anyway. Humans do dumb things, period.
Merchandise? I've rarely seen anything more than t-shirt sales and then at "could you please wear this and be free advertising" at cost, unless it's a big name band.
Direct sales? Any reason these should not get pirated anymore than what's on iTunes and Amazon?
And did you just say:
"Musicians are still making money off (...) straight out giving the tracks away"? Hint: That doesn't make much revenue.
You can't be serious. Have you even been to a concert of any size recently? The amount of merchandise being sold by even small bands is staggering and those sales go directly to the band, not the label as do the gate receipts. Direct sales "could" be pirated, but again, without a label the money goes to the band so any pirating only promotes the band more and gets more people to the concerts where they sell more merchandise. Get it through your head, a musician makes their money on the tour, not from CD sales since the label keeps 90% of those sales. Pirating music ONLY hurts the labels. As for giving away free track not making revenue. I suggest you talk to NIN and tell them they are doing it wrong.
You can't pirate the experience, true. Except the chance of them holding a live concert anywhere near me is damn low, unless it's already a local band. The Internet doesn't really help you at all if all your fans are so thinly spread there's not enough in one place to go on tour. If he/they're even the kind of artist(s) that want to go on tour, and the music is of the type where the concert experience is the right one (I don't know how to explain this better - I like some music but wouldn't go to a concert with it).
Hate to be hardassed, but if you can't get enough fans to fill a bar let alone a small venue, you need to find another line of work. Bands have been giving away CDs/tapes etc. for decades to promote themselves, but now all of a sudden this is bad if it is a digital file because the label didn't get their cut.
Reality is, people can only be at one place at once. To deliver music to millions of people you need a packaged, reproduced product. Maybe you can live off just live performances but knowing the people I know and how much they can listen to music compared to how often they're actually at live concerts, I think you're pretty screwed. I think the concerts would end up pricing themselves out of the market.
Bullshit. You need nothing but an internet connection to distribute your music to BILLIONS. Artists do NOT make their living off CD sales unless they are a MAJOR, MAJOR act and even then the label takes the majority of those sales. Yeah, concerts are going away real soon because noone will be able to afford to go to them, get real.
P.S. The record companies MAKE you a star. If you don't realize what that service includes and think they're some technical assistance you look stupid.
This is such utter bullshit I can't believe it. Do you really believe that crap? The label makes NOBODY a star. You either have talent or you don't. They can help you promote yourself, but nowadays you can do that yourself as many indie bands and even big name bands are learning. The labels want you to believe you will never succeed without them, but that is just a flat out lie. Like I said, I and many others no longer support bands signed to major labels. I may go see them in concert, maybe, but I refuse to buy a single CD from them. Indie bands and any band that offers me tracks for free I will support with my presence at their events and my money for their merchandise. I will even buy their CDs as long as there is no label leeching off of their talent. That line worked in the past because there was a modicum of truth to it. That is no longer the case today. Like I said, the labels are scared.
I'm surprised anyone considers this insightful. It's actually quite ridiculous since it should be clear that the product of recording companies is the music, not the method of distribution. Demand for music certainly is not vanishing.
Actually, the product of recording companies *IS* the CD and distribution since they did not produce the music, the musician did. Musicians are still making money off their performance, merchandise and numerous other venues including the internet through direct sales and/or straight out giving the tracks away that is not affected by piracy at all. You can't exactly pirate a live performance. Oh sure, you can record it, but that just isn't the same as being there. You can't pirate the experience.
Their business model is antiquated and they either have to adapt and reinvent themselves or die. I no longer support any artist using a major label. There are too many great indie artists as well as a few major bands that are embracing the new model. These numbers will only increase and the recording industry is scared....with good reason.
"The text of the bill notes that the average child watches four hours of television a day"
Uhhh, doesn't this seem a little much?? Subtracting school & sleep, that leaves 5 hours a day for other things (not even counting things like homework, meals, etc).
Parents should be pushing their kids to spend this time doing *constructive* activities, such as those that inspire aspirations of becoming engineers, scientists, artists, etc... NOT activities that make 'stupid spoiled whore' seem like a desirable occupation
Actually 4 hours isn't that much at all. I grew up in the 60s and watched that much and possibly more while maintaining close to an A average through elementary and high school. I also was on the track team, several clubs as well as little league. Take a real close look at what a typical day is like. You get up at 6am (and yes my son gets up at this same time today) eat and dress. If this is all done by 6:30 you now have 2 hours to do what? Can't go outside, noone is outside to play with and in any case your parents aren't about to let you get dirty before school. (I personally thought this was stupid since I would inevitably get dirty AT school, but I digress) So before you have even arrived at school you had burned through 2 hours of TV.
I would get home at around 4pm and do homework in about an hour or 2. IF I went outside after that I still had to be in by 7ish when I was younger (streetlight curfew). You could get in another hour of TV before bed and you have 3hrs a day, but wait...there's more. Saturday morning from 6:30am to noon, nothing but cartoons which would skew the average all to hell and back. Even with all my outside activities I probably still averaged about 4 hours a day more or less. If this number were on the order of 8 hours or so, I would be more concerned about those children. Still, the final verdict is the child's grades. Mine probably spends more time on the net than the TV. His net time is tied directly to his school grades so grades go down - more study, less gaming. Grades go up, game all you want. As long as he has his priorities straight I have no issue. I control the router so I can shut everything down if I need to, but so far he has never given me a reason.
All these stats about TV viewing mean squat unless you marry them up to individual student performance. TV is neither good nor bad but it obviously does not help a student that is already struggling. It is a parent's job to evaluate how their child is doing and restrict their activities if needed to instill the importance of study and schoolwork in their child. A child that is excelling and watching TV should be left alone. You may encourage them to have some outside activities, but that is not going to work in every case. Some children just are not interested and forcing them can have the opposite effect intended. Curtailing TV viewing is just one tool that a parent has in bringing up their child. It should be used only when needed.
And there is another issue too: Who is going to write these open source textbooks? Even though academics don't usually get paid particularly well for their writing, it's unlikely that many academics are going want to tackle something as big as a survey-level textbook for free (with the occasional exception like the professor in the article).
Many of them have already been written. Take history, most basic math courses and English studies. What exactly changes year to year? Nothing that I can tell, yet they put out another edition which, if you are unlucky enough to be taking the class at the time, now makes it where you cannot even sell the used book back. Compare a basic Algebra book from 10 years back to a current one sold by the same publisher. Except for chapters seeming to be shuffled around a bit I doubt you could find a single difference. Sure, if something changes they should put out another edition, but come on, every 2 years or so? This is a scam, nothing less. The bulk of these texts could be converted to digital with published works that are already in the public domain and routinely edited for accuracy by the university faculty.
Those subjects that change constantly would continue as they do now, but it would reduce the number of required published texts dramatically, since the bulk of the texts could be housed on the University's servers and downloaded to the student's PCs.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe, maybe not. It is a particular model made in a particular factory. Changing the model may break the hack since the provider may talk to the device differently since it now thinks it is a different handset. There is something very specific about the phones in question and reprogramming the model type/number may or may not work. Frankly, I don't know one way or the other.
My point was that since these devices require an outside service to operate it is far easier to target them for bans than other types of prohibitions which target mainly consumables that require no outside entity to function as desired.
A little bit different here though. The device in question requires a service in order to work. If all the carriers discontinued service to these models they would render them useless. You could find them anywhere you wanted, but without a way to connect, it is just another paper weight. Almost like in the Matrix when Agent Smith tells Neo "What good is a phone call, when you are unable to speak?"
What good is a hackable phone, if you are unable to get a dial tone?
Now, they may or may not go down that route, but I think if they choose to do so, they will have a much more successful time removing them from use than with consumable items.
So, no effect then.
At 46 I still have no concept of what a hangover is. I have been told but still have never experienced it. This having spent 6 years in the Marines with countless nights of complete liquor destruction where one time I literally crawled back to my room (I had 27 Jack and Cokes at the E-Club on base and was walking back to the barracks. I fell down in the parking lot just outside and couldn't stand back up...so crawled the last 100ft or so to the barracks - down the hallway - into my room and fell asleep half in the rack, half out). I have never woken with a headache, nausea or anything described to me by my friends and unfortunately always remember everything (see above) I did the night before and believe me there were quite a few I really wanted to forget.
I don't know if it was the fact that I never did all this stuff every weekend or even every month or not. When I did drink back then, it was pretty heavy but never very often. While I never drink as much as I did back then, I will occasionally grab a good bottle of scotch and finish it off in an evening and wake up no worse for wear. Maybe I never built up a good enough resistance that required enough alcohol to induce the hangover everyone talks about. I really don't know but I guess I will count my good fortune and continue to keep my indulgences to a minimum since it has worked for me thus far.
When I lived up near Chicago I noticed in one suburb that the police would go through the parking areas that were limited to a 2 hour parking limit with a stick of chalk on a stick. They would tag the front or rear tire of every car parked there and come back 2 hours later. If your tire still had the chalk mark you got a ticket. Granted, they were not required to show a picture.
I always thought you could claim you drove around the block and parked in the same spot, but try as I might I could never get the chalk mark to appear in the right spot and twice around the block usually wore off the mark since the police tried to get the mark across the tread if they could. Not a bad system - doesn't damage the vehicle, works on motorcycles as well as cars and is hard to defeat in court. Yes, you could come out and wipe off the mark but most people are lazy and few will actually do that. A time stamped picture would be proof positive, but in most cases when you come out to your car, see the chalk mark and the ticket you just send in the fee. You know you're caught.
#1 - OJ fleeing from the police was public knowledge. It was broadcast on live TV. Broadcasting the trial was the decision of the court was it not? It was determined in a court of law to allow it. Did they release evidence prior to OJ being arrested or charged? Hardly. ALL of these releases were after OJ had retained council and had surrendered to the Police. The Police also retained information that was NOT released to the public as well or do you dispute that? The point isn't that they released SOME information it is that they WITHHELD some that others in this thread had claimed we do not do and the timing of when they release it. Prior to OJ being charged just how much information did the media get?
You should also note that the DNA evidence was NOT directly released to the media only the claim of evidence so your example does not satisfy my request. The statement to the police, while I feel it was inappropriate to be leaked, does not constitute evidence neither does the prosecutor's claim that their dna evidence proves OJ guilty. Since it obviously did not impress the jury.
Rodney King does not even apply since it was not filmed by the Government but by a private individual. That individual sent it to the media NOT the government and I believe it makes my point that releasing such information taints the case and makes prosecuting after the fact difficult. Do you think that same video would have made it to the media so fast if it had been a dash camera in one of the squad cars? AGAIN, once suspects are charged and have the benefit of council by all means go in front of a judge and argue to release the video. After the trial release it all you want. Before anyone is charged, arrested or tried it is wrong and prejudicial to release a video like that.
I do not get how you or others get the idea that I am against releasing these videos eventually. I am against allowing videos to be released that identify persons that may or may not be guilty. What is the problem with releasing the videos with faces obscured until such time as we can investigate and determine their guilt? We still get to see what actually happened. We just won't know who is responsible until after the investigations are completed. After that, then yes those videos need to be released. We don't need to be jumping to conclusions and rendering our verdict before anyone has even been charged with anything.
Your attempt to put words in my mouth that I did not state are noted. What I DID say is that you do NOT have the automatic right to know the identities of persons who may or may not have been guilty of anything. You have the right to know what your government is doing, but do not necessarily have the right to know who they have do it. Elected or appointed personnel - you have every right to know who they are. Persons that are hired, not so much and until they are determined to have done anything improper you have no such right to that information. These photos should be obscured to protect both the innocent and the guilty. Apparently you believe that by taking a government job you lose all your rights. Military personnel? Possibly. Civilian personnel? not so much.
They have every right not to be slandered in the media as you do. They do not lose these rights merely because they work for a government agency.
Since when did this sidewind into Abu Gharib. This is about the CIA facilities and suspected torture tactics at Guantanamo and other places. Obviously you didn't feel the need to read my other posts specifically about Abu Gharib. THOSE videos and pictures have already been extensively broadcast, those investigations have already been completed and any and all videos from THOSE specific investigations I have no issue with.
As for you other assertions:
Sorry, I disagree. Once again, AFTER any investigation is completed. Which you have not proved has even started with regards to the secret CIA prisons and Guantanamo. Only with regards to Abu Gharib which I already agreed should be disclosed as those investigations are complete. I do not agree that personnel that were deemed not to have been guilty or charged with any crime need to be identified in any photographic evidence released to the public. The photo evidence of the events should be sufficient without identifying personnel deemed to have been innocent. I highly doubt there will be many in this category if the rumors of the content of the photos holds true, but then again that's all we have don't we? Rumors only. You seem to think that just because they are agents of the government you are entitled to know who they are? You think they are going to give you the photos and names of CIA personnel just because you want them? Think again.
Same as above, once the investigation is completed full disclosure is warranted. Until then, no disclosure beyond the acts themselves is warranted until the investigation is completed. Once they are charged the public is entitled to know who they are.
See my other comments. That is in support of an ongoing investigation where the suspect is unknown. That is a totally different situation. In this case the principals are known. There is no value in disseminating to the public to engage in identification of the suspect. Other videos released by the police occur after the suspect is in custody. Again, different from here as I have seen no reports of anyone arrested or even charged with any crimes....yet.
Sorry, that is not what I am reading. Some are stating, quite plainly, that they do not deserve any protection. Until people are charged, which I have not seen happening, their identities should be obscured as they may be innocent or found innocent.
[citation needed]
I have seen no investigations as yet, only the threat of same. I have not seen a single report of anyone charged, arrested or tried. IF people have been charged and or tried then THEIR images could be revealed with no complaints. HOWEVER, any images that show persons that have not been tried, charged or even detained for questioning should be obscured until such time that their status changes.
I have no problems with releasing these videos and/or pictures. Only with the total identification on those videos of any and all persons including those that may or may not be found innocent of any wrong doing. If those displayed have already been investigated and charged, then they made their bed they can lie in it. If others displayed are found to have been innocent, we have no right to associate them with these events as they are innocent.
Prior to him being charged? While the investigation was underway?
When did they release evidence to the public? Did they release the dna results to the LA Times? hmm? It is NO different from OJ's case. Prior to him being charged show me where the prosecutor was releasing evidence to the media. Had there not been enough evidence to convict do you really believe they would have released ANYTHING to the media? They would have held onto it in the hopes of obtaining evidence in the future to convict. I seriously doubt they would have released much of anything if they could not charge or convict OJ.
Who has been charged here? Has the investigation even been started? We have the potential for an investigation and we already have a witch hunt before any investigation has even started. Let them investigate and charge someone first, then release everything they feel will not prejudice their case and the remainder after someone is convicted. In the meantime, obscure the pictures to protect the innocent as well as the guilty and only release those pictures that will not hinder your investigation.
I am not stating that these pictures and/or videos should not EVER be released. I am against them being released prior to any investigation or suspects even being charged. After that point is another matter. Investigate first, file charges arrest then release the information.
So because it was done previously automatically makes it correct? The fact that photos were leaked to the press makes it acceptable? Also, I would suggest you take a look at the Abu Gharib timeline. Those photos were not released prior to the Army initiating their investigation. In fact they did not make it to the press for some 3 months after the CIS investigation began. It even appears, from what I can find, that the soldiers involved were already charged by the time the photos were released. That makes it a very different situation than what is presented here where no investigation, from what I can see, has even been started.
We do not try defendants in the court of public opinion we try them in a court of law. Disseminating these photos prior to anyone being accused or charged is wrong, period. This is nothing different than mob rule and vigilante justice. If we want to hold our legal system up as a model for others we must protect the very lowest of defendants no matter how reprehensible or abhorrent we deem the actions they are accused of.
Everyone is deserving of a fair trial. You cannot get a fair trial when selected "evidence" is paraded around in the street by the government that is or will be prosecuting you. It really doesn't matter to me how we ended up down this thread. The fact that some feel that due to snippets of information, they deem untried and unconvicted citizens/soldiers unworthy of being protected makes me sick. Innocent until proven guilty anyone? Look at the reactions to just the IDEA of videos and photos. All we need is a face and/or name and these defendant's lives are over regardless of whether they are eventually charged with anything or not.
I am not going to get into this yes we do, no we don't issue. I know that we do withhold information to protect defendants, especially prior to them being charged and arrested. We do not disclose information prior to arrest EXCEPT in the furtherance of an investigation. After that point it is a different story since they are in custody but even then we have to be careful what is and is not released. BUT, we do not arbitrarily dump evidence into the media before we even investigate the event. Is it partly to protect the defendant? Yes, because we don't know yet if this particular suspect is the one responsible and labeling them PUBLICLY as a suspect serves no purpose and can be detrimental to your investigation. Labeling them wrong and having them injured or killed as a result could make the department that released that information prematurely liable.
In this case there is no investigation to find out who did this. We know to a certainty who was present. We are not asking the public to identify the person or persons on the video. There is no compelling reason to disseminate an unobstructed video prior to completing an investigation and filing charges. Once charges have been filed then it would be the prosecutor's call whether to release them or not. I am not opposed to this video being released eventually, but not until the legal procedures are at least started. I find the claim of potential for retaliation in this particular case lacking, but it is not without precedent. There is a real potential to harm the suspect(s) who may end up never being charged with anything.
Actually, yes we do that all the time. The police routinely withhold evidence from public dissemination, both to protect the integrity of the investigation and to protect the ability of the prosecutor to seat an untainted jury. They don't drop videos of the suspect committing crime to the news media routinely. Evidence is withheld until trial. That is not to say that it never happens, it does, and the defendant's Lawyers have a field day with it immediately demanding a change of venue. If you broadcast these pictures over the entire nation exactly how is the defendant to get a fair trial anywhere?
It is less about vigilante justice than it is about the ability to provide these defendants a fair an impartial jury untainted by preconceived guilt.
And if true they should be tried in a court of law not the court of public opinion. Protecting their identities allows prosecution at a later date. Predisposing the entirety of the populace to their assumed guilt does a disservice to the innocent as well as making prosecuting the guilty more difficult.
You betcha!
Even cheaper if you get them sans enclosure.
I would argue it is more because the touchpad is affixed to their notebook rather than they dislike it so much. I have no issue with touchpads either on my laptop or otherwise, but would much rather have the device in a location near where my hand naturally rests instead of having to place my hand in an uncomfortable position to use it.
I thought about that, and while it would be a nice idea the same problem keeps recurring. Tactile feedback is a must. You have to know when a keystroke is entered. Those who type for a living could not use such a device without some retraining. Also, as some have indicated, using the screen for input brings up a host of ergonomic issues. Input needs to remain at the desk level so workers do not incur stress injuries. Even using it at home would become tiring after even a short time using a screen based touch device. I doubt you could share it between the mouse and keyboard because there are many reasons to use both simultaneously and switching between the two would quickly become an issue.
Again, I can see where a touch environment would work in "specific" situations and jobs, but for the majority of home and business users, this will not work. I think the "mouse" device needs to remain at the desk level along with and separate from the keyboard. Whether that means a touch device or the conventional mouse remains to be seen.
Actually, I think it will take a different direction for the desktop. We might be looking at a large touchpad to replace the mouse rather than touchscreens. I can see where in certain situations a touchscreen might succeed, but for most users, business and home alike, a touchpad might be the next direction if mice are to be replaced, say one on the order of 6 X 6" (approx 15x15cm for the metric types) square or similar sizing in another shape.
Of course, we would still need to address all the issues current touchpads have, but year after year I have seen issue after issue resolved. As for keyboards, I really don't see those going away anytime soon. Data input with the use of the mouse, or whatever other pointing device is common, simultaneously precludes the use of any touch devices currently available. Add to that the need for tactile feedback so that you know when you actually typed something and the issues with replacing the keyboard become very apparent.
I think data entry will remain at the desk level and even if they find a way to use touch technology there, moving it to a different location becomes very problematic. The mouse, on the other hand, is just point, selection and control. I could see that going touch either at the desk level or screen, but I think the screen would be troublesome unless it was dropped to within easy reach which then causes ergonomic issues which leaves us with a touch interface at the desk level.
Another way to get your foot in the door is through contractor firms. They will be the quickest to look past that degree. I used them many times to land jobs at IBM and now at FedEx. I have the stack of certifications that others spoke of but not a single degree. I am the Sr. SQL DBA in our division as well as handle the SANs, Netbackup, Cisco Network and Fiber switches, etc, etc. I love learning about technology and exhibiting that attitude while a contractor will make you stand out among all the other contractors who are just there to collect a paycheck. I now have 15yrs of experience and I can't put my resume on the net without getting calls pretty much round the clock even without the degree, not that I am looking.
Start with what you know. I ran a BBS (anyone remember them?) and got my first contract job doing phone tech support while I was currently driving a truck. Worked my way into being hired permanent then used the company perks to pay for training and certifications. When the company left the state I went back to contracting with my acquired certs until I landed another perm job at FedEx and have been here ever since. I make a decent living now and can afford many things my parents never could. I probably will never be rich, but I am comfortable. It may not be easy to do, but getting and keeping IT jobs without a degree is doable. You just have to do the time and get the experience. In the end you will be the employee that knows how everything works and how to fix everything as well.
I will agree up to this point. Gamers breaking down and getting the game. Most gamers I know are completely competent in finding and retrieving torrents. If DRM is too intrusive they *will* go pirate it even if they had intended to buy it. Others will actually buy the game, park in on a shelf and download the torrent. DRM, in some cases, can actually encourage piracy due to the intrusiveness of it. I, personally, will never buy another EA game due to this thinly veiled virus masquerading as DRM. I know other gamers that will pirate it instead because they don't want their game systems compromised. EA apparently doesn't understand the gaming community especially on the PC side. Even the 80% number that some have purposed as more accurate may be a bit high.
If the DRM is not that intrusive (only makes copying the CD difficult but not impossible) then, while I still dislike it, I will deal with it. Otherwise, I will just take a pass.
Actually, I think it is more than that. Thinking back when I was young I remember going to concerts, getting close to front row due to friends working at the radio station and coming out with my ears ringing for 2-4 hours afterwards. Did I know it was harmful to my hearing? Yup. Did I care? Nope.
It's not that they think they are invincible (tho there probably is some of that too), it's just that they don't care. They realize (for the most part) that these actions will hurt them in some way. They just don't care about it. They want to be able to listen to their music as loud as they want and will deal with whatever fallout happens later. As parents we will do our best to protect them from their own indifference, but in the end they are going to do what they want. I do my best to not do any more damage to my hearing than already done due to loud music and 6 years in the military operating Field Artillery. You would think I'd already be stone deaf by now.
Even now, I know that listening to my iPod at max volume is bad and I still do it anyway. Humans do dumb things, period.
You can't be serious. Have you even been to a concert of any size recently? The amount of merchandise being sold by even small bands is staggering and those sales go directly to the band, not the label as do the gate receipts. Direct sales "could" be pirated, but again, without a label the money goes to the band so any pirating only promotes the band more and gets more people to the concerts where they sell more merchandise. Get it through your head, a musician makes their money on the tour, not from CD sales since the label keeps 90% of those sales. Pirating music ONLY hurts the labels. As for giving away free track not making revenue. I suggest you talk to NIN and tell them they are doing it wrong.
Hate to be hardassed, but if you can't get enough fans to fill a bar let alone a small venue, you need to find another line of work. Bands have been giving away CDs/tapes etc. for decades to promote themselves, but now all of a sudden this is bad if it is a digital file because the label didn't get their cut.
Bullshit. You need nothing but an internet connection to distribute your music to BILLIONS. Artists do NOT make their living off CD sales unless they are a MAJOR, MAJOR act and even then the label takes the majority of those sales. Yeah, concerts are going away real soon because noone will be able to afford to go to them, get real.
This is such utter bullshit I can't believe it. Do you really believe that crap? The label makes NOBODY a star. You either have talent or you don't. They can help you promote yourself, but nowadays you can do that yourself as many indie bands and even big name bands are learning. The labels want you to believe you will never succeed without them, but that is just a flat out lie. Like I said, I and many others no longer support bands signed to major labels. I may go see them in concert, maybe, but I refuse to buy a single CD from them. Indie bands and any band that offers me tracks for free I will support with my presence at their events and my money for their merchandise. I will even buy their CDs as long as there is no label leeching off of their talent. That line worked in the past because there was a modicum of truth to it. That is no longer the case today. Like I said, the labels are scared.
Actually, the product of recording companies *IS* the CD and distribution since they did not produce the music, the musician did. Musicians are still making money off their performance, merchandise and numerous other venues including the internet through direct sales and/or straight out giving the tracks away that is not affected by piracy at all. You can't exactly pirate a live performance. Oh sure, you can record it, but that just isn't the same as being there. You can't pirate the experience.
Their business model is antiquated and they either have to adapt and reinvent themselves or die. I no longer support any artist using a major label. There are too many great indie artists as well as a few major bands that are embracing the new model. These numbers will only increase and the recording industry is scared....with good reason.
Actually 4 hours isn't that much at all. I grew up in the 60s and watched that much and possibly more while maintaining close to an A average through elementary and high school. I also was on the track team, several clubs as well as little league. Take a real close look at what a typical day is like. You get up at 6am (and yes my son gets up at this same time today) eat and dress. If this is all done by 6:30 you now have 2 hours to do what? Can't go outside, noone is outside to play with and in any case your parents aren't about to let you get dirty before school. (I personally thought this was stupid since I would inevitably get dirty AT school, but I digress) So before you have even arrived at school you had burned through 2 hours of TV.
I would get home at around 4pm and do homework in about an hour or 2. IF I went outside after that I still had to be in by 7ish when I was younger (streetlight curfew). You could get in another hour of TV before bed and you have 3hrs a day, but wait...there's more. Saturday morning from 6:30am to noon, nothing but cartoons which would skew the average all to hell and back. Even with all my outside activities I probably still averaged about 4 hours a day more or less. If this number were on the order of 8 hours or so, I would be more concerned about those children. Still, the final verdict is the child's grades. Mine probably spends more time on the net than the TV. His net time is tied directly to his school grades so grades go down - more study, less gaming. Grades go up, game all you want. As long as he has his priorities straight I have no issue. I control the router so I can shut everything down if I need to, but so far he has never given me a reason.
All these stats about TV viewing mean squat unless you marry them up to individual student performance. TV is neither good nor bad but it obviously does not help a student that is already struggling. It is a parent's job to evaluate how their child is doing and restrict their activities if needed to instill the importance of study and schoolwork in their child. A child that is excelling and watching TV should be left alone. You may encourage them to have some outside activities, but that is not going to work in every case. Some children just are not interested and forcing them can have the opposite effect intended. Curtailing TV viewing is just one tool that a parent has in bringing up their child. It should be used only when needed.
Many of them have already been written. Take history, most basic math courses and English studies. What exactly changes year to year? Nothing that I can tell, yet they put out another edition which, if you are unlucky enough to be taking the class at the time, now makes it where you cannot even sell the used book back. Compare a basic Algebra book from 10 years back to a current one sold by the same publisher. Except for chapters seeming to be shuffled around a bit I doubt you could find a single difference. Sure, if something changes they should put out another edition, but come on, every 2 years or so? This is a scam, nothing less. The bulk of these texts could be converted to digital with published works that are already in the public domain and routinely edited for accuracy by the university faculty.
Those subjects that change constantly would continue as they do now, but it would reduce the number of required published texts dramatically, since the bulk of the texts could be housed on the University's servers and downloaded to the student's PCs.