So far all six people I've 'converted' (same demographic as GP) over the last couple of years keep telling me that it was the single best computer related purchase they've ever made.
That being said, I only recommend them to people that are not going to have a problem in the first place - ie. I don't recommend them to hard core gamers, or people with specific Windows-only specialist software needs.
The total number of hours I spend resolving family/friends IT issues has plummetted to the point where it's actually enjoyable.
I'm not a GPS expert, but I believe the GPS spoofers they speak of couldn't push the navigation fix off by hundreds of meters unless the GPS receiver wasn't receiving any other satellites. If a spoofer was active, it would degrade the GPS receivers's own calculated navigational accuracy. At some relatively low point, probably measured in the single digit meters, an aviation certified GPS receiver would treat it as a navigation fix lost and all normal alternative safety procedures would apply.
This is correct. With a standard random noise or continuous wave jammer the GPS will just degrade accuracy until it stops working - but it knows that the accuracy is bad and the DOP (dillution of precision) increases. This DOP can be used by the rest of the system to determine how accurate the GPS position information is.
I didn't follow the difference you think between a failover system that can route around obvious jamming, vs a system that reliably decides a signal input is unreliable.
I didn't mean the system could actually route around the jamming. Just that the decision to route data from other systems (eg. dead reckoning, radar, IRU, etc) could better be made if it always knew that the information was unreliable. Where a 'dumb' jammer is used, the determination is easy, but when the 'jammer' is designed to provide falsified positioning information, this process becomes much harder. Obviously once you have half a dozen independant/orthoganal nav systems on board, it is not that difficult to detect one or two slightly errant systems.
However, if you have only two systems (or more systems where some systems share a common susceptibility), you may know that something somewhere is wrong, but you don't know which system to trust. If the GPS system came up saying that it has failed, well you know that you definitely can't rely on it, but may still be able to rely on the altimeter. Obviously, there is always the old eye-ball out the window. But in this day and age, flying without any instruments at all is generally considered to be flying blind, and otherwise would be the choice of last resort.
It's sort of like the old adage that a man with one watch always knows what time it is, whereas a man with two is never quite sure.
The situation brought up in the article and this thread isn't even the most concerning problem in my opinion for NextGen navigation. The real problem that may come back to bite us in the butt is the transponders on the plane. In a pure NextGen system, there is no radar on the ground that can independently verify planes are where they say they are. Only the aircraft's onboard transponder reports its location to air traffic control computers. There is nothing to prevent a rogue actor from spoofing many thousands of airplanes airborne in a small area (in effect DDoSing the system) or creating a transponder that misrepresents where the aircraft really is.
I agree with you 100%. Hopefully, this is properly considered when they start implementing any NextGen systems.
It's not hard to imagine what would happen if some evil terrorist acquired a device that didn't just randomly jam the signal, but fed it a stream of seemingly real coordinates to push the navigation system a couple of hundred metres off course (for example in the direction of the airport terminal). Or, even more subtly, coordinates to make it look like the ground is 20 metres lower than it really is.
This is where it is critical for a pilot (or machine vision system) to be verifying the data from the other external transponders and overriding anything that is clearly out-of-whack.
To improve the present situation, GPS should be augmented to provide some kind of cryptographic authentication (which is how the secondary military signal works). It is far easier to create a failover system that can 'route around' obvious failure/jamming, than to create one that has to reliably decide that a signal input has become unreliable while avoiding false positives.
Actually, the reason for encrypting the signal is to circumvent the attack where a well funded enemy makes an intelligent jammer that emits a signal pushing the real coordinates just a little off path. Less sophisticated jammers can easily be detected and the GPS can rely on dead-reckoning, but it is much harder to detect clever active systems. By encrypting the signal, the system will naturally be resistant to this attack - while as an added bonus stop the enemy from using the system for its own location purposes.
Before they turned it off, the GPS satellites added an intentional XYZ offset signal into the public stream called 'selective availability'. The purpose of this signal was to keep public (and by extension, 'enemy') receivers from being accurate enough to do as you're suggesting.
most are just going to chuck it in the bin and buy a new one once the battery starts losing capacity.
Dude, I know what you mean! I just ordered a six-pack of iPhone4s, because after a couple of months the battery life was down by a couple of percent. Now I can just toss the old one into the trash, pop open a fresh box, restore my settings, and be up and running before you can say "Jack Robinson".
Dude, what are you talking about? Now while I'm taking a massive dump on the porcelain throne, I'll not only be able to browse the web, but also get some Facetime with friends and family.
Wish they would go for some type of fractal/vector/postscript type system:( In this day and age, we should stop relying on specific resolutions.
iOS does support vector scaled drawings, widgets, images and obviously fonts.
However, it's up to the developer whether or not to use them. In many cases, it's far easier to pre-render an image/icon/feature in a raster image editor like Photoshop until you're happy with how it looks on-screen than to have it professionally re-drawn in a vector drawing package. Layering raster images, icons, and features with alpha blending is very simple to do and for small areas is far more efficient than trying to design an image that will still look good when scaled to higher resolutions.
Once screens are all 'retina' style displays where the pixels are effectively no longer distinguishable, then rescaling screens to arbitrary non-integer values becomes far less aesthetically problematic. But, it also means that developers/graphics artists will need to spend more time and effort on detail where it could have otherwise been 'hidden' beneath the inherent pixellation of a lower resolution display.
I wonder why they outsourced their controller chip, previous incarnations used an Intel controller.
Marvell acquired some of Intel's sub-divisions (including their wireless and embedded groups) - this happened a couple of years ago when Intel decided to focus heavily on their main processor and support chipset lineup. Given that, there is very likely a tight integration between the two companies, so no real reason for Intel to duplicate work and design their own controller chip.
I've only run into a patent as an obstacle once. I was working on a program to parse financial statements automatically, and ran into a Price Waterhouse patent on how to resolve ambiguities about what rows combine to totals in other rows. (Published financial statements are often ambiguous in this regard.) So I gave up on that project; I wasn't the first to have the idea.
I hear the latter statement all the time. The implementation of a relatively simple core idea is usually implemented in a variety of ways, where some of those implementations are great, and others never catch on. This includes ideas that have been patented and are obvious enough that they are parallel invented by numerous other people. You'd think that each original implementation would be fine, but they all still fall prey to the overly broad terms of the core idea patent. So none of these people can safely bring their products to market (or are financially crippled in the process).
If you have a fat wallet and deep pockets, this is far less of a problem. However, the majority of clever innovations come from people that can't afford the fight.
-A patent does not give freedom to operate, it only gives the right to exclude. For example if you patent A, and then I patent B, but B is a subset or derivative of A, I can't actually bring B to market because A blocks me, but the holder of A can't do it either because B blocks it. This ends up stifling innovation. To correct this problem requires an entire re-think of the rights given to patent holders.
This is a huge problem even if you don't intend to ever patent your original idea.
I work with many start up companies, and one huge barrier to entry is the fear of being sued out of business for something that should never have been allowed a patent. I've seen so many guys fold because as they move into the product release cycle, a legal team from a big company sends them a letter threatening an injunction and a lawsuit. Most of these guys can't afford to fight it, so they just put their ideas away or sell what they can for pennies on the dollar to a larger company that might be able to make use of it.
i think that verifying via SMS (for those with phone #'s associated with the account) would be a good feature. its gotten a lot harder to spoof ANI at the carrier level, and would at least provide that much more pain for those who are trying to get into your account.
And as a secondary bonus for FB, this also encourages the user to enter a real phone number which can later be sold to the highest bidder.
They should take a cue from Jobs and release documents with minor changes to each party. When one of the documents is leaked, it will be quite easy to determine who is doing the leaking.
Doesn't work so well when 2 million+ people have access to the 'secret' information.
Whenever I see the word 'novel' in an article title or summary, it is almost always followed by something that is being aimed towards the goal of obtaining a patent. And I agree with you completely that there is an endless sea of articles that just rehash pre-existing ideas. And even more annoyingly, they're written in such a way that it takes a while before you realise that what they are trying to say is really just a confused rehash of old established ideas.
This would be annoying and maybe funny in some cases if the patent office wasn't so ready and willing to award patents to most of these non-novel ideas. And these Ideas are often heavily sold by the legal/marketing team as 'novel' (but in fact only seem novel to people inexperienced with the breadth of prior art in the field). Some companies are even self-delusional where individuals aren't allowed to admit that an idea is not truly 'novel' - even to the point where the scientific researchers start to believe their own misconception.
Unfortunately, the cost of defending multiple law suits in the presence of this bogosity is a huge detractor from true innovation when a company can go out of business trying to pay the lawyers just to defend itself.
Would you rather your customers buy the 5 cents per pill option or the 5 dollar per pill option? The first option is there to keep your name in the good books, the second is there to make money.
If no one in the court had defined the intricacies of the legal terms to the jury, then the jurors will all be just assuming whatever definition their life experience (ie. TV) had previously instilled.
I understand what you're trying to say, but your example fails to show why either assuming in a vacuum or assuming due to poor research are any different.
Also, a Juror has the option of judging the justice/injustice of the law as much as they have of judging the facts of the case. If a Juror does not understand the exact legal definition of something they have been charged to decide against, then the court has failed in its duty to fairly apply the law. I expect that it would be grounds for appeal if it came out later that the Jury was forced to guess at what guilt/innocence entailed in making their decision.
Of course, any Juror has the option of passing notes to the judge to have questions answered. And these questions are answered in the presence of the whole court so counsel on both sides have the ability to object or further explain. In many cases, external research can have the benefit of opening the Juror's mind to come up with insightful questions that they wouldn't have otherwise thought to ask.
I have acted as a juror a number of times, and in all cases bar one, either the defence lawyer or the prosecutor ignored far too many areas of both law and fact that left the jury guessing. In all cases, the Jury asked numerous questions to the Judge. And in all cases, there was at least one person on the Jury with what could be considered some small amount of 'expert or special knowledge'. Could these people completely forget everything they knew when making a decision? No. Were they able to explain things to the other jurors to help everyone's overall understanding? Absolutely. Could that have led to a mistrial? Possibly. But, it is unreasonable to disallow Juror's from speaking to each other, and few people have the mental ability to completely isolate their reasoning from being biased by past experience/knowledge - the same is true for topics they are likely to discuss during jury deliberation.
If you're on a Jury and someone seems to be introducing a line of reasoning that is based on their own expert knowledge (whether due to years of experience or due to some online research from the night before), then it might be in your interest to have some elements of that line of reasoning posed to the court as a series of questions. This gives the entire court a chance to chime in on the topic. And more importantly, gives everyone else a chance to argue against assumptions made based on something a juror saw on an episode of CSI or other TV crime show.
So true. But, that doesn't explain why bombs aren't going off around the country in train stations, public buildings, under bridges, etc. All of these are easy unsecured targets by comparison. And the whole "crashing aeroplanes is far more spectacular" argument would only be true if for some reason every terrorist was bent on using only that attack vector at the exclusion of all else.
No one here appears to be recommending that they remove all security from airports, they are just saying be reasonable about it in proportion to the likelihood and magnitude of an incident.
Reinforced cockpit door. Tick. Aware public. Tick. Baggage through x-ray to check for guns and large explosives. Tick. Metal detectors to detect large metal items like guns. Tick. Non intrusive explosive detectors to detect excessive quantities of explosive chemicals. Tick.
Naked scanners, pat downs; banning liquids, nail clippers, knives, scissors, etc. WTF?
Does the world seem more peaceful to you now? I mean, damaging diplomatic processes between China and North Korea when NK and SK are at the verge of war that would cause death on a scale not seen in decades?
Interestingly, the media doesn't seem to have reported any breakdown in any of these relationships. So your assertion that the diplomatic processes between China and NK has been damaged is as much speculation as the assertion that their diplomatic process has improved by removing any subterfuge.
As for qualifying for a Nobel peace prize, it could take a while to find out, and it's possible that we may never know. If a random diplomatic break down does occur it is highly likely that it will be blamed on Wikileaks whether or not they were the direct cause or even a remote influence.
Then you were right and it probably is worthy of a patent.
Nothing says it can't ever be done (although in re-reading my post I may have implied that), it just gets harder as the number of 'eyes' increases and/or the angle of separation between individual eyes gets tighter. Current offerings in this domain are currently very unimpressive.
Their method needs to track the location of the viewers' eyes, so in 3D Apple, TV watches you.
That should be _viewer's_ not _viewers'_. This may seem like a subtle distinction, but the latter implies a significant breakthrough in both physics and technology.
If eye-tracking is required for a 3D system to work, then only a single viewer per screen can be catered for.
The advantage of systems that use 3D glasses is that any number of viewers can watch the image at the same time.
Oh wait... You were going for the Soviet Russia angle. As you were.
People, wake up - there are significant problems running the current, well compacted address space. Things will only get worse when address space becomes extremely sparse and, for all practical purposes, infinite.
With judicious allocation of IPv6 addresses this won't be a problem for a very long time.
Also, if it does become a looming issue in the far future, then some sort of periodic de-fragmentation of the upper address bits is always a possibility. Since the address space is so large, this could be done over a 20 year migration by slowly moving networks onto parallel 'de-fragged' address segments.
What damage has the USA suffered at the hands of wikileaks? I'll admit that many politicians and military personnel have been embarrassed, but that isn't an attack on the USA. It is an attack on politicians and military personnel who acted inappropriately. Revealing inappropriate behavior of government officers =/= attacking a government
Not only that, but how the US government reacts to these 'embarrassments' will determine which way their reputation goes. Although, by their reaction so far, I see them only making themselves look worse.
Couple things: But I am under the impression the claim of "innocence" was "I lacked the intent but still committed the act," which is not a defense to copyright infringement IIRC.
It goes beyond that. She is claiming that not only did she lack intent, but also the knowledge that she was committing the alleged 'offence'.
When using complex software that you don't really understand the workings of, it is probably correct to assume that you wouldn't know what laws you were violating (if any) when using that software.
Think of it like setting up an unsecured file share on your Windows PC and not realising that it is being broadcast across the public internet. And then when the RIAA comes knocking at your door asking for millions of dollars, you claim that you're not sharing anything. In fact, the file share may have been set up by someone else when installing your machine and you may not even know it exists. Either way, you were completely unaware that any 'sharing' was occurring until the RIAA lawyers showed you their evidence and someone explained it to you.
In all of the above examples, and that described in the summary, you are 'innocent' in the sense that you not only had no intent to share your files, but you also had no idea that this sharing was even occurring.
Slashdot Mirror
So far all six people I've 'converted' (same demographic as GP) over the last couple of years keep telling me that it was the single best computer related purchase they've ever made.
That being said, I only recommend them to people that are not going to have a problem in the first place - ie. I don't recommend them to hard core gamers, or people with specific Windows-only specialist software needs.
The total number of hours I spend resolving family/friends IT issues has plummetted to the point where it's actually enjoyable.
I'm not a GPS expert, but I believe the GPS spoofers they speak of couldn't push the navigation fix off by hundreds of meters unless the GPS receiver wasn't receiving any other satellites. If a spoofer was active, it would degrade the GPS receivers's own calculated navigational accuracy. At some relatively low point, probably measured in the single digit meters, an aviation certified GPS receiver would treat it as a navigation fix lost and all normal alternative safety procedures would apply.
This is correct. With a standard random noise or continuous wave jammer the GPS will just degrade accuracy until it stops working - but it knows that the accuracy is bad and the DOP (dillution of precision) increases. This DOP can be used by the rest of the system to determine how accurate the GPS position information is.
I didn't follow the difference you think between a failover system that can route around obvious jamming, vs a system that reliably decides a signal input is unreliable.
I didn't mean the system could actually route around the jamming. Just that the decision to route data from other systems (eg. dead reckoning, radar, IRU, etc) could better be made if it always knew that the information was unreliable. Where a 'dumb' jammer is used, the determination is easy, but when the 'jammer' is designed to provide falsified positioning information, this process becomes much harder. Obviously once you have half a dozen independant/orthoganal nav systems on board, it is not that difficult to detect one or two slightly errant systems.
However, if you have only two systems (or more systems where some systems share a common susceptibility), you may know that something somewhere is wrong, but you don't know which system to trust. If the GPS system came up saying that it has failed, well you know that you definitely can't rely on it, but may still be able to rely on the altimeter. Obviously, there is always the old eye-ball out the window. But in this day and age, flying without any instruments at all is generally considered to be flying blind, and otherwise would be the choice of last resort.
It's sort of like the old adage that a man with one watch always knows what time it is, whereas a man with two is never quite sure.
The situation brought up in the article and this thread isn't even the most concerning problem in my opinion for NextGen navigation. The real problem that may come back to bite us in the butt is the transponders on the plane. In a pure NextGen system, there is no radar on the ground that can independently verify planes are where they say they are. Only the aircraft's onboard transponder reports its location to air traffic control computers. There is nothing to prevent a rogue actor from spoofing many thousands of airplanes airborne in a small area (in effect DDoSing the system) or creating a transponder that misrepresents where the aircraft really is.
I agree with you 100%. Hopefully, this is properly considered when they start implementing any NextGen systems.
It's not hard to imagine what would happen if some evil terrorist acquired a device that didn't just randomly jam the signal, but fed it a stream of seemingly real coordinates to push the navigation system a couple of hundred metres off course (for example in the direction of the airport terminal). Or, even more subtly, coordinates to make it look like the ground is 20 metres lower than it really is.
This is where it is critical for a pilot (or machine vision system) to be verifying the data from the other external transponders and overriding anything that is clearly out-of-whack.
To improve the present situation, GPS should be augmented to provide some kind of cryptographic authentication (which is how the secondary military signal works). It is far easier to create a failover system that can 'route around' obvious failure/jamming, than to create one that has to reliably decide that a signal input has become unreliable while avoiding false positives.
Actually, the reason for encrypting the signal is to circumvent the attack where a well funded enemy makes an intelligent jammer that emits a signal pushing the real coordinates just a little off path. Less sophisticated jammers can easily be detected and the GPS can rely on dead-reckoning, but it is much harder to detect clever active systems. By encrypting the signal, the system will naturally be resistant to this attack - while as an added bonus stop the enemy from using the system for its own location purposes.
Before they turned it off, the GPS satellites added an intentional XYZ offset signal into the public stream called 'selective availability'. The purpose of this signal was to keep public (and by extension, 'enemy') receivers from being accurate enough to do as you're suggesting.
most are just going to chuck it in the bin and buy a new one once the battery starts losing capacity.
Dude, I know what you mean! I just ordered a six-pack of iPhone4s, because after a couple of months the battery life was down by a couple of percent. Now I can just toss the old one into the trash, pop open a fresh box, restore my settings, and be up and running before you can say "Jack Robinson".
Dude, what are you talking about? Now while I'm taking a massive dump on the porcelain throne, I'll not only be able to browse the web, but also get some Facetime with friends and family.
Wish they would go for some type of fractal/vector/postscript type system:( In this day and age, we should stop relying on specific resolutions.
iOS does support vector scaled drawings, widgets, images and obviously fonts.
However, it's up to the developer whether or not to use them. In many cases, it's far easier to pre-render an image/icon/feature in a raster image editor like Photoshop until you're happy with how it looks on-screen than to have it professionally re-drawn in a vector drawing package. Layering raster images, icons, and features with alpha blending is very simple to do and for small areas is far more efficient than trying to design an image that will still look good when scaled to higher resolutions.
Once screens are all 'retina' style displays where the pixels are effectively no longer distinguishable, then rescaling screens to arbitrary non-integer values becomes far less aesthetically problematic. But, it also means that developers/graphics artists will need to spend more time and effort on detail where it could have otherwise been 'hidden' beneath the inherent pixellation of a lower resolution display.
I wonder why they outsourced their controller chip, previous incarnations used an Intel controller.
Marvell acquired some of Intel's sub-divisions (including their wireless and embedded groups) - this happened a couple of years ago when Intel decided to focus heavily on their main processor and support chipset lineup. Given that, there is very likely a tight integration between the two companies, so no real reason for Intel to duplicate work and design their own controller chip.
I've only run into a patent as an obstacle once. I was working on a program to parse financial statements automatically, and ran into a Price Waterhouse patent on how to resolve ambiguities about what rows combine to totals in other rows. (Published financial statements are often ambiguous in this regard.) So I gave up on that project; I wasn't the first to have the idea.
I hear the latter statement all the time. The implementation of a relatively simple core idea is usually implemented in a variety of ways, where some of those implementations are great, and others never catch on. This includes ideas that have been patented and are obvious enough that they are parallel invented by numerous other people. You'd think that each original implementation would be fine, but they all still fall prey to the overly broad terms of the core idea patent. So none of these people can safely bring their products to market (or are financially crippled in the process).
If you have a fat wallet and deep pockets, this is far less of a problem. However, the majority of clever innovations come from people that can't afford the fight.
-A patent does not give freedom to operate, it only gives the right to exclude. For example if you patent A, and then I patent B, but B is a subset or derivative of A, I can't actually bring B to market because A blocks me, but the holder of A can't do it either because B blocks it. This ends up stifling innovation. To correct this problem requires an entire re-think of the rights given to patent holders.
This is a huge problem even if you don't intend to ever patent your original idea.
I work with many start up companies, and one huge barrier to entry is the fear of being sued out of business for something that should never have been allowed a patent. I've seen so many guys fold because as they move into the product release cycle, a legal team from a big company sends them a letter threatening an injunction and a lawsuit. Most of these guys can't afford to fight it, so they just put their ideas away or sell what they can for pennies on the dollar to a larger company that might be able to make use of it.
And as such, they now know to protect their networks with an appropriate 'air-gap' where critical infrastructure is concerned.
i think that verifying via SMS (for those with phone #'s associated with the account) would be a good feature. its gotten a lot harder to spoof ANI at the carrier level, and would at least provide that much more pain for those who are trying to get into your account.
And as a secondary bonus for FB, this also encourages the user to enter a real phone number which can later be sold to the highest bidder.
They should take a cue from Jobs and release documents with minor changes to each party. When one of the documents is leaked, it will be quite easy to determine who is doing the leaking.
Doesn't work so well when 2 million+ people have access to the 'secret' information.
Whenever I see the word 'novel' in an article title or summary, it is almost always followed by something that is being aimed towards the goal of obtaining a patent. And I agree with you completely that there is an endless sea of articles that just rehash pre-existing ideas. And even more annoyingly, they're written in such a way that it takes a while before you realise that what they are trying to say is really just a confused rehash of old established ideas.
This would be annoying and maybe funny in some cases if the patent office wasn't so ready and willing to award patents to most of these non-novel ideas. And these Ideas are often heavily sold by the legal/marketing team as 'novel' (but in fact only seem novel to people inexperienced with the breadth of prior art in the field). Some companies are even self-delusional where individuals aren't allowed to admit that an idea is not truly 'novel' - even to the point where the scientific researchers start to believe their own misconception.
Unfortunately, the cost of defending multiple law suits in the presence of this bogosity is a huge detractor from true innovation when a company can go out of business trying to pay the lawyers just to defend itself.
Would you rather your customers buy the 5 cents per pill option or the 5 dollar per pill option? The first option is there to keep your name in the good books, the second is there to make money.
If no one in the court had defined the intricacies of the legal terms to the jury, then the jurors will all be just assuming whatever definition their life experience (ie. TV) had previously instilled.
I understand what you're trying to say, but your example fails to show why either assuming in a vacuum or assuming due to poor research are any different.
Also, a Juror has the option of judging the justice/injustice of the law as much as they have of judging the facts of the case. If a Juror does not understand the exact legal definition of something they have been charged to decide against, then the court has failed in its duty to fairly apply the law. I expect that it would be grounds for appeal if it came out later that the Jury was forced to guess at what guilt/innocence entailed in making their decision.
Of course, any Juror has the option of passing notes to the judge to have questions answered. And these questions are answered in the presence of the whole court so counsel on both sides have the ability to object or further explain. In many cases, external research can have the benefit of opening the Juror's mind to come up with insightful questions that they wouldn't have otherwise thought to ask.
I have acted as a juror a number of times, and in all cases bar one, either the defence lawyer or the prosecutor ignored far too many areas of both law and fact that left the jury guessing. In all cases, the Jury asked numerous questions to the Judge. And in all cases, there was at least one person on the Jury with what could be considered some small amount of 'expert or special knowledge'. Could these people completely forget everything they knew when making a decision? No. Were they able to explain things to the other jurors to help everyone's overall understanding? Absolutely. Could that have led to a mistrial? Possibly. But, it is unreasonable to disallow Juror's from speaking to each other, and few people have the mental ability to completely isolate their reasoning from being biased by past experience/knowledge - the same is true for topics they are likely to discuss during jury deliberation.
If you're on a Jury and someone seems to be introducing a line of reasoning that is based on their own expert knowledge (whether due to years of experience or due to some online research from the night before), then it might be in your interest to have some elements of that line of reasoning posed to the court as a series of questions. This gives the entire court a chance to chime in on the topic. And more importantly, gives everyone else a chance to argue against assumptions made based on something a juror saw on an episode of CSI or other TV crime show.
So true. But, that doesn't explain why bombs aren't going off around the country in train stations, public buildings, under bridges, etc. All of these are easy unsecured targets by comparison. And the whole "crashing aeroplanes is far more spectacular" argument would only be true if for some reason every terrorist was bent on using only that attack vector at the exclusion of all else.
No one here appears to be recommending that they remove all security from airports, they are just saying be reasonable about it in proportion to the likelihood and magnitude of an incident.
Reinforced cockpit door. Tick.
Aware public. Tick.
Baggage through x-ray to check for guns and large explosives. Tick.
Metal detectors to detect large metal items like guns. Tick.
Non intrusive explosive detectors to detect excessive quantities of explosive chemicals. Tick.
Naked scanners, pat downs; banning liquids, nail clippers, knives, scissors, etc. WTF?
Sharing of AMD is even worse.
Could be worse again if it was WMD.
Does the world seem more peaceful to you now? I mean, damaging diplomatic processes between China and North Korea when NK and SK are at the verge of war that would cause death on a scale not seen in decades?
Interestingly, the media doesn't seem to have reported any breakdown in any of these relationships. So your assertion that the diplomatic processes between China and NK has been damaged is as much speculation as the assertion that their diplomatic process has improved by removing any subterfuge.
As for qualifying for a Nobel peace prize, it could take a while to find out, and it's possible that we may never know. If a random diplomatic break down does occur it is highly likely that it will be blamed on Wikileaks whether or not they were the direct cause or even a remote influence.
Then you were right and it probably is worthy of a patent.
Nothing says it can't ever be done (although in re-reading my post I may have implied that), it just gets harder as the number of 'eyes' increases and/or the angle of separation between individual eyes gets tighter. Current offerings in this domain are currently very unimpressive.
Their method needs to track the location of the viewers' eyes, so in 3D Apple, TV watches you.
That should be _viewer's_ not _viewers'_. This may seem like a subtle distinction, but the latter implies a significant breakthrough in both physics and technology.
If eye-tracking is required for a 3D system to work, then only a single viewer per screen can be catered for.
The advantage of systems that use 3D glasses is that any number of viewers can watch the image at the same time.
Oh wait... You were going for the Soviet Russia angle. As you were.
People, wake up - there are significant problems running the current, well compacted address space. Things will only get worse when address space becomes extremely sparse and, for all practical purposes, infinite.
With judicious allocation of IPv6 addresses this won't be a problem for a very long time.
Also, if it does become a looming issue in the far future, then some sort of periodic de-fragmentation of the upper address bits is always a possibility. Since the address space is so large, this could be done over a 20 year migration by slowly moving networks onto parallel 'de-fragged' address segments.
What damage has the USA suffered at the hands of wikileaks? I'll admit that many politicians and military personnel have been embarrassed, but that isn't an attack on the USA. It is an attack on politicians and military personnel who acted inappropriately. Revealing inappropriate behavior of government officers =/= attacking a government
Not only that, but how the US government reacts to these 'embarrassments' will determine which way their reputation goes. Although, by their reaction so far, I see them only making themselves look worse.
Couple things:
But I am under the impression the claim of "innocence" was "I lacked the intent but still committed the act," which is not a defense to copyright infringement IIRC.
It goes beyond that. She is claiming that not only did she lack intent, but also the knowledge that she was committing the alleged 'offence'.
When using complex software that you don't really understand the workings of, it is probably correct to assume that you wouldn't know what laws you were violating (if any) when using that software.
Think of it like setting up an unsecured file share on your Windows PC and not realising that it is being broadcast across the public internet. And then when the RIAA comes knocking at your door asking for millions of dollars, you claim that you're not sharing anything. In fact, the file share may have been set up by someone else when installing your machine and you may not even know it exists. Either way, you were completely unaware that any 'sharing' was occurring until the RIAA lawyers showed you their evidence and someone explained it to you.
In all of the above examples, and that described in the summary, you are 'innocent' in the sense that you not only had no intent to share your files, but you also had no idea that this sharing was even occurring.
An even better example:
ping6 -c 4 slashdot.org
Bad command or filename.