The problem with that overly narrow analysis is that gasoline-powered cars produce exhaust that clings to the ground in heavily populated areas that are often down in a valley, whereas coal-electric cars produce exhaust that clings to the ground and spreads out near a coal plant that is probably out in the middle of an unpopulated salt flat. Sure, if your only concern is the environment as a whole, that doesn't make any difference, but if you're looking at it from a human health perspective, the EVs are much, much, much cleaner.
Yeah, but when is the last time you actually saw non-switched ethernet in the real world, though? I fried my last legacy 10-base-T hub about eight years ago and couldn't buy anything non-switched to replace it even way back then.
True, and this being Wi-Fi, that's a very real problem. I was thinking more of wired ethernet when I made that comment. This is one reason why for high density Wi-Fi coverage areas, you should generally reduce the transmit power to limit the range of the radio and use more radios.
Actually, I think it's great. Symantec builds lousy, overpriced products, Verisign sells insufficiently verified, overpriced EV certificates. It's a match made in heaven. Better yet, we only have to hate one company instead of two, because what's left of Verisign should be mostly harmless.
The proper term is "grey market", not "black market". Goods on the black market are either illegally obtained (stolen), illegally distributed, or just plain illegal. The term "grey market" covers goods hat are purchased legally, but are distributed into countries where they were not sold originally.
So that students can find each other's iTunes libraries, among other things. You may not realize it, but mDNS plays a pretty significant role in college dorm life.
They seem to propose a system where "normal" scripting languages can switch over to a reduced feature fall-back solution when there are not enough system resources available on a system to run the full scripting environment.
How did you get that out of this:
(A) the at least one host computer mikrocontrollerbasierten
carried out,
(1.1) is limited in its resources and
(1.2) communicates with a client,
(2) with the following steps:
(2.1) of the client request data is received at the master computer,
(2.2) from the request data, request parameters are extracted,
(2.3) the request parameters are mapped by a control module to a command interface module of a master computer,
(2.3.1) where the interface module's software architecture-specific,
(2.4) the structured document is generated dynamically
(2.4.1) using at least one presentation document contained calls to staff members,,
(2.5) while the employee instructions are extracted by the interface module and mapped to a corresponding instruction set of the interface module,
(2.5.1) where the instruction is limited to a section of employees,
(2.6) the instructions
(2.6.1) are executed with the assistance of the depicted request parameters in a runtime environment of the control module and
(2.6.2) define the content after the execution and / or structure of the structured document
(2.7), the dynamically generated structured document is transmitted to the client.
I read that as being basic CGi with authentication and validation.... Of course, it doesn't help that the actual text of the patent does not appear to be available online anywhere.
It's pretty much a given that there's prior art. It's a patent on a server dynamically generating markup. They filed a patent in 2002 for what amounts to a basic template-driven C-based CGI script similar to the ones I and thousands of other people were writing way back in the 1990s.
Now granted, I couldn't find any online way to view the full patent text, so there might be something more to it, but from the way the ruling describes it, I'd be surprised if nobody else had done something similar more than a decade before that patent application.
Heck, if the court's interpretation of what the patent covers is correct, the patent would be violated by Gopher/WAIS. The ANSI standard behind that dates back to the 1970s.
Well, maybe, but how can you determine just by looking at a photo or video that the people involved are not two consenting adult actors/actresses? I think that was the point of the GP's question.
I mean sure, if they actually say, "I put on my robe and wizard hat," you can safely assume they're role playing, but....
I'm assuming you would agree that movies depicting gang killings are expression, right? Take West Side Story, for example. What about movies that are depictions of actual gang killings, e.g. Freedom Writers? As soon as you get into dramatizations of real-life murders, the line rapidly blurs. So as long as the actual dead body isn't shown, you're okay with it. But what about photos of DUI victims in MADD videos? Is that okay? If so, how is that different? If not, how is that not expression?
At what point do depictions of murder victims become "not okay"? There really isn't a clear line. What makes child porn special is that it causes irreparable psychological harm to the (still-living) victim, and that's why disseminating it is illegal. This, of course, assumes that there is an actual child victim. In cases where it is faked (either through adult actors/actresses or through CGI), that's a much harder argument to make.
Just a demonstration of why the most important thing about data preservation is choosing the right technology: I went to Wendy's last week and found out the hard way that they use thermal paper to print their receipts. By the time I got to where you're going, the heat from the food had turned my receipt into a charcoal-grey blob with indistinct writing....
Acid-free paper goes a long way, but ultimately they need to put acid-free paper maps TO the vault all over the place, paint them on sides of buildings, etc. so that if civilization collapses, somebody millennia from now will be able to find the vault. Either that or they need to bury it near a population center so that people will actually be LOOKING for it. This, of course, assumes that they expect civilization to collapse. If they don't, then there's really no point to doing any of this.
It's not like we can't find hardware to read legacy digital media from the late 1970s or early 1980s on. The reason it's hard to find stuff before that is because A. stuff wasn't standardized before that point, and B. it wasn't prevalent enough. Thus, out of the triple-digit instances of a particular model of mainframe tape drive, a single-digit number of them might still be functional, and that single-digit number might be zero. When you have hardware that was built in the millions of units, this is not nearly as common a problem. Also, now that data formats have largely converged to a set of broadly deployed standards, chances are, any records of value are periodically carried forward to newer hardware anyway, making this largely moot. The exceptions are mostly government jobs.:-)
Okay, fair enough. I've fallen victim to an often-repeated urban legend about the oscillating frequency of water. Now that I think about it, that really didn't make much sense.
The point I was trying to make (and should have stopped with) was that no microwave oven on the planet produces THz frequencies. They're typically 900 MHz or 2.4 GHz.
Legally, there shouldn't be anything you can do. They have already been tried and sentenced for the crime. Now if they admit to another crime, then they should be tried for that second crime, and if convicted, sentenced to a longer term. Otherwise, anything else is a rather blatant violation of two different parts of the fifth amendment---the right to a trial by your peers (being held indefinitely without a new trial), and double jeopardy (having your sentence changed outside the deliberately limited scope of an appeal under 18 U.S.C. 3742(b)).
Guess we can add the fifth amendment to the list of amendments that our current government doesn't respect right alongside the first, second, and fourth.
This is the first time in my entire life I've actually agreed with any dissenting opinion written by Thomas or Scalia. This was a dissent by both of them. Suddenly my feet feel very cold.
Huh? The post I replied to said that 4 hours in a plane was like a month on the ground, when in reality it is only like 5 days on the ground. How was the original statement not an exaggeration of the increased risk?
There are a number of scientists who disagree with you. Either way, this is the sort of thing that should have been studied further BEFORE rolling out these things to hundreds of airports.
And even if it proves not to be harmful, at least that would have delayed this privacy-invading absurdity a few more years.
Who cares? Radiation exposure is cumulative. And high altitude flying is basically unavoidable; these stupid little machines aren't.
Saying that it doesn't matter because you're exposed to more of it in your daily life is like saying that picking up a possibly-loaded revolver, putting it up to your head, spinning the cylinder, and pulling the trigger on Cinco de Mayo is not dangerous because people are shooting guns up in the air anyway and one of those bullets might hit you. What matters is not the million times that the unavoidable background radiation misses everything and causes no irreparable damage. What matters is the one time that the radiation does cause damage. Thus, unnecessarily increasing that risk is stupidity, pure and simple, no matter how little you might be increasing it.
Deliberate ionizing radiation exposure should NEVER be allowed for non-medical purposes, and even then, should be targeted to a single area of the body, not spread across your entire person.
Everywhere else but the U.K., you have a fundamental right to be hand searched. That's why I've decided that instead of going through Heathrow like I usually do, for future trips to Europe, I'll be flying through Charles de Gaulle instead.
For everyone who thinks U.S. air travel policies are absurd, the U.S. allows you to request a manual search. Only the U.K. is so fascist that they will not allow hand searches.
Quit exaggerating. The background radiation level doubles every 6,000 feet, so an entire 24-hour day at 30,000 feet is like a month on the ground. A four hour flight is roughly the equivalent of 5 days on the ground.
Also, remember that radiation exposure is considered cumulative. There is no safe level of radiation exposure. The more you are exposed to, the greater your risk of death, period. Thus, it is utterly irrelevant whether the backscatter machine only adds... say a tenth as much radiation as the rest of the flight. That's still 10% more than you would have gotten otherwise. (And yes, I pulled that number out of thin air solely for example purposes.)
Besides, if you need to get somewhere quickly, the radiation absorbed while flying is an unavoidable risk. The radiation from backscatter machines isn't. It's like the worry about CT scans. Do they increase cancer risk? Yes. Are they sometimes medically necessary? Also yes. So the risk outweighs the damage when they are medically necessary, but nobody in their right minds would argue that everyone admitted to the hospital should get a full-body CT scan just in case one of them has something wrong. (I know we're talking about several orders of magnitude difference in dosage here, but the principle is still the same.)
didnt these types of scanners get covered a few months ago with negative side effects from a scientific study proclaiming evidence the radiation can unzip DNA?
No, that's millimeter wave, which is the other type of full body scanner. Both backscatter X-ray and millimeter wave scanners cause cancer, they just do it in different ways.
Either way, you won't see me setting foot anywhere NEAR one of those scanners. If enough people demand to be hand searched that it brings air travel to a grinding halt, maybe this bullshit will stop.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with that overly narrow analysis is that gasoline-powered cars produce exhaust that clings to the ground in heavily populated areas that are often down in a valley, whereas coal-electric cars produce exhaust that clings to the ground and spreads out near a coal plant that is probably out in the middle of an unpopulated salt flat. Sure, if your only concern is the environment as a whole, that doesn't make any difference, but if you're looking at it from a human health perspective, the EVs are much, much, much cleaner.
I meant non-switched wired ethernet. Smart aleck. :-)
Yeah, but when is the last time you actually saw non-switched ethernet in the real world, though? I fried my last legacy 10-base-T hub about eight years ago and couldn't buy anything non-switched to replace it even way back then.
True, and this being Wi-Fi, that's a very real problem. I was thinking more of wired ethernet when I made that comment. This is one reason why for high density Wi-Fi coverage areas, you should generally reduce the transmit power to limit the range of the radio and use more radios.
Actually, I think it's great. Symantec builds lousy, overpriced products, Verisign sells insufficiently verified, overpriced EV certificates. It's a match made in heaven. Better yet, we only have to hate one company instead of two, because what's left of Verisign should be mostly harmless.
That went out the door with the USA PATRIOT act. Now we're guilty, period.
The proper term is "grey market", not "black market". Goods on the black market are either illegally obtained (stolen), illegally distributed, or just plain illegal. The term "grey market" covers goods hat are purchased legally, but are distributed into countries where they were not sold originally.
So that students can find each other's iTunes libraries, among other things. You may not realize it, but mDNS plays a pretty significant role in college dorm life.
At an average of 50-60 bytes apiece, that's a total of a whopping 47 kbps, or 0.0047% of capacity. Yes, that's an acceptable price.
How did you get that out of this:
I read that as being basic CGi with authentication and validation.... Of course, it doesn't help that the actual text of the patent does not appear to be available online anywhere.
It's pretty much a given that there's prior art. It's a patent on a server dynamically generating markup. They filed a patent in 2002 for what amounts to a basic template-driven C-based CGI script similar to the ones I and thousands of other people were writing way back in the 1990s.
Now granted, I couldn't find any online way to view the full patent text, so there might be something more to it, but from the way the ruling describes it, I'd be surprised if nobody else had done something similar more than a decade before that patent application.
Heck, if the court's interpretation of what the patent covers is correct, the patent would be violated by Gopher/WAIS. The ANSI standard behind that dates back to the 1970s.
This patent is beyond laughable.
Well, maybe, but how can you determine just by looking at a photo or video that the people involved are not two consenting adult actors/actresses? I think that was the point of the GP's question.
I mean sure, if they actually say, "I put on my robe and wizard hat," you can safely assume they're role playing, but....
I'm assuming you would agree that movies depicting gang killings are expression, right? Take West Side Story, for example. What about movies that are depictions of actual gang killings, e.g. Freedom Writers? As soon as you get into dramatizations of real-life murders, the line rapidly blurs. So as long as the actual dead body isn't shown, you're okay with it. But what about photos of DUI victims in MADD videos? Is that okay? If so, how is that different? If not, how is that not expression?
At what point do depictions of murder victims become "not okay"? There really isn't a clear line. What makes child porn special is that it causes irreparable psychological harm to the (still-living) victim, and that's why disseminating it is illegal. This, of course, assumes that there is an actual child victim. In cases where it is faked (either through adult actors/actresses or through CGI), that's a much harder argument to make.
Err... by the time I got to where I was going.... This is what happens when you completely rewrite a sentence one too many times.
Just a demonstration of why the most important thing about data preservation is choosing the right technology: I went to Wendy's last week and found out the hard way that they use thermal paper to print their receipts. By the time I got to where you're going, the heat from the food had turned my receipt into a charcoal-grey blob with indistinct writing....
Acid-free paper goes a long way, but ultimately they need to put acid-free paper maps TO the vault all over the place, paint them on sides of buildings, etc. so that if civilization collapses, somebody millennia from now will be able to find the vault. Either that or they need to bury it near a population center so that people will actually be LOOKING for it. This, of course, assumes that they expect civilization to collapse. If they don't, then there's really no point to doing any of this.
It's not like we can't find hardware to read legacy digital media from the late 1970s or early 1980s on. The reason it's hard to find stuff before that is because A. stuff wasn't standardized before that point, and B. it wasn't prevalent enough. Thus, out of the triple-digit instances of a particular model of mainframe tape drive, a single-digit number of them might still be functional, and that single-digit number might be zero. When you have hardware that was built in the millions of units, this is not nearly as common a problem. Also, now that data formats have largely converged to a set of broadly deployed standards, chances are, any records of value are periodically carried forward to newer hardware anyway, making this largely moot. The exceptions are mostly government jobs. :-)
Okay, fair enough. I've fallen victim to an often-repeated urban legend about the oscillating frequency of water. Now that I think about it, that really didn't make much sense.
The point I was trying to make (and should have stopped with) was that no microwave oven on the planet produces THz frequencies. They're typically 900 MHz or 2.4 GHz.
Legally, there shouldn't be anything you can do. They have already been tried and sentenced for the crime. Now if they admit to another crime, then they should be tried for that second crime, and if convicted, sentenced to a longer term. Otherwise, anything else is a rather blatant violation of two different parts of the fifth amendment---the right to a trial by your peers (being held indefinitely without a new trial), and double jeopardy (having your sentence changed outside the deliberately limited scope of an appeal under 18 U.S.C. 3742(b)).
Guess we can add the fifth amendment to the list of amendments that our current government doesn't respect right alongside the first, second, and fourth.
This is the first time in my entire life I've actually agreed with any dissenting opinion written by Thomas or Scalia. This was a dissent by both of them. Suddenly my feet feel very cold.
Huh? The post I replied to said that 4 hours in a plane was like a month on the ground, when in reality it is only like 5 days on the ground. How was the original statement not an exaggeration of the increased risk?
Microwave ovens are at 2.4 GHz, the oscillating frequency of a water molecule. That's why they heat things.
Yes, there's THz background radiation, but it is not used by much in terms of man-made equipment.
There are a number of scientists who disagree with you. Either way, this is the sort of thing that should have been studied further BEFORE rolling out these things to hundreds of airports.
And even if it proves not to be harmful, at least that would have delayed this privacy-invading absurdity a few more years.
Who cares? Radiation exposure is cumulative. And high altitude flying is basically unavoidable; these stupid little machines aren't.
Saying that it doesn't matter because you're exposed to more of it in your daily life is like saying that picking up a possibly-loaded revolver, putting it up to your head, spinning the cylinder, and pulling the trigger on Cinco de Mayo is not dangerous because people are shooting guns up in the air anyway and one of those bullets might hit you. What matters is not the million times that the unavoidable background radiation misses everything and causes no irreparable damage. What matters is the one time that the radiation does cause damage. Thus, unnecessarily increasing that risk is stupidity, pure and simple, no matter how little you might be increasing it.
Deliberate ionizing radiation exposure should NEVER be allowed for non-medical purposes, and even then, should be targeted to a single area of the body, not spread across your entire person.
In the U.K.
Everywhere else but the U.K., you have a fundamental right to be hand searched. That's why I've decided that instead of going through Heathrow like I usually do, for future trips to Europe, I'll be flying through Charles de Gaulle instead.
For everyone who thinks U.S. air travel policies are absurd, the U.S. allows you to request a manual search. Only the U.K. is so fascist that they will not allow hand searches.
Quit exaggerating. The background radiation level doubles every 6,000 feet, so an entire 24-hour day at 30,000 feet is like a month on the ground. A four hour flight is roughly the equivalent of 5 days on the ground.
Also, remember that radiation exposure is considered cumulative. There is no safe level of radiation exposure. The more you are exposed to, the greater your risk of death, period. Thus, it is utterly irrelevant whether the backscatter machine only adds... say a tenth as much radiation as the rest of the flight. That's still 10% more than you would have gotten otherwise. (And yes, I pulled that number out of thin air solely for example purposes.)
Besides, if you need to get somewhere quickly, the radiation absorbed while flying is an unavoidable risk. The radiation from backscatter machines isn't. It's like the worry about CT scans. Do they increase cancer risk? Yes. Are they sometimes medically necessary? Also yes. So the risk outweighs the damage when they are medically necessary, but nobody in their right minds would argue that everyone admitted to the hospital should get a full-body CT scan just in case one of them has something wrong. (I know we're talking about several orders of magnitude difference in dosage here, but the principle is still the same.)
No, that's millimeter wave, which is the other type of full body scanner. Both backscatter X-ray and millimeter wave scanners cause cancer, they just do it in different ways.
Either way, you won't see me setting foot anywhere NEAR one of those scanners. If enough people demand to be hand searched that it brings air travel to a grinding halt, maybe this bullshit will stop.