I'm inclined to wonder if, perhaps, they feel that there is some PR/exposure value to having humans, ideally a fairly large number of vaguely-environmentally-interested-but-not-overly-clueful ones, exposed to the images.
Based on a quick look at the journals, researchers are already using satellite data to study the area(where possible, apparently wholesale slash-and-burn is easy to see, targeted logging of high-value trees rather trickier); but that sort of research has pretty limited circulation. If you already have a serious interest in how screwed the Amazon is, there are people you can ask; but the profile of the issue isn't that high.
Assuming that an algorithm for efficiently crunching and classifying satellite data for forest health purposes were available, that'd definitely be a worthy addition to the literature; but it would also have a very good chance of dying without a ripple among everyone outside the field. Big, machine classified, datasets are a valuable tool for understanding the world; but they just don't have the affective punch of seeing it.
Crowd-sourced "given enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow" NGO's can accomplish far better oversight than government regulators, far more efficiently, with no dangerous concentration of power, abuses, or corruption.
Given that they have no power, they would tend to be in rather limited danger of concentration and/or abuse of power, and are unlikely to be worth the trouble of corrupting. All they'll get to do is watch the forest burn with unprecedented ease and accuracy unless they have somebody else handling the power for them; but they sure are safe...
Seriously, why the fuck does all of their plans involve using SOMEONE ELSES BANDWIDTH?
Because the FCC told them they can't use their own. If you're going to deny them the use of the spectrum they own and paid a couple billion for, I would think it would be reasonable to help them with obtaining an alternative.
They bought satellite to ground spectrum. They can do all the satellite-to-ground their little hearts desire. They just can't set up a bunch of vastly more powerful ground stations and transmit from those.
In other news, my '120db death metal at 3am' plan does not seem to enjoy robust 1st amendment protections...
At this point, it's hard to tell whether Lightsquared had some real optimists on their tech team, or whether they understand the value of correctly formatted political whining.
Least they are not going down without a fight after the GPS industry screwed them over. They PAID spectrum to start a business on but interference with GPS devices WHICH clearly is the fault of companies that made the GPS devices screwed them bad.
They paid for spectrum that was specified for satellite to ground communication. They obtained a waiver to use that spectrum for ground-ground on the condition that they not interfere with adjacent satellite to ground users. They failed to do that, and so their conditional waiver doesn't hold. They are still free to use the spectrum they bought on the terms under which they bought it, they just don't have any business model there because their entire business model hinged on the gamble that they failed to pull off.
At this point, they seem to have moved to plan B 'Act injured and demand that the feds give them a handout because they deserve to succeed'.
seems to be loosening. I could take my old pager, stand it on end and watch it walk on the table, but I never considered it a "swarmbot"... and it had more brains packed inside.
I know that's not the point of the exercise, but it just seems like any gizmo that wiggles around gets classified as a "robot"
Many robots are, indeed, deeply pointless; but the 'swarmbot' thing is actually an arguably genuine category and one with some interesting work being done: The idea is, cribbing shamelessly from organisms like ants and termites, to examine the behavior and capabilities of multiple(generally low-capability) robots collaborating on a task with limited or no central command-and-control.
The robots people build for this research tend to be pretty trivial(because it needs to be cheap for the lab dozens of them bumping around as test subjects); but the task of designing rulesets for individual agents that, when dumped into a test area with a bunch of identical peers, result in the desired outcome is hardly a simple problem. The people working on individual highly capable robots certainly do get the cooler hardware, though.
So, do we actually believe that a college-age man is sufficiently motivated to troll the same person, including offline, for weeks on end; but so obtuse that he doesn't realize such trolling's effects, or did TFA's author just get played by a sociopathic little fucker's crocodile tears?
I'm voting for #2, personally. Wholly anonymous mob pile-ons can easily enough sweep up ethically-unimpressive-but-basically-standard-issue people; and some damaged-but-mostly-harmless types actually seem willing to spend their time dumping copypasta on entire forums; but solitary, prolonged, systematic trolling of one target chosen for no reason? Kid is bad seed.
Do you think that black holes receive a notably more 'mystical' treatment than most other scientific phenomena that can only be usefully talked about in terms of fairly high level math? They certainly get their share of time whenever a SyFy special needs some sort of treknobabble to work with; but by the standards of things that eat photons and defy direct observation they seem to be doing reasonably well...
Honestly, the thing I find most distasteful about the whole episode is the sanctimonious hypocrisy of both the oh-so-apologetic talking head and the oh-so-outraged critics.
They televise high speed police chases because televised hunting of humans for sport is illegal in most other contexts. That's just bread and butter airtime filler, not even worth mentioning; but suddenly everyone is oh-so-shocked when one such chase comes to an unpleasant end(as many do, although usually because of a crash which is rather more sanitary from the air). If the most overtly adversarial collisions of suspects and police are going to be just another flavor of live entertainment, suck it up and be honest about what you've been doing all along when something visibly messy happens. If you don't actually want that, then maybe a different flavor of 'news' would be in order...
That, and the going rate for a 4GB flash drive(from somebody you've heard of, even, is about $6, less if you catch a sale). If you don't want the convenience of rewriteable media, an optical disk costs maybe a nickel or two.
if I cant afford a $20 textbook, how can I afford a $60 internet bill for the e-books? Another Brown thought process.
I've heard tales, from the very oldest days, of people transferring bits between computers on various forms of 'removable media'. Apparently, this curious custom does not require internet access!
Unless I'm gravely confused, ffmpeg seems like a curious place for Quick Sync support. Quick Sync is an independent, comparatively inflexible(though fast), h.264 hardware encoder and decoder, not a set of instructions or an architectural feature that would speed up a software decoder. Why would a tool that is largely a collection of highly flexible software encoders and decoders be interested?
I can see how some of the video player programs that use ffmpeg might have reason to also have the option to use quick sync, on supported platforms; but that would really be up to them...
Oh, it very much seems like this guy was unlucky enough to get caught up in Britain's collective pedo-panic and ended up receiving an absurdly overblown penalty for an unimportant mistake.
My point was just that, both specifically around the 'mens rea' concept and in analogous legal constructions, there is an understanding(albeit often one cobbled together over time by a shaky mix of reactive legislation and handwaving legal precedent rather than any overarching theoretical grounds) of different degrees of culpability based on different degrees of intent, from wholly innocent accident up through premeditated malicious intent; but also including certain sorts of accidents that are not intended; but are culpable because of the degree of negligence or recklessness.
I would agree, based on the relatively few facts I have available, that this guy was badly classified and should not have been punished as he was(much less as he was going to be before appeal); but did want to note that, depending on how easy it is to make the mistake he did, it would be at least theoretically possible for him to fall into one of the culpably negligent categories of accident.
Technology has improved the ability of an interested individual to get their hands on all manner of published works, and how fast they can do so; but if "RTFM and figure it out." doesn't work for the student or the subject in question, it isn't clear that technology provides much to change the game.
To what extent has the problem been tech?
on
The Rage For MOOCs
·
· Score: 1
There is certainly a threshold below which technology is a fairly likely candidate for your educational problem(the development and widespread availability of the printing press isn't a bad option to designate, though I'm sure one could make an argument for others); but once you hit that point, it seems like the marginal return on throwing additional technology at the problem starts to degrade pretty rapidly until you get into the realm of sci-fi stuff like pedagogical AIs or brain interfaces, or possibly-available-sooner-but-still-rather-tepid stuff like performance enhancing drugs.
This is not to say that technology hasn't made some of the logistics of education more convenient or cheaper(pushing PDFs is easier and lighter than pushing paper, email tends to arrive faster than the USPS, etc.); but something like one of these 'massively open online courses' is really a lower-latency version of what people were doing through the mail in the '20s(if you simply must have sound, bump the timeline to the cassette tape era, if you must have video, videocassette tape era).
The weak links are still people successfully reading/listening to acquire the material, with both tutoring and assessments posing a real scaling challenge because both are comparatively labor intensive(unless specifically shoehorned into a scantron type format) and frequently necessary to keep less auto-didactic members of the class on track.
I've seen a few cases that seem genuinely novel in terms of solving this problem, there's some neat music-teaching software out there that can(once a given piece and instrument is added to its library, which only has to happen once) analyze and provide feedback on a student's playback of the piece. Probably not a major producer of improv jazz geniuses; but an actual improvement over the conventional 'practice, practice, practice' with much less frequent feedback.
For any subject that hasn't been conquered by an expert system suitable for telling students useful things about how they are doing, though, all the technology we can throw at the problem seems to amount to little more than a slightly cheaper, slightly faster, book.
Slashdot seems to have its fair share of the sort of 'high skill STEM/IT/Tech' types that Mr. William H. Gates III is referring to a shortage of, so, I ask:
Is this a 'shortage' as in "Yup, damn headhunters won't stop calling and I'm turning down fairly attractive offers just for not being very attractive on a routine basis." or a 'shortage' as in "Cry, cry, we want CCNAs with a decade of experience to be begging when we offer them 30k/yr!"?
To be honest, I made it up and used it mostly because I liked the way it sounded, and didn't want to use one of the names of an actual school of loony-toons constitutionalism, lest a devotee of the same be triggered into attack mode.
(At least I'm honest about my self-indulgent laziness, right?)
as someone who bought apple shares before 2007 - i can only hope that fucking up then throwing money at problems to fix them carelessly is not the long term post steve jobs plan.
Given the reports that they still had another year worth of contractually available Google Maps, if they wanted it, the early switch does seem like a questionable move; but the 'throwing money at the problem' part is simply an inevitability if they want to get into mapping.
As they've learned(and any GIS people could have told them ahead of time...) the state of computerized mapping is such that you can't just throw a small number of talented programmers at the problem and expect it to work. Apple can do UIs, and the math behind various projections and coordinate systems and other cartographic stuff is available; but the underlying data about the real world are absolutely filthy and often patchy, outdated, scattered between multiple entities, etc, etc. They can either drop the product, or commit themselves to a long string of purchases of existing datasets and talent, and quite possibly a bunch of sheer slogging. Team Google doesn't have all those wacky spy cars running around purely for their novelty value, or because they have some moral objection to developing software to grovel through 3rd-party datasets...
You can debate whether it is a problem worth throwing money at; but it is a problem that you either don't touch, approach cautiously and with a willingness to take it slowly(ie. openstreetmap), or go in with checkbook blazing.
He would have just told us all that we are using the maps wrong, and we'd all apologize to him.
If you were heading toward anywhere cool enough to be worth going, Apple Maps would have gotten you there. If you want to navigate to places that are the geographical equivalent of the crappy ERP software that keeps you using XP at work, well, you'll just have to use something else...
Second, he did send a sexual text to underaged children. That it was by accident makes it alright?
Mens rea is sort of a thing in common law jurisdictions... It isn't an absolute/binary matter; but it has long been the case that both act and intent are what make the crime. This is why, for instance, 'negligent homicide' is different than '1st degree murder'. If you were to kill me by accident it obviously wouldn't be 'alright', I'd still be pretty dead, and depending on the circumstances you might be on the civil and/or criminal hook for some sort of negligence, recklessness, or indifference; but, yeah, you certainly wouldn't be going down on Murder 1 charges...
Having, thankfully, not dealt with a Blackberry user interface in a while, I have no idea where on the continuum from 'freak accident, could have happened to anyone' to 'epic negligence' sending a given message to your entire address book is; but none of those places are the same as intentionally sending the message to the legally problematic recipients.
It's always (sadly) amusing to me how the Constitution thumpers are all about the Founders Intent and Strict Interpretations and all that - right up until it's time to dispense with all that shit so we can have Yet More authoritarian "law enforcement".
Ah, spoken like a true soft-on-crime liberal who fails to understand the deep intellectual nuances of stricterprertationalism!
It is really quite a simple matter: Just pretend that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of nit-picking, crabbed, legal technicians(just as you probably are, if you are a promising candidate for a deeper understanding of stricterprertationalism), and that their Intent in writing the bill of rights was not to address contemporary and recent past abuses of state power in light of that 'Enlightenment humanist' political theory nonsense that so many of them wasted their time reading and thinking about; but to put in place a series of precise, legalistic, and highly specific protections of certain types of property and communications media, and only those. After all, it's not as though somebody would fail to regulate 'pen registers' just because he was writing in the late 18th century; but because he Intended that pen registers should remain unregulated.
Then, consult a plastic surgeon for administration of botulism toxins until you can do that with a straight face. See? It's really quite simple.
Don't worry, they've clearly learned... "Through this process we learned a great deal about current issues with code signing and the impact of the inappropriate use of a code signing certificate."
(Yes, they did actually say that. In public, amidst a deluge of smarmy understatement and the passive voice.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm inclined to wonder if, perhaps, they feel that there is some PR/exposure value to having humans, ideally a fairly large number of vaguely-environmentally-interested-but-not-overly-clueful ones, exposed to the images.
Based on a quick look at the journals, researchers are already using satellite data to study the area(where possible, apparently wholesale slash-and-burn is easy to see, targeted logging of high-value trees rather trickier); but that sort of research has pretty limited circulation. If you already have a serious interest in how screwed the Amazon is, there are people you can ask; but the profile of the issue isn't that high.
Assuming that an algorithm for efficiently crunching and classifying satellite data for forest health purposes were available, that'd definitely be a worthy addition to the literature; but it would also have a very good chance of dying without a ripple among everyone outside the field. Big, machine classified, datasets are a valuable tool for understanding the world; but they just don't have the affective punch of seeing it.
Maybe the CIA will be willing to provide one, once they start operating Reapers there as well?
Crowd-sourced "given enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow" NGO's can accomplish far better oversight than government regulators, far more efficiently, with no dangerous concentration of power, abuses, or corruption.
Given that they have no power, they would tend to be in rather limited danger of concentration and/or abuse of power, and are unlikely to be worth the trouble of corrupting. All they'll get to do is watch the forest burn with unprecedented ease and accuracy unless they have somebody else handling the power for them; but they sure are safe...
Seriously, why the fuck does all of their plans involve using SOMEONE ELSES BANDWIDTH?
Because the FCC told them they can't use their own. If you're going to deny them the use of the spectrum they own and paid a couple billion for, I would think it would be reasonable to help them with obtaining an alternative.
They bought satellite to ground spectrum. They can do all the satellite-to-ground their little hearts desire. They just can't set up a bunch of vastly more powerful ground stations and transmit from those.
In other news, my '120db death metal at 3am' plan does not seem to enjoy robust 1st amendment protections...
At this point, it's hard to tell whether Lightsquared had some real optimists on their tech team, or whether they understand the value of correctly formatted political whining.
Least they are not going down without a fight after the GPS industry screwed them over. They PAID spectrum to start a business on but interference with GPS devices WHICH clearly is the fault of companies that made the GPS devices screwed them bad.
They paid for spectrum that was specified for satellite to ground communication. They obtained a waiver to use that spectrum for ground-ground on the condition that they not interfere with adjacent satellite to ground users. They failed to do that, and so their conditional waiver doesn't hold. They are still free to use the spectrum they bought on the terms under which they bought it, they just don't have any business model there because their entire business model hinged on the gamble that they failed to pull off.
At this point, they seem to have moved to plan B 'Act injured and demand that the feds give them a handout because they deserve to succeed'.
seems to be loosening. I could take my old pager, stand it on end and watch it walk on the table, but I never considered it a "swarmbot" ... and it had more brains packed inside.
I know that's not the point of the exercise, but it just seems like any gizmo that wiggles around gets classified as a "robot"
Many robots are, indeed, deeply pointless; but the 'swarmbot' thing is actually an arguably genuine category and one with some interesting work being done: The idea is, cribbing shamelessly from organisms like ants and termites, to examine the behavior and capabilities of multiple(generally low-capability) robots collaborating on a task with limited or no central command-and-control.
The robots people build for this research tend to be pretty trivial(because it needs to be cheap for the lab dozens of them bumping around as test subjects); but the task of designing rulesets for individual agents that, when dumped into a test area with a bunch of identical peers, result in the desired outcome is hardly a simple problem. The people working on individual highly capable robots certainly do get the cooler hardware, though.
So, do we actually believe that a college-age man is sufficiently motivated to troll the same person, including offline, for weeks on end; but so obtuse that he doesn't realize such trolling's effects, or did TFA's author just get played by a sociopathic little fucker's crocodile tears?
I'm voting for #2, personally. Wholly anonymous mob pile-ons can easily enough sweep up ethically-unimpressive-but-basically-standard-issue people; and some damaged-but-mostly-harmless types actually seem willing to spend their time dumping copypasta on entire forums; but solitary, prolonged, systematic trolling of one target chosen for no reason? Kid is bad seed.
Do you think that black holes receive a notably more 'mystical' treatment than most other scientific phenomena that can only be usefully talked about in terms of fairly high level math? They certainly get their share of time whenever a SyFy special needs some sort of treknobabble to work with; but by the standards of things that eat photons and defy direct observation they seem to be doing reasonably well...
Honestly, the thing I find most distasteful about the whole episode is the sanctimonious hypocrisy of both the oh-so-apologetic talking head and the oh-so-outraged critics.
They televise high speed police chases because televised hunting of humans for sport is illegal in most other contexts. That's just bread and butter airtime filler, not even worth mentioning; but suddenly everyone is oh-so-shocked when one such chase comes to an unpleasant end(as many do, although usually because of a crash which is rather more sanitary from the air). If the most overtly adversarial collisions of suspects and police are going to be just another flavor of live entertainment, suck it up and be honest about what you've been doing all along when something visibly messy happens. If you don't actually want that, then maybe a different flavor of 'news' would be in order...
That, and the going rate for a 4GB flash drive(from somebody you've heard of, even, is about $6, less if you catch a sale). If you don't want the convenience of rewriteable media, an optical disk costs maybe a nickel or two.
if I cant afford a $20 textbook, how can I afford a $60 internet bill for the e-books? Another Brown thought process.
I've heard tales, from the very oldest days, of people transferring bits between computers on various forms of 'removable media'. Apparently, this curious custom does not require internet access!
Unless I'm gravely confused, ffmpeg seems like a curious place for Quick Sync support. Quick Sync is an independent, comparatively inflexible(though fast), h.264 hardware encoder and decoder, not a set of instructions or an architectural feature that would speed up a software decoder. Why would a tool that is largely a collection of highly flexible software encoders and decoders be interested?
I can see how some of the video player programs that use ffmpeg might have reason to also have the option to use quick sync, on supported platforms; but that would really be up to them...
Oh, it very much seems like this guy was unlucky enough to get caught up in Britain's collective pedo-panic and ended up receiving an absurdly overblown penalty for an unimportant mistake.
My point was just that, both specifically around the 'mens rea' concept and in analogous legal constructions, there is an understanding(albeit often one cobbled together over time by a shaky mix of reactive legislation and handwaving legal precedent rather than any overarching theoretical grounds) of different degrees of culpability based on different degrees of intent, from wholly innocent accident up through premeditated malicious intent; but also including certain sorts of accidents that are not intended; but are culpable because of the degree of negligence or recklessness.
I would agree, based on the relatively few facts I have available, that this guy was badly classified and should not have been punished as he was(much less as he was going to be before appeal); but did want to note that, depending on how easy it is to make the mistake he did, it would be at least theoretically possible for him to fall into one of the culpably negligent categories of accident.
Technology has improved the ability of an interested individual to get their hands on all manner of published works, and how fast they can do so; but if "RTFM and figure it out." doesn't work for the student or the subject in question, it isn't clear that technology provides much to change the game.
There is certainly a threshold below which technology is a fairly likely candidate for your educational problem(the development and widespread availability of the printing press isn't a bad option to designate, though I'm sure one could make an argument for others); but once you hit that point, it seems like the marginal return on throwing additional technology at the problem starts to degrade pretty rapidly until you get into the realm of sci-fi stuff like pedagogical AIs or brain interfaces, or possibly-available-sooner-but-still-rather-tepid stuff like performance enhancing drugs.
This is not to say that technology hasn't made some of the logistics of education more convenient or cheaper(pushing PDFs is easier and lighter than pushing paper, email tends to arrive faster than the USPS, etc.); but something like one of these 'massively open online courses' is really a lower-latency version of what people were doing through the mail in the '20s(if you simply must have sound, bump the timeline to the cassette tape era, if you must have video, videocassette tape era).
The weak links are still people successfully reading/listening to acquire the material, with both tutoring and assessments posing a real scaling challenge because both are comparatively labor intensive(unless specifically shoehorned into a scantron type format) and frequently necessary to keep less auto-didactic members of the class on track.
I've seen a few cases that seem genuinely novel in terms of solving this problem, there's some neat music-teaching software out there that can(once a given piece and instrument is added to its library, which only has to happen once) analyze and provide feedback on a student's playback of the piece. Probably not a major producer of improv jazz geniuses; but an actual improvement over the conventional 'practice, practice, practice' with much less frequent feedback.
For any subject that hasn't been conquered by an expert system suitable for telling students useful things about how they are doing, though, all the technology we can throw at the problem seems to amount to little more than a slightly cheaper, slightly faster, book.
Slashdot seems to have its fair share of the sort of 'high skill STEM/IT/Tech' types that Mr. William H. Gates III is referring to a shortage of, so, I ask:
Is this a 'shortage' as in "Yup, damn headhunters won't stop calling and I'm turning down fairly attractive offers just for not being very attractive on a routine basis." or a 'shortage' as in "Cry, cry, we want CCNAs with a decade of experience to be begging when we offer them 30k/yr!"?
How the fuck did you create a 410 word post time stamped at the same exact time that the article was posted? I detect some tomfoolery here.
Grandparent is a subscriber, so he can see the article before it goes green and gets sent out to the unwashed masses.
To be honest, I made it up and used it mostly because I liked the way it sounded, and didn't want to use one of the names of an actual school of loony-toons constitutionalism, lest a devotee of the same be triggered into attack mode.
(At least I'm honest about my self-indulgent laziness, right?)
as someone who bought apple shares before 2007 - i can only hope that fucking up then throwing money at problems to fix them carelessly is not the long term post steve jobs plan.
Given the reports that they still had another year worth of contractually available Google Maps, if they wanted it, the early switch does seem like a questionable move; but the 'throwing money at the problem' part is simply an inevitability if they want to get into mapping.
As they've learned(and any GIS people could have told them ahead of time...) the state of computerized mapping is such that you can't just throw a small number of talented programmers at the problem and expect it to work. Apple can do UIs, and the math behind various projections and coordinate systems and other cartographic stuff is available; but the underlying data about the real world are absolutely filthy and often patchy, outdated, scattered between multiple entities, etc, etc. They can either drop the product, or commit themselves to a long string of purchases of existing datasets and talent, and quite possibly a bunch of sheer slogging. Team Google doesn't have all those wacky spy cars running around purely for their novelty value, or because they have some moral objection to developing software to grovel through 3rd-party datasets...
You can debate whether it is a problem worth throwing money at; but it is a problem that you either don't touch, approach cautiously and with a willingness to take it slowly(ie. openstreetmap), or go in with checkbook blazing.
He would have just told us all that we are using the maps wrong, and we'd all apologize to him.
If you were heading toward anywhere cool enough to be worth going, Apple Maps would have gotten you there. If you want to navigate to places that are the geographical equivalent of the crappy ERP software that keeps you using XP at work, well, you'll just have to use something else...
Second, he did send a sexual text to underaged children. That it was by accident makes it alright?
Mens rea is sort of a thing in common law jurisdictions... It isn't an absolute/binary matter; but it has long been the case that both act and intent are what make the crime. This is why, for instance, 'negligent homicide' is different than '1st degree murder'. If you were to kill me by accident it obviously wouldn't be 'alright', I'd still be pretty dead, and depending on the circumstances you might be on the civil and/or criminal hook for some sort of negligence, recklessness, or indifference; but, yeah, you certainly wouldn't be going down on Murder 1 charges...
Having, thankfully, not dealt with a Blackberry user interface in a while, I have no idea where on the continuum from 'freak accident, could have happened to anyone' to 'epic negligence' sending a given message to your entire address book is; but none of those places are the same as intentionally sending the message to the legally problematic recipients.
I think you forgot "Why do you care more about criminals' rights than victims' rights?"
It's always (sadly) amusing to me how the Constitution thumpers are all about the Founders Intent and Strict Interpretations and all that - right up until it's time to dispense with all that shit so we can have Yet More authoritarian "law enforcement".
Ah, spoken like a true soft-on-crime liberal who fails to understand the deep intellectual nuances of stricterprertationalism!
It is really quite a simple matter: Just pretend that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of nit-picking, crabbed, legal technicians(just as you probably are, if you are a promising candidate for a deeper understanding of stricterprertationalism), and that their Intent in writing the bill of rights was not to address contemporary and recent past abuses of state power in light of that 'Enlightenment humanist' political theory nonsense that so many of them wasted their time reading and thinking about; but to put in place a series of precise, legalistic, and highly specific protections of certain types of property and communications media, and only those.
After all, it's not as though somebody would fail to regulate 'pen registers' just because he was writing in the late 18th century; but because he Intended that pen registers should remain unregulated.
Then, consult a plastic surgeon for administration of botulism toxins until you can do that with a straight face. See? It's really quite simple.
Don't worry, they've clearly learned... "Through this process we learned a great deal about current issues with code signing and the impact of the inappropriate use of a code signing certificate."
(Yes, they did actually say that. In public, amidst a deluge of smarmy understatement and the passive voice.)