And this is why every name of private individuals (as opposed to public officials) should be replaced consistently by a pseudonym prior to publication. It does nothing to harm the transparency, yet does so without nearly as much harm to national security.
I'm talking about divided roads. I've never seen 65 on a two-lane. The reason that raising speed limits on many smaller roads can be unsafe is that they are sometimes set correctly based on turn radius, based on the number of road entrances, based on pedestrian counts, etc., whereas highway speed limits are almost invariably set by bureaucrats.
That said, I can think of plenty of roads where the speed limits are ridiculously low.
The advisory speeds around here (northern California) range from about 25 MPH too slow up through 10 MPH faster than I can maintain control over my vehicle. I've pretty much concluded that dartboards and either beer or pot must have been involved. Maybe yours are better?
ya how exactly is "the best place to put speed traps" NOT being used to improve traffic safety?
Simple. If the majority of vehicles (or even a significant percentage of vehicles) are driving a given speed, then the road is clearly safe at that speed. Therefore, that's prima facie evidence that whoever set the speed limit lower than that was wrong, either due to negligence (incompetence) or malice (revenue generation).
The burden of proof should be nearly impossibly high when it comes to proving that such limits are reasonable, with the sole exception being school zones, and even then, only during hours when students can reasonably be expected to be entering or leaving school.
There's a highway exit near me that is posted at 25 mph, but routinely people, including me, take it at 50 without trouble.
Highway exits are almost invariably advisory speed limits. All legally enforceable limits are posted in either white (normal signs) or orange (for construction).
It does no good to lower the death rate as a percentage of accidents by lowering the speed limit if that in turn results in an increase in the rate of accidents. The probability of a risk is dependent largely on the difference in speed between the slowest and fastest vehicles, so by setting the limit too low, you're not necessarily helping.
Want to lower the death rates? Raise the standards for automobile crash safety. Any other method of achieving such gains is almost invariably illusory. When cars are unnecessarily out on the road because of congestion caused by too-low speed limits, you're adding pollution that statistically kills people, too. It's just a lot harder to measure that causation.
Besides, the safety issues for the users have been dramatically improved since the 1970s, to such an extent that if 65 MPH roads were safe in the 1970s, a 100 MPH road is safe by that safe standard today. Yet speed limits have not increased. Thus, the position that speed limits are set based on safety simply cannot be justified in light of the evidence at hand.
The only good justification for a low speed limit is a large amount of pedestrian traffic, and only because they don't have cars to protect them in a collision. For highways, for maximum safety, the speed limit should be set at a speed that is safe for the road, and should be on electronic signs so they can lower it if road conditions are bad. And it should be set high enough that anyone exceeding it is clearly nuts.
You're not allowed to parade corpses around on TV - that's a violation of the Geneva convention, and not to mention fucking retarded.
Yes, but the U.S. government would argue that terrorists are not fighters in the employ of a state, and therefore are not protected under the Geneva Conventions. I'm not saying I agree with them (I don't); I'm just saying that I doubt the conventions will have any impact on how the U.S. government handles things.
Now if only they could do something consistent about the fucking bedbugs.
But the bed bugs don't like RFIDs. And besides, the hotels want you to take those with you. Every bed bug that goes out with you is one fewer in the hotel.
There are reasons aside from financial reasons for producing child pornography... accessing it WILL encourage these people to produce more child pornography.
Yes and no.
The type of people that produce this pornography are also the worst type of people; they are often violent in their production or are abusing the trust of relatives.
This largely invalidates your previous point. These people are the worst type of people. They abuse the trust of their relatives in sexually deviant ways. As such, they are likely to do so whether they are making pornography and sharing it with other people or not.
For that matter, one could legitimately argue that having a broader market for child pornography actually makes children safer by bringing it out in the open so that the sorts of people who make this stuff get caught. After all, if they're just doing it in the privacy of their own homes, most of them won't ever do jail time. If they put it out on the internet because other people are encouraging them to share, there's documented proof, and they might actually get what they deserve.
In fact, merely the IDEA of children as a valid sexually gratifying fantasy is highly unhealthy for society
Again, evidence needed. By this exact same standard, merely the idea of our government as a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats who are just in it for the money is highly unhealthy for society. Therefore, political thought, and particularly political thought that is negative towards the current administration must be stamped out. Not to mention every movie that ever showed the violent overthrow of a despotic regime.
People either can or can't separate fantasy from reality. Those who can are not encouraged to rape children after seeing kiddie porn any more than they are encouraged to mow down their coworkers after watching a violent movie or to beat their wives after watching the Honeymooners.
I'm sick and tired of hearing all of this pedophile sympathy being spouted. Especially on slashdot stories about the topic.
*shrugs* Statistically, the worst gay bashers have a high probability of coming out. I wonder if the same also applies for the worst pedo bashers. Just saying.
So, in 10 or 15 years, when everyone has grown up being kept away from anything remotely dangerous, not allowed outside, and being pandered to to be sure we don't hurt their feelings as we try to teach them to spell... why do I foresee an entire generation of children who are too stupid and sheltered to do anything, and too spoiled and coddled to understand why they're not magically having the world care for them and give them everything they want?
As others have mentioned there is no way to prove that a photo has not been doctored so long as it is possible to doctor it, compensate for lens distortion, print the photo out, and take a picture of the picture. Therefore, using this for tamper detection would inherently be prima facie worthless even if DRM weren't a fundamentally unsolvable problem.
That said, you're all missing the primary purpose of this image authentication. It's not to prove that a photo has not been doctored. It is to prove with a reasonable degree of certainty that the photo was taken with a particular camera. For kiddie porn, photos of crimes being committed, etc., that's a valuable piece of information.
Unless somebody caught producing such pictures can show reasonable cause to believe that somebody cracked his/her camera and stole the key, the mere existence of a verified signature is close enough to airtight to get a conviction. By contrast, previous methods (a serial number embedded in an EXIF tag) are too trivial to fake.
So you see, it's not about proving that an image has not been altered, but rather proving that the camera in question took the photo, providing evidence that its owner was almost certainly at the scene of the crime.
Your friend, IHateNewYork7682, has sent you a Pepsi. To redeem your free Pepsi, go to any Pepsi vending machine on reka Amderma, in Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Russia.
This case didn't actually rule that you can't file a lawsuit. It just ruled that California's blanket prohibition on those clauses was illegal. Not that this makes the decision any less unAmerican, but it isn't as bad as it sounds.
In practice, because these companies refuse to actually negotiate the terms of their contracts, they are usually considered contracts of adhesion, and as such, mandatory arbitration clauses should be unenforceable anyway. The dirty little exception is if the binding arbitration rule has an opt-out clause that allows you to opt out of the binding arbitration clause, in which case you *must* do so or your claim of adhesion will fall flat.
Either way, the right people to complain to are not the justices, but rather your congresspeople. Demand that they overturn the Federal Arbitration Act. That's the only reason these companies are able to pull this crap. Binding arbitration is almost invariably abused to avoid liability when liability legitimately should exist, and as such, binding arbitration clauses should be made illegal nationwide.
Oh, and cancel your AT&T service, then tell them why.
Clarence Thomas took office under the other Bush. The mistake was saying eight years of Bush rather than twelve. Between Reagan and the two Bush administrations, Republican presidents have placed five of the nine sitting justices, and I think that's what the original poster was getting at.
I vote that we just abolish the contraction form of both words. If everyone just started writing out "they are" and "it is", then the contraction would go away and there wouldn't be as much confusion.
And if we wanted to completely eliminate the confusion, we could always change the word "there" to "thar". We could start one "talk like a pirate day", and then just keep doing it.
Although most ISPs do block source-routed traffic, that doesn't mean it will always fail, and that was my point. It only takes one lucky route through one lucky ISP to one unpatched Windows Server 2003 box in some FBI agent's office to bring down a s***storm on somebody.
Also, I just realized, much to my amusement, that neither source routing nor BGP/RIP tricks are even needed if you're unlucky enough to use a semi-shared WAN like cable modem users do. A cable modem user could pretty much spoof traffic for anybody within a few block radius with impunity. (Unless you're using DOCSIS 3.0 hardware, your data is encrypted with 56-bit DES, which is so weak that you could probably crack it in real time with an iPhone app.)
An IP address is a terrible way to identify somebody.
In particular, older versions of Windows respect the source route in their replies. (I'm not sure about current versions—this article is somewhat old.)
Corporations aren't really owned by people. Stocks are effectively just a loan to a corporation in exchange for the expectation that the company might eventually buy back those shares or pay dividends. If you truly owned a portion of the corporation as you would in a partnership, you would still own a portion of it after a corporation files for bankruptcy instead of losing everything when they shift their assets into a holding company and dissolve the old company at a loss.
Further, even to the extent that the "owners" are in charge, the only way they can change the way a corporation is run is by throwing out the board in the hopes that maybe the new board might replace the CEO. It's a bit like voting for new congressmen in the hopes that they might throw out the head of Homeland Security. Sure, it might happen, but your odds of winning the lottery are better.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is why every name of private individuals (as opposed to public officials) should be replaced consistently by a pseudonym prior to publication. It does nothing to harm the transparency, yet does so without nearly as much harm to national security.
And the number of the beast shall be IPv666?
I'm talking about divided roads. I've never seen 65 on a two-lane. The reason that raising speed limits on many smaller roads can be unsafe is that they are sometimes set correctly based on turn radius, based on the number of road entrances, based on pedestrian counts, etc., whereas highway speed limits are almost invariably set by bureaucrats.
That said, I can think of plenty of roads where the speed limits are ridiculously low.
The advisory speeds around here (northern California) range from about 25 MPH too slow up through 10 MPH faster than I can maintain control over my vehicle. I've pretty much concluded that dartboards and either beer or pot must have been involved. Maybe yours are better?
My head a splode.
Simple. If the majority of vehicles (or even a significant percentage of vehicles) are driving a given speed, then the road is clearly safe at that speed. Therefore, that's prima facie evidence that whoever set the speed limit lower than that was wrong, either due to negligence (incompetence) or malice (revenue generation).
The burden of proof should be nearly impossibly high when it comes to proving that such limits are reasonable, with the sole exception being school zones, and even then, only during hours when students can reasonably be expected to be entering or leaving school.
Highway exits are almost invariably advisory speed limits. All legally enforceable limits are posted in either white (normal signs) or orange (for construction).
It does no good to lower the death rate as a percentage of accidents by lowering the speed limit if that in turn results in an increase in the rate of accidents. The probability of a risk is dependent largely on the difference in speed between the slowest and fastest vehicles, so by setting the limit too low, you're not necessarily helping.
Want to lower the death rates? Raise the standards for automobile crash safety. Any other method of achieving such gains is almost invariably illusory. When cars are unnecessarily out on the road because of congestion caused by too-low speed limits, you're adding pollution that statistically kills people, too. It's just a lot harder to measure that causation.
Besides, the safety issues for the users have been dramatically improved since the 1970s, to such an extent that if 65 MPH roads were safe in the 1970s, a 100 MPH road is safe by that safe standard today. Yet speed limits have not increased. Thus, the position that speed limits are set based on safety simply cannot be justified in light of the evidence at hand.
The only good justification for a low speed limit is a large amount of pedestrian traffic, and only because they don't have cars to protect them in a collision. For highways, for maximum safety, the speed limit should be set at a speed that is safe for the road, and should be on electronic signs so they can lower it if road conditions are bad. And it should be set high enough that anyone exceeding it is clearly nuts.
Yes, but the U.S. government would argue that terrorists are not fighters in the employ of a state, and therefore are not protected under the Geneva Conventions. I'm not saying I agree with them (I don't); I'm just saying that I doubt the conventions will have any impact on how the U.S. government handles things.
I thought bad things were supposed to start with a mayday....
Um....
Richard Stallman
Osama bin Laden
They really don't look that much alike.... I mean, sure, they both have beards, but....
But the bed bugs don't like RFIDs. And besides, the hotels want you to take those with you. Every bed bug that goes out with you is one fewer in the hotel.
Yes and no.
This largely invalidates your previous point. These people are the worst type of people. They abuse the trust of their relatives in sexually deviant ways. As such, they are likely to do so whether they are making pornography and sharing it with other people or not.
For that matter, one could legitimately argue that having a broader market for child pornography actually makes children safer by bringing it out in the open so that the sorts of people who make this stuff get caught. After all, if they're just doing it in the privacy of their own homes, most of them won't ever do jail time. If they put it out on the internet because other people are encouraging them to share, there's documented proof, and they might actually get what they deserve.
Again, evidence needed. By this exact same standard, merely the idea of our government as a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats who are just in it for the money is highly unhealthy for society. Therefore, political thought, and particularly political thought that is negative towards the current administration must be stamped out. Not to mention every movie that ever showed the violent overthrow of a despotic regime.
People either can or can't separate fantasy from reality. Those who can are not encouraged to rape children after seeing kiddie porn any more than they are encouraged to mow down their coworkers after watching a violent movie or to beat their wives after watching the Honeymooners.
*shrugs* Statistically, the worst gay bashers have a high probability of coming out. I wonder if the same also applies for the worst pedo bashers. Just saying.
And eventually, the Morlocks will rise up and eat those Eloi. I've heard this story before>.
I think they might have confused water (aqua) with royal water (aqua regia).
Let me correct that slightly. When it bubbles down into the lower end models, that's how it will be used. For now, it's a proof of concept.
As others have mentioned there is no way to prove that a photo has not been doctored so long as it is possible to doctor it, compensate for lens distortion, print the photo out, and take a picture of the picture. Therefore, using this for tamper detection would inherently be prima facie worthless even if DRM weren't a fundamentally unsolvable problem.
That said, you're all missing the primary purpose of this image authentication. It's not to prove that a photo has not been doctored. It is to prove with a reasonable degree of certainty that the photo was taken with a particular camera. For kiddie porn, photos of crimes being committed, etc., that's a valuable piece of information.
Unless somebody caught producing such pictures can show reasonable cause to believe that somebody cracked his/her camera and stole the key, the mere existence of a verified signature is close enough to airtight to get a conviction. By contrast, previous methods (a serial number embedded in an EXIF tag) are too trivial to fake.
So you see, it's not about proving that an image has not been altered, but rather proving that the camera in question took the photo, providing evidence that its owner was almost certainly at the scene of the crime.
Dear NewYorkCity3411,
Your friend, IHateNewYork7682, has sent you a Pepsi. To redeem your free Pepsi, go to any Pepsi vending machine on reka Amderma, in Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Russia.
This case didn't actually rule that you can't file a lawsuit. It just ruled that California's blanket prohibition on those clauses was illegal. Not that this makes the decision any less unAmerican, but it isn't as bad as it sounds.
In practice, because these companies refuse to actually negotiate the terms of their contracts, they are usually considered contracts of adhesion, and as such, mandatory arbitration clauses should be unenforceable anyway. The dirty little exception is if the binding arbitration rule has an opt-out clause that allows you to opt out of the binding arbitration clause, in which case you *must* do so or your claim of adhesion will fall flat.
Either way, the right people to complain to are not the justices, but rather your congresspeople. Demand that they overturn the Federal Arbitration Act. That's the only reason these companies are able to pull this crap. Binding arbitration is almost invariably abused to avoid liability when liability legitimately should exist, and as such, binding arbitration clauses should be made illegal nationwide.
Oh, and cancel your AT&T service, then tell them why.
Clarence Thomas took office under the other Bush. The mistake was saying eight years of Bush rather than twelve. Between Reagan and the two Bush administrations, Republican presidents have placed five of the nine sitting justices, and I think that's what the original poster was getting at.
I vote that we just abolish the contraction form of both words. If everyone just started writing out "they are" and "it is", then the contraction would go away and there wouldn't be as much confusion.
And if we wanted to completely eliminate the confusion, we could always change the word "there" to "thar". We could start one "talk like a pirate day", and then just keep doing it.
Although most ISPs do block source-routed traffic, that doesn't mean it will always fail, and that was my point. It only takes one lucky route through one lucky ISP to one unpatched Windows Server 2003 box in some FBI agent's office to bring down a s***storm on somebody.
Also, I just realized, much to my amusement, that neither source routing nor BGP/RIP tricks are even needed if you're unlucky enough to use a semi-shared WAN like cable modem users do. A cable modem user could pretty much spoof traffic for anybody within a few block radius with impunity. (Unless you're using DOCSIS 3.0 hardware, your data is encrypted with 56-bit DES, which is so weak that you could probably crack it in real time with an iPhone app.)
An IP address is a terrible way to identify somebody.
Many TCP/IP stacks do use the source route for replies.
See http://www.synacklabs.net/OOB/LSR.html
In particular, older versions of Windows respect the source route in their replies. (I'm not sure about current versions—this article is somewhat old.)
Corporations aren't really owned by people. Stocks are effectively just a loan to a corporation in exchange for the expectation that the company might eventually buy back those shares or pay dividends. If you truly owned a portion of the corporation as you would in a partnership, you would still own a portion of it after a corporation files for bankruptcy instead of losing everything when they shift their assets into a holding company and dissolve the old company at a loss.
Further, even to the extent that the "owners" are in charge, the only way they can change the way a corporation is run is by throwing out the board in the hopes that maybe the new board might replace the CEO. It's a bit like voting for new congressmen in the hopes that they might throw out the head of Homeland Security. Sure, it might happen, but your odds of winning the lottery are better.
Well, cluck moo, too.
:-D