When the iTunes Store was exclusively selling encrypted content, permitting only the officially sanctioned client to interface with the store was imperative -- the client was responsible for encrypting the track with a unique user key after the raw, unencrypted version was downloaded. For unencrypted content, that is no longer necessary. Were Apple to let non-iTunes clients interface to the store it would still collect the revenue, and arguably more of it courtesy of more customers. Apple's bean-counters are certainly wise to that business opportunity, but cannot move on it so long as part of the store's inventory still requires encryption.
In support of what you're getting at (and, what I'm saying):
Projects like JHymn and QTFairUse periodically found a way to decrypt M4P files into vanilla AAC, but rarely was it a convenient solution. Often the decryption could only be done at real-time playback speeds or only on a platform with an official iTunes client. On top of that was the "arms race" factor -- Apple's periodic updates to the iTunes application or the store would break the decryption solution du jour.
But the real issue isn't iTunes - even if that's many people's hot button. iTunes is essentially an xml browser on top of QuickTime, btw.)
The real issue - if it does exist or if it will be uncovered - is that Apple supports Windows OS w/ QT+iTunes, but not Linux. Insofar as Apple (and a great many of its users) see OS X as a flavor of *nix, then Linux is a *nix competitor to OS X. Note the subtle difference - not an OS competitor, but a *nix competitor.
Bottom line is that 1) IANAL, 2) were this to go to court (Apple non-support of Linux) then Apple would likely also show that it doesn't support FreeBSD or HP-UX or a host of other Unices, and 3) I wouldn't be surprised if they got off the hook by presenting an analogy to the jury - like VHS tapes didn't play in a Betamax, because 4) they're already "supporting" their biggest competitor.
Besides - you'll need an advocacy group to bring your plight to the DOJ - sorry, good luck with that.
Arizona is not fit for human habitation. Best plan for Arizona is for all the people of Arizona to move to places like Pittsburgh, where there is plenty of water and nice homes for dirt cheap prices.
Odd - one of the two guys trying to get this rolling is a native Philadelphian.
Perhaps he knows something about Arizona that you don't - or something about Pennsylvania. Either that, or you're probably an Arizonian yourself, tired of the Eastern transplants....
From TFS, I was thinking these guys were porksters doing a small town shakedown for "studies" - not uncommon in Western states. However, as it turns out (from TFA), what they're up against is that the corridor in question is not yet approved for high-speed rail transit - so, asking each whistle-stop to kick in $5k now doesn't sound so bad.
Also - TFS says the project will cost $27B - TFA notes that that is only for the initial phase. The idea that transportation across a desert with a few whistle stops is going to cost a significant portion-equivalent of our B-2 fleet is quite unnerving.
What's the big deal? We've already survived the biggest reset of all to the Star Trek mythology: In TOS, Earth had avoided nuclear war and destruction. In TNG, we didn't avoid it at all. This changed history and the message.
Then, we had the other soft resets (for you VT100 fans): Vulcans go from being a metaphorical example of not letting emotion run away with you to Oprah-savable, emotional cripples.
Cochran goes from enlightened explorer to dance-challenged lech in it for the money.
The Enterprise goes from something the Klingons originally describe as Federation Battle Cruiser to a weak sister that folds at the first or second weapons hit.
And if you really were a fan of TOS, you demanded that the next boat out would be of the Dreadnought class - complete with three nacelles and a whole lot of firepower. And we got to see that exactly once, at the end of TNG series, with Ryker flying it in a dress.
Oh - did I leave out that the uniform for the babes were miniskirts, while later the men wore dresses? Or that uniforms went from comfy and casual-appropriate to stiff poly requiring the Picard maneuver?
The only thing that a Star Trek reboot needs to be truly successful and in keeping with the original mythology - is for it to be simply Star Trek - that means that it contains co-ed and multi-racial crews, advanced computers, Vulcans, tranporters, warp drive, phasers and bad guys. Ya got that, ya got Star Trek. Trek fans forgive everything else.
I'm sure whoever tried to ban it would get slammed for being "soft on crime" during the next election. But surely that pendulum has to swing back eventually? At some point imprisoning everybody just reaches the point of absurdity.
Yes, that's a comforting notion - but when will we repeal the Patriot Act, jail those responsible for warrantless wiretapping, and get the real stories from **ALL** of the Gitmo prisoners?
Airport security is a joke and is all about feeling good than doing good. (Yeah, cue the quasi-logic that there have been no more 9/11s since Thugs Standing Around started protecting us.) If you are a first-time DUI where I live, you get six months on your feet and a breathalyzer interlock for your vehicle - while I read again about people in front of the judge again, on 1.5+ alcohol level, but hey, no problem - they lost their license long ago. Possession of a couple of joints (no, I don't smoke it myself, but...) around here can still get you several months in the hoosegow.
Compadre - I think we passed absurdity, long, long, long ago.
Re:What do you get combining Apple + gaming compan
on
Apple Eyeing EA?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I did.
I was in Cupertino just before the announcement, knew from friends it was going down soon, but rumors had started that they wouldn't do that. Next two or three months, I was in Asia, too busy with a lot of work to notice any more than a SF newpaper press release that got relayed to me - and that article suggested that no upgrade policy was forthcoming - so, I simply didn't check past the rumor stage when I got home. (And yes, some of the places I was at in Asia had decent net access, some did not, but I was working 18 hour days - and it just wasn't the biggest news for me.)
I had one FairPlay iTMS song - Red Shoes, and that was because it was a free pick of the week. My only other use of iTMS was a year later to gift a few songs for a friend with his gifted iPod, and then to rent one movie, just to see.
So, I like iTunes (but I'm suffering from it as I'm told that Windows users do), I love my iPod, and I ***try*** to help people when they get cross-threaded with iPod and FairPlay misunderstandings. There are still people who believe that iPods won't play MP3s and that AAC=DRM.
In this case, I was honestly clueless. No excuse for ignorance, I guess, but FWIW, I wasn't attempting to troll anyone, I really was attempting to help and commiserate my displeasure.
Also, FWIW, I was the only guy that pointed out that the DRM-free songs do feature higher sampling for the money - or - do have that wrong, too?
Privacy advocates are shocked. They say that by monitoring the movements of people, many of which are likely innocent, police departments across the country are committing a Big Brother-esque invasion of privacy. And one state Supreme Court is on their side. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that a warrant must be obtained to justify such invasions of privacy.
However, other state supreme courts - including New York, Wisconsin and Maryland, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago - have declared that warrants are not needed.
First - way to go, State of Washington.
Next, it's not cut and dried, legally. From TFA:
Sveum, 41, argued the tracking violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. He argued the device followed him into areas out of public view, such as his garage.
The court disagreed. The tracking did not violate constitutional protections because the device only gave police information that could have been obtained through visual surveillance, Lundsten wrote.
Even though the device followed Sveum's car to private places, an officer tracking Sveum could have seen when his car entered or exited a garage, Lundsten reasoned. Attaching the device was not a violation, he wrote, because Sveum's driveway is a public place.
"We discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant," he wrote.
Although police obtained a warrant in this case, it wasn't needed, he added.
Larry Dupuis, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, said using GPS to track someone's car goes beyond observing them in public and should require a warrant.
"The idea that you can go and attach anything you want to somebody else's property without any court supervision, that's wrong," he said. "Without a warrant, they can do this on anybody they want."
So, what the real issue? Surveillance? Like it or not, that's legal. A cop can follow you all day long, so far as I know, as long as it doesn't amount to what a judge would call harassment. (That said, a judge's threshold and mine are probably quite different.)
Or is the real issue as the ACLU says, the attachment of a (police) device to property without court supervision?
I'm going with the ACLU on this one. Bond used a homer(*) 45 years ago in Goldfinger, and that was cool - or so we thought, because the of the target. But when I think now that the pursuer had a license to kill - I wonder if the future shouldn't be protected very, very carefully.
(* - Yep, they called it a homer in the movie. Nonetheless, cue Simpsons' jokes in...3...2...)
"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed."
If you watch the History channels very, very early in the morning, you'll find that they run a show with less/no commercials to make room before the top of the hour. During that time, they have a History Classroom or something show (seriously - that's not my best time of day, so I apologize for inaccuracies).
One thing I noticed - there's a screen that gives instructions to teachers that they have to delete any video recordings they've made of the show after a certain date - I recall, sleepily - that it's within a year or something.
Now - how does history go stale in a year?
I did a lot of digging to find the food chain on this one... History is the Classroom ties into Cable in the Classroom. Here's what they have to say:
Now, color me naive - but that's the beginning of the foodchain for a teacher to BEGIN to simply videotape something related to history of educational value to show to their students. I quote - and I am not making this up:
In an age where our test scores show we're failing, with teachers overburdened like never before - related to a show that a kid can just watch at home without encumbrances (should his/her parents **be there** for the kid with this kind of info) - note what the teacher has to go through.
As opposed to just taping it and working it into the lesson plan - because it comes from a place called the History Channel - tied to Cable in the Classroom - where "cable" is that thing usually subsidized by local communities as a near utility.
Odd - my words were the same, despite what I degree I hold.
I have read all of the works you suggest, and more. My argument regarding IQ is not ignorant because I am not ignorant at all on that subject.
Your comment about me being able to figure out Gaussian distributions - given that I am well-published in refereed journals using just that - is offensive at face value and matches the condescension in your tone of voice in referencing it.
I believe I've had quite enough of this waste of my time.
I don't see where any of your actions involve technology at all.
Using computer information systems to track information for use with {branch} a cooperative basis with law enforcement {branch} customer fulfillment.
Privacy is a concern on Alienware's part, and I wouldn't expect them to divulge the details of a criminal investigation
I wouldn't expect that they would. I would expect to hear from law enforcement, however, were I the purchaser or proclaimed owner of what turned out to be reportedly-stolen goods.
or make a change to another customer's records on some random individual.
If I claim that I bought something from you and want the support you once had, I am not a random individual. If I am a valid purchaser (and you should provide your support of the truth of the transaction as part of the transaction) or if I am a thief you should alert law enforcement that you and Alienware know who has your stolen merchandise.
I got my education degree on top of hard science and math, in order to better train people on nuclear and space systems - after working on both for a great number of years.
So, I'm triply arrogant. If you say so.
Re:What do you get combining Apple + gaming compan
on
Apple Eyeing EA?
·
· Score: 1
Wow - many sincere thanks for updating me! I did not know that! OK, I'm red-faced....:)
Yes, identity theft is a problem. It has existed long before computers and long before our so-called border problems. I knew a Mafioso in Detroit with 15 Social Security numbers, 40 years ago.
As my signal-processing mentor once taught me - never look for a signal in noise - you will always find exactly what you're looking for.
If today's illegals have a high rate of abusing Social Security numbers, it's because they're buying from an established industry. I'd say it's that established industry that's the problem.
Or - we can all just go on believing the surface only of blog info.
My friend, I have a teaching degree in vocational education. Look it up - those are not so easy to get, requiring not only a concentration in a particular field, but documented years of working in that field with *strong* references from employers for your concentration in that field, then documentation of work training in industry in that field, then years of teaching as an intern at a post-secondary school. And you study things in depth the way that many teachers to not have to, such as educational psychology and - the IQ test.
The IQ test was invented for one reason and one reason only to assist teachers. It is the quotient of your intellectual age / chronological age. It was - and is - meant to apply to developing minds. At the time of its conception, it was so that teachers could recognize those kids who needed help catching up with their peers, and which didn't need that so much. It could even be used in pairing up study partners.
And for that reason, under the theory that it was a valid idea at the time, IQ results were to be kept confidential, so as to not be abused and not stigmatized anyone.
It is was never meant to become some constant that follows a person around in life. If you think about it, if you have an IQ of 130 when you're ten, and nothing changes, then you'll have an IQ of 100 when you're thirteen years old.
Enlightened educators have all but given up on IQ tests. They are not easy to keep up to date. When the IQ theories were first postulated, the developers could not and did not foresee the technological and social changes that were to come - and most importantly, the rate of acceleration of those changes.
Imagine thinking you're doing a good job on designing IQ tests when suddenly, immigrant Muslim children as a group are scoring lower and you find one example question stands out in your quality study: they misidentify pig as the source animal for bacon because they are either unexposed to "bacon" or can prove from the packaging that "bacon" comes from turkeys. I did not make this example up, it was documented in the 90s.
Now - your source link says that the military uses IQ tests very effectively. That's true. I've worked with them on training programs. But their tests are at least geared toward their demographic of less-privileged, post-secondary school ages, and not generalized for all possible knowledge, but specific enough for judging things like spacial-oriented thinking. They do it to save soldiers' lives, so they're pretty good at it.
Your reference also says that IQs are validly applied to groups because it washes out statistical noise. That's true. As in, groups of post training at this Air Force base vs. same at that Army base. Or for northern-state 9th graders vs. southern-state ones.
But, and I choose my bacon example carefully - not for comparing against races or nationalities with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. If you follow this link from your link - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118996255/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 - [Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: a meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology 54, 297-330.] then you will be surprised to find this statement in the study's abstract: We conduct similar analyses for Hispanics, when possible, and note that Hispanic-White differences are somewhat less than Black-White differences. That said, I warn the no-RTFA types (like me, usually) that this was focused to one adult-job metric, not to a whole race or anything sweeping.
And that said, I hereby declare the following: 1. You have abused the use of IQ 2. You have done so against the tenets of your own IQ reference 3. I will not believe without a lot of supporting evidence that you have anything but asinine references to peg Hispanics at 90-95, of any subgroup beyond those in prison (where they would most probabl
No - if their concern is valid, you tell them where you bought the computer, provide serial numbers and so forth, they take any number of actions, including: 1. Working with law enforcement - if the thing was stolen, you're either out or you have a civil case against the thief. 2. Transfer the record to you
You're right to look at the social side of the issue - but go a step further - technology can solve this particular problem.
Each year, the administration releases its federal-spending blueprint -- usually in a series of phone book-sized tomes that must surely weigh eight to 10 pounds. And of course, the first thing most of us look for is what programs are slated for big gains -- or excisions. Well, team Obama made looking for the big cuts a little easier this year. This morning it issued a 120-page volume: "Terminations, Reductions, and Savings: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2010."
A lot respondents are making hay over legal vs. illegal immigrants. Fine. But look at our real history of our immigration laws. You'd think it would be driven by many good things - such as what our infrastructure can support and so forth. And the pundits would have you believe that. It's not so.
First, we have people complaining about illegals using Social Security. Kindly note that the fossil records clearly show those illegals have paying into Social Security - something the pundits don't want to mention.
They're over-running our infrastructure! Yeah. It's not the white suburban kids pushing meth, it's not the middle-aged housewives enjoying a joint in the middle of the day, it's the not smokers, it's not the cops over-reacting to anyone near a.08 a block from their home, it's not that the insurance companies and HMOs have taken over what a doctor can do in his/her own judgement, it's not that we let the S&Ls and Enrons screw us out of real jobs, it's not that our trade and tariff policies are so fucking complicated that a gaggle of Ph.D.s still can't explain it to anyone reasonably intelligent, and it's not that all of our taxes are regressive, and it's not that the biggest corporations pulling in the most money pay the absolute minimum (if not zero) in actual money turned over as taxes - and it's not as if the whole fucking engine isn't powered by crooked politicians.
The real problem is those pesky, illegal Mexicans - with their strong sense of family and religion and culture and a desire to live outside of poverty, with a deep fear of the law because of where our Immigration Dept. will send them back to live if caught.
Oh yeah - illegal != legal immigration... sure, that's the real issue. And I'm a monkey's uncle.
Slashdot Mirror
It'd be nice to see them take on Apple and their bullshit use of the DMCA to shut down people trying to get iTunes to work on Linux.
There's some truth in what you say, but there's also truth that some of the trouble was inflicted on Linux users by those actively breaking FairPlay. Not everyone in LinuxLand sees it as a conspiracy to keep Linux users out. From an older Linux HOW-TO - http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:ls5Os0LmengJ:www.linux.com/feature/114269+itunes+linux+drm&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
When the iTunes Store was exclusively selling encrypted content, permitting only the officially sanctioned client to interface with the store was imperative -- the client was responsible for encrypting the track with a unique user key after the raw, unencrypted version was downloaded. For unencrypted content, that is no longer necessary. Were Apple to let non-iTunes clients interface to the store it would still collect the revenue, and arguably more of it courtesy of more customers. Apple's bean-counters are certainly wise to that business opportunity, but cannot move on it so long as part of the store's inventory still requires encryption.
In support of what you're getting at (and, what I'm saying):
Projects like JHymn and QTFairUse periodically found a way to decrypt M4P files into vanilla AAC, but rarely was it a convenient solution. Often the decryption could only be done at real-time playback speeds or only on a platform with an official iTunes client. On top of that was the "arms race" factor -- Apple's periodic updates to the iTunes application or the store would break the decryption solution du jour.
But the real issue isn't iTunes - even if that's many people's hot button. iTunes is essentially an xml browser on top of QuickTime, btw.)
The real issue - if it does exist or if it will be uncovered - is that Apple supports Windows OS w/ QT+iTunes, but not Linux. Insofar as Apple (and a great many of its users) see OS X as a flavor of *nix, then Linux is a *nix competitor to OS X. Note the subtle difference - not an OS competitor, but a *nix competitor.
Bottom line is that 1) IANAL, 2) were this to go to court (Apple non-support of Linux) then Apple would likely also show that it doesn't support FreeBSD or HP-UX or a host of other Unices, and 3) I wouldn't be surprised if they got off the hook by presenting an analogy to the jury - like VHS tapes didn't play in a Betamax, because 4) they're already "supporting" their biggest competitor.
Besides - you'll need an advocacy group to bring your plight to the DOJ - sorry, good luck with that.
Perhaps a positive approach will help - you never know - http://www.petitiononline.com/itmslin/petition.html
Can someone speculate the feasibility of "dropping" to meet ISS?
I believe that it's a question of available fuel.
Roger that.
FWIW, you can get a lot of mission info while it happens, even if you don't have satellite TV - http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/sciencemath/8964/zoom/
Rock on, Venetia, rock on.
Also - how would it not help their stocks if they are now perceived as up to something big?
Arizona is not fit for human habitation. Best plan for Arizona is for all the people of Arizona to move to places like Pittsburgh, where there is plenty of water and nice homes for dirt cheap prices.
Odd - one of the two guys trying to get this rolling is a native Philadelphian.
Perhaps he knows something about Arizona that you don't - or something about Pennsylvania. Either that, or you're probably an Arizonian yourself, tired of the Eastern transplants....
From TFS, I was thinking these guys were porksters doing a small town shakedown for "studies" - not uncommon in Western states. However, as it turns out (from TFA), what they're up against is that the corridor in question is not yet approved for high-speed rail transit - so, asking each whistle-stop to kick in $5k now doesn't sound so bad.
Also - TFS says the project will cost $27B - TFA notes that that is only for the initial phase. The idea that transportation across a desert with a few whistle stops is going to cost a significant portion-equivalent of our B-2 fleet is quite unnerving.
Frack - left out a terribly important attribute - the ships need to have integral saucers.
What's the big deal? We've already survived the biggest reset of all to the Star Trek mythology: In TOS, Earth had avoided nuclear war and destruction. In TNG, we didn't avoid it at all. This changed history and the message.
Then, we had the other soft resets (for you VT100 fans):
Vulcans go from being a metaphorical example of not letting emotion run away with you to Oprah-savable, emotional cripples.
Cochran goes from enlightened explorer to dance-challenged lech in it for the money.
The Enterprise goes from something the Klingons originally describe as Federation Battle Cruiser to a weak sister that folds at the first or second weapons hit.
And if you really were a fan of TOS, you demanded that the next boat out would be of the Dreadnought class - complete with three nacelles and a whole lot of firepower. And we got to see that exactly once, at the end of TNG series, with Ryker flying it in a dress.
Oh - did I leave out that the uniform for the babes were miniskirts, while later the men wore dresses? Or that uniforms went from comfy and casual-appropriate to stiff poly requiring the Picard maneuver?
The only thing that a Star Trek reboot needs to be truly successful and in keeping with the original mythology - is for it to be simply Star Trek - that means that it contains co-ed and multi-racial crews, advanced computers, Vulcans, tranporters, warp drive, phasers and bad guys. Ya got that, ya got Star Trek. Trek fans forgive everything else.
Sorry - misread - my bad.
You make an excellent, cogent point - the more so sadder.
I'm sure whoever tried to ban it would get slammed for being "soft on crime" during the next election. But surely that pendulum has to swing back eventually? At some point imprisoning everybody just reaches the point of absurdity.
Yes, that's a comforting notion - but when will we repeal the Patriot Act, jail those responsible for warrantless wiretapping, and get the real stories from **ALL** of the Gitmo prisoners?
Airport security is a joke and is all about feeling good than doing good. (Yeah, cue the quasi-logic that there have been no more 9/11s since Thugs Standing Around started protecting us.) If you are a first-time DUI where I live, you get six months on your feet and a breathalyzer interlock for your vehicle - while I read again about people in front of the judge again, on 1.5+ alcohol level, but hey, no problem - they lost their license long ago. Possession of a couple of joints (no, I don't smoke it myself, but...) around here can still get you several months in the hoosegow.
Compadre - I think we passed absurdity, long, long, long ago.
Yes, I did.
I was in Cupertino just before the announcement, knew from friends it was going down soon, but rumors had started that they wouldn't do that. Next two or three months, I was in Asia, too busy with a lot of work to notice any more than a SF newpaper press release that got relayed to me - and that article suggested that no upgrade policy was forthcoming - so, I simply didn't check past the rumor stage when I got home. (And yes, some of the places I was at in Asia had decent net access, some did not, but I was working 18 hour days - and it just wasn't the biggest news for me.)
I had one FairPlay iTMS song - Red Shoes, and that was because it was a free pick of the week. My only other use of iTMS was a year later to gift a few songs for a friend with his gifted iPod, and then to rent one movie, just to see.
So, I like iTunes (but I'm suffering from it as I'm told that Windows users do), I love my iPod, and I ***try*** to help people when they get cross-threaded with iPod and FairPlay misunderstandings. There are still people who believe that iPods won't play MP3s and that AAC=DRM.
In this case, I was honestly clueless. No excuse for ignorance, I guess, but FWIW, I wasn't attempting to troll anyone, I really was attempting to help and commiserate my displeasure.
Also, FWIW, I was the only guy that pointed out that the DRM-free songs do feature higher sampling for the money - or - do have that wrong, too?
From August 14, 2008 - http://www.insidetech.com/news/articles/2833-police-planting-gps-trackers-on-cars-without-warrants
Privacy advocates are shocked. They say that by monitoring the movements of people, many of which are likely innocent, police departments across the country are committing a Big Brother-esque invasion of privacy. And one state Supreme Court is on their side. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that a warrant must be obtained to justify such invasions of privacy.
However, other state supreme courts - including New York, Wisconsin and Maryland, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago - have declared that warrants are not needed.
First - way to go, State of Washington.
Next, it's not cut and dried, legally. From TFA:
Sveum, 41, argued the tracking violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. He argued the device followed him into areas out of public view, such as his garage.
The court disagreed. The tracking did not violate constitutional protections because the device only gave police information that could have been obtained through visual surveillance, Lundsten wrote.
Even though the device followed Sveum's car to private places, an officer tracking Sveum could have seen when his car entered or exited a garage, Lundsten reasoned. Attaching the device was not a violation, he wrote, because Sveum's driveway is a public place.
"We discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant," he wrote.
Although police obtained a warrant in this case, it wasn't needed, he added.
Larry Dupuis, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, said using GPS to track someone's car goes beyond observing them in public and should require a warrant.
"The idea that you can go and attach anything you want to somebody else's property without any court supervision, that's wrong," he said. "Without a warrant, they can do this on anybody they want."
So, what the real issue? Surveillance? Like it or not, that's legal. A cop can follow you all day long, so far as I know, as long as it doesn't amount to what a judge would call harassment. (That said, a judge's threshold and mine are probably quite different.)
Or is the real issue as the ACLU says, the attachment of a (police) device to property without court supervision?
I'm going with the ACLU on this one. Bond used a homer(*) 45 years ago in Goldfinger, and that was cool - or so we thought, because the of the target. But when I think now that the pursuer had a license to kill - I wonder if the future shouldn't be protected very, very carefully.
(* - Yep, they called it a homer in the movie. Nonetheless, cue Simpsons' jokes in ...3...2...)
"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed."
If you watch the History channels very, very early in the morning, you'll find that they run a show with less/no commercials to make room before the top of the hour. During that time, they have a History Classroom or something show (seriously - that's not my best time of day, so I apologize for inaccuracies).
One thing I noticed - there's a screen that gives instructions to teachers that they have to delete any video recordings they've made of the show after a certain date - I recall, sleepily - that it's within a year or something.
Now - how does history go stale in a year?
I did a lot of digging to find the food chain on this one... History is the Classroom ties into Cable in the Classroom. Here's what they have to say:
http://www.history.com/global/feedback/faq.jsp?NetwCode=THC&level_1=nodes_54224&level_2=nodes_54240&level_3=nodes_54297&x=35&y=11
http://www.ciconline.org/faq#Copyright
http://www.ciconline.org/copyright
http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/curr280.shtml
Now, color me naive - but that's the beginning of the foodchain for a teacher to BEGIN to simply videotape something related to history of educational value to show to their students. I quote - and I am not making this up:
What's an educator to do? Read Education World's five-part series on copyright, fair use, and new technologies, that's what! We did the work so you wouldn't have to!
http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/curr280a.shtml
http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/curr280b.shtml
http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/curr280c.shtml
http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/curr280d.shtml
http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/curr280e.shtml
In an age where our test scores show we're failing, with teachers overburdened like never before - related to a show that a kid can just watch at home without encumbrances (should his/her parents **be there** for the kid with this kind of info) - note what the teacher has to go through.
As opposed to just taping it and working it into the lesson plan - because it comes from a place called the History Channel - tied to Cable in the Classroom - where "cable" is that thing usually subsidized by local communities as a near utility.
Thanks, copyright eagles. Thanks a lot.
I can dish out condescension to racists all day, every day of the week. I can take being called an idiot by one.
Odd - my words were the same, despite what I degree I hold.
I have read all of the works you suggest, and more. My argument regarding IQ is not ignorant because I am not ignorant at all on that subject.
Your comment about me being able to figure out Gaussian distributions - given that I am well-published in refereed journals using just that - is offensive at face value and matches the condescension in your tone of voice in referencing it.
I believe I've had quite enough of this waste of my time.
I don't see where any of your actions involve technology at all.
Using computer information systems to track information for use with {branch} a cooperative basis with law enforcement {branch} customer fulfillment.
Privacy is a concern on Alienware's part, and I wouldn't expect them to divulge the details of a criminal investigation
I wouldn't expect that they would. I would expect to hear from law enforcement, however, were I the purchaser or proclaimed owner of what turned out to be reportedly-stolen goods.
or make a change to another customer's records on some random individual.
If I claim that I bought something from you and want the support you once had, I am not a random individual. If I am a valid purchaser (and you should provide your support of the truth of the transaction as part of the transaction) or if I am a thief you should alert law enforcement that you and Alienware know who has your stolen merchandise.
I got my education degree on top of hard science and math, in order to better train people on nuclear and space systems - after working on both for a great number of years.
So, I'm triply arrogant. If you say so.
Wow - many sincere thanks for updating me! I did not know that! OK, I'm red-faced.... :)
Yes, identity theft is a problem. It has existed long before computers and long before our so-called border problems. I knew a Mafioso in Detroit with 15 Social Security numbers, 40 years ago.
As my signal-processing mentor once taught me - never look for a signal in noise - you will always find exactly what you're looking for.
If today's illegals have a high rate of abusing Social Security numbers, it's because they're buying from an established industry. I'd say it's that established industry that's the problem.
Or - we can all just go on believing the surface only of blog info.
My friend, I have a teaching degree in vocational education. Look it up - those are not so easy to get, requiring not only a concentration in a particular field, but documented years of working in that field with *strong* references from employers for your concentration in that field, then documentation of work training in industry in that field, then years of teaching as an intern at a post-secondary school. And you study things in depth the way that many teachers to not have to, such as educational psychology and - the IQ test.
The IQ test was invented for one reason and one reason only to assist teachers. It is the quotient of your intellectual age / chronological age. It was - and is - meant to apply to developing minds. At the time of its conception, it was so that teachers could recognize those kids who needed help catching up with their peers, and which didn't need that so much. It could even be used in pairing up study partners.
And for that reason, under the theory that it was a valid idea at the time, IQ results were to be kept confidential, so as to not be abused and not stigmatized anyone.
It is was never meant to become some constant that follows a person around in life. If you think about it, if you have an IQ of 130 when you're ten, and nothing changes, then you'll have an IQ of 100 when you're thirteen years old.
Enlightened educators have all but given up on IQ tests. They are not easy to keep up to date. When the IQ theories were first postulated, the developers could not and did not foresee the technological and social changes that were to come - and most importantly, the rate of acceleration of those changes.
Imagine thinking you're doing a good job on designing IQ tests when suddenly, immigrant Muslim children as a group are scoring lower and you find one example question stands out in your quality study: they misidentify pig as the source animal for bacon because they are either unexposed to "bacon" or can prove from the packaging that "bacon" comes from turkeys. I did not make this example up, it was documented in the 90s.
Now - your source link says that the military uses IQ tests very effectively. That's true. I've worked with them on training programs. But their tests are at least geared toward their demographic of less-privileged, post-secondary school ages, and not generalized for all possible knowledge, but specific enough for judging things like spacial-oriented thinking. They do it to save soldiers' lives, so they're pretty good at it.
Your reference also says that IQs are validly applied to groups because it washes out statistical noise. That's true. As in, groups of post training at this Air Force base vs. same at that Army base. Or for northern-state 9th graders vs. southern-state ones.
But, and I choose my bacon example carefully - not for comparing against races or nationalities with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. If you follow this link from your link - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118996255/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 - [Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: a meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology 54, 297-330.] then you will be surprised to find this statement in the study's abstract: We conduct similar analyses for Hispanics, when possible, and note that Hispanic-White differences are somewhat less than Black-White differences. That said, I warn the no-RTFA types (like me, usually) that this was focused to one adult-job metric, not to a whole race or anything sweeping.
And that said, I hereby declare the following:
1. You have abused the use of IQ
2. You have done so against the tenets of your own IQ reference
3. I will not believe without a lot of supporting evidence that you have anything but asinine references to peg Hispanics at 90-95, of any subgroup beyond those in prison (where they would most probabl
No - if their concern is valid, you tell them where you bought the computer, provide serial numbers and so forth, they take any number of actions, including:
1. Working with law enforcement - if the thing was stolen, you're either out or you have a civil case against the thief.
2. Transfer the record to you
You're right to look at the social side of the issue - but go a step further - technology can solve this particular problem.
But hey, you gotta love the Virtual Fence. Higher tech means it will take high tech - beginning with bribes - to overcome it.
So, if what you say is true, then the Virtual Fence is lead-pipe cinch guarantee to make the problem worse.
I agree. And how about those latest budget cuts?
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/43568/title/Federal_budget's_new_'black_book'
Each year, the administration releases its federal-spending blueprint -- usually in a series of phone book-sized tomes that must surely weigh eight to 10 pounds. And of course, the first thing most of us look for is what programs are slated for big gains -- or excisions. Well, team Obama made looking for the big cuts a little easier this year. This morning it issued a 120-page volume: "Terminations, Reductions, and Savings: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2010."
A lot respondents are making hay over legal vs. illegal immigrants. Fine. But look at our real history of our immigration laws. You'd think it would be driven by many good things - such as what our infrastructure can support and so forth. And the pundits would have you believe that. It's not so.
First, we have people complaining about illegals using Social Security. Kindly note that the fossil records clearly show those illegals have paying into Social Security - something the pundits don't want to mention.
They're over-running our infrastructure! Yeah. It's not the white suburban kids pushing meth, it's not the middle-aged housewives enjoying a joint in the middle of the day, it's the not smokers, it's not the cops over-reacting to anyone near a .08 a block from their home, it's not that the insurance companies and HMOs have taken over what a doctor can do in his/her own judgement, it's not that we let the S&Ls and Enrons screw us out of real jobs, it's not that our trade and tariff policies are so fucking complicated that a gaggle of Ph.D.s still can't explain it to anyone reasonably intelligent, and it's not that all of our taxes are regressive, and it's not that the biggest corporations pulling in the most money pay the absolute minimum (if not zero) in actual money turned over as taxes - and it's not as if the whole fucking engine isn't powered by crooked politicians.
The real problem is those pesky, illegal Mexicans - with their strong sense of family and religion and culture and a desire to live outside of poverty, with a deep fear of the law because of where our Immigration Dept. will send them back to live if caught.
Oh yeah - illegal != legal immigration ... sure, that's the real issue. And I'm a monkey's uncle.