As i read the bill the retro active immunity is only for a set time span, not indefinite. I don't like it but it could be worse. What part give this power your talking about. I'm asking honestly because i haven't read the full bill only the section on the immunity and that was a while back.
No its not treason thats just a wonderful buzzword to throw around, though i admire your attempts to support your claim. The word you'd be looking for would be its close cousin, Sedition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition
And no i'm sorry but saying a bill can only be good or evil is just inflammatory and/or ignorant. Anytime you have more than one issue on a bill it immediately becomes a grey area, unless you know everything there is to know on all involved issues.
That's the point. A lot of companies only care about the economy in that it affects their profits. Yes there are a few that really understand they need a good economy, but i really doubt there are enough to keep a stable "truly free market".
The problem is its just Missouri's legislator that doesn't get it. There already is a federal law against it, but it only covers interstate communications. They're trying to cover themselves.
Here's why there trying to bend the legal system for this. Had there been a state line between the two parties (however large or small they were) this would have been illegal under the Communications Act of 1934, specifically Section 223, which covers cyberstalking. Especially since the victim was a minor. You can read it yourself here http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
The illegality of this isn't fuzzy under this law either, these action violate 4 out of the 5 subsections so I'm not nit-picking.
However since both parties were in the same state it falls under state law. Missouri's legislative branch being ignorant about the advances in communication left a hole in their criminal law and don't want to just let those responsible go because that would look very bad at the next election.
So obviously rather than let the "child abuser/harasser/evil adjective of your choosing, go they throw everything at the problem and see what sticks. To cover their own ass, that's all.
ah i should have known. Europeans are always so much more flexible then their American counterparts. Its really very sexy...
Seriously. The stagnation and rot in so many places in the US is just depressing.
You've used "fierce competition" to describe the ISP market place. So i must assume you are being sarcastic. You really shouldn't bury sarcasm like that in between rather insightful points, you'll confuse people who aren't familiar with the issue... New ISPs haha funny.
whoo hoo yet another educational puzzle game. I'd be sure to stay as far aways as possible. The only educational game i've ever found to be fun was Age of Empires series.(which im sure is debatable as to its educational value but it was at least fun)
Sorta, AFAIK gecko stick to walls because of the geometry of nano sized "hairs" on their feet, sorta like velcro. This robot does that to a lesser degree but uses static cling to compensate.
2) total value over $1,000, Thats like downloading the first 5 seconds of the song, or at least thats what it would seem like what with how high some of the riaa court cases have gotten.
There actually is a chance that your feeling the magnetic field. Humans supposedly have small iron deposits around the nose area which are supposed to help with directional sense. I can't find any supporting articles but i've read about it in a few actual paper articles
I agree with the truth and transparency bit but you really shouldn't go to youtube for your worlds truths. Its hard to fit real truth in a poor quality 5-10 minute clip.
Please tell me your being sarcastic. please.
It is estimated that 20% of all pornography on the Internet involves children.4 " An exact quote from the page you link to. That estimate is beyond even laughable.
In the Seventies, homosexuals were recruiting kids Just no...
In the Nineties, ritual satanic abuse of toddlers was very widespread, but thank goodness, that seems to have stopped too Yeah that happened because they interrogated the children by themselves with police, clergy and psychologists till they told the interrogators what they wanted to hear .
Now if this is supposed to be against global child porn. Are we ready to invade Thailand and the rest of Asia in order to stop the child porn industries over there? Don't give them anymore ideas! All it took last time was complaining about gas prices.
I'm sorry but i have a hard time respecting Rotten Tomatoes for the simple reason it rated Dragon wars above Wild Wild West, your epitomy of bad moviedom. I'd watch WWW again if there was nothing else to watch, you'd have to threaten me with actual physical violence to watch D-wars again
some dubious character with a high resolution camera pulls up outside their front window and starts snapping away to see if they can get anything useful: credit card statement on the table, maybe? if you leave credit card statements on a table in view of a window you don't need a high resolution camera to capture it. just something to write with, maybe some cheap binoculars if you've got bad vision.
UK government ministers who were embarrassed this week when inadvertent movements revealed briefing papers long enough for a paparazzo to snap them and sell them to the papers. So why isn't anything being done to prevent this from happening again? That seems much more serious than a fuzzy photo of you walking down some street.
Or, we could decide that the odd person running around with high resolution cameras trying to photograph personal material kept in the privacy of someone's own home is the problem here, not the millions of people who have personal items on display in their home but don't want to live in a windowless castle their whole lives. If you expect absolute privacy there will be a lot of compromises one has to make. A windowless castle would be one of them. Yes there probably is a perfect balance between convenience and privacy, but that's a very personal line that differs from person to person, and i have no where near the facilities to judge what would be a good default balance.
Technology exists or is under active development to hear conversations inside a home from outside, Yes laser microphones, which as i understand only require a window to work.
to photograph at high resolution from hundreds of metres away
We can photograph planets in pretty high resolution from more than a few hundred meters. I agree that its not the same, but the point is yes we can do these things. But these aren't the things posing as much of an immediate threat.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/12/1648223&from=rss
I would hate to see how the 80 gbps Dpi machine could be abused by someone looking for dirt on someone else. That plus maybe some datamining. I'll take your three random photos in front of two municipal buildings and one rehab center and raise you your employer getting hold of any and all data from your ISP on you. And finding emails to your lawyer about a (false) rape and domestic abuse charge and the involved arrest, filed by a very angry vengeful ex. Emails from a drug rehab center with status updates about an unnamed(to protect their privacy) participant(a child of yours perhaps) as well as all the types of porn viewed over your connection, irregardless of whether or not you or even anyone in your household was the one to view it (maybe unsecured wifi or even simply an unsecured computer).
and yes this is another unfounded hypothetical situation. But as i see it the potential abuse of a powerful deep packet inspection machine is far more frightening and insidious than the potential abuse of a high resolution camera.
I invite you to get a photograph of yourself standing outside a drug rehabilitation clinic, another with you outside a court, and a third with you outside a police station, put these all on-line where anyone searching for your name will readily find them, and then explain that it's all a big prank and you're not really a druggie at your next job interview. By not giving any context or any real information at all you give me a lot of leeway. But you invited me so.
"My car got stolen by a drug addict. The cars was found at his rehab center, i had to file a police report and appear in court."
but in an attempt to get closer to on topic, this article was about blurring faces, not residential windows. I would understand and agree with blurring residential windows or even just all windows for simplicity's sake.
Not only that but in quite a few commercials that fine print isn't legible. I have a 50" sdtv, and many commercials fine print is just a fuzzy line across the bottom. If there are cover your ass requirement in there, im sorry but thats just fraud.
Taking pictures from a van is not the equivalent to upskirt photos. They're more like satellite photos albeit really good ones. Do these people who don't like pictures taken of them never look up? Not only that but this is just another example of "not in my backyard" mentality. All the people complaining about this i bet don't complain about celebrities being followed around by the paparazzi.
And the people who don't want the google van taking pictures of the inside of their house, there is a really easy solution to this. Curtains, blinds paint, newspaper, one way mirrors, etc take your pick.
Of all the privacy concerns in the world having your picture taken in public from a very standard (as in not from a shoe's) perspective is really a non-issue especially in comparison.
But they aren't using a parabolic microphone, more like 2 cans with string between them. At least quality wise. I mean i had a hard time reading the giant sign on the Cleveland Browns Stadium.
And to be honest i would have no problem with people walking around naked. But they shouldn't expect me not to stare at them. And the upskirt stuff, yes crosses a privacy line but thats done very stealthily, taking pictures from a giant van with cameras on top of it doesn't really resemble stealth.
I agree with your points but i think this situation is different
But which is better? a ban on cellphones (which will probably never be enforced) or stiffer penalties when they actually cause an accident. Which if its made part of the accident report procedure won't be some new toy because it would only be used when an accident actually happens. It also shouldn't be hard to prove or disprove. Phone records are well documented. The only thing that can cloud the issue is if the phone was active someone can claim that the phone was being used by someone else.
After reading the comments its quite apparent that some people can multitask or even do better multitasking, while many others do worse. If the problem really does need fixed (a question i don't have the information to answer) the answer is not to ban distraction, its to make the penalties stiff enough that people will stop and evaluate their own abilities.
What i propose is that if someone gets in an accident, which they are at fault for, while talking on the phone, revoke their license for a full year or more.
Yes its excessive, but that's the point. And it shouldn't be hard to check, just a simple subpoena to the cell phone provider to see if the phone is active at the time of the crash and if possible where it is, so as to avoid situation where the phone isn't in someone elses possession at the time
Slashdot Mirror
As i read the bill the retro active immunity is only for a set time span, not indefinite. I don't like it but it could be worse. What part give this power your talking about. I'm asking honestly because i haven't read the full bill only the section on the immunity and that was a while back.
You ask what the bill says, but then tell us what it is. So was the initial question rhetorical or are you just spitballin on that last part?
No its not treason thats just a wonderful buzzword to throw around, though i admire your attempts to support your claim. The word you'd be looking for would be its close cousin, Sedition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition
And no i'm sorry but saying a bill can only be good or evil is just inflammatory and/or ignorant. Anytime you have more than one issue on a bill it immediately becomes a grey area, unless you know everything there is to know on all involved issues.
That's the point. A lot of companies only care about the economy in that it affects their profits. Yes there are a few that really understand they need a good economy, but i really doubt there are enough to keep a stable "truly free market".
So your saying all the Companies and corporations would just skip hand in hand thru the flowers. All of them.
Yeah sure...
The problem is its just Missouri's legislator that doesn't get it. There already is a federal law against it, but it only covers interstate communications. They're trying to cover themselves.
Here's why there trying to bend the legal system for this. Had there been a state line between the two parties (however large or small they were) this would have been illegal under the Communications Act of 1934, specifically Section 223, which covers cyberstalking. Especially since the victim was a minor. You can read it yourself here
http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
The illegality of this isn't fuzzy under this law either, these action violate 4 out of the 5 subsections so I'm not nit-picking.
However since both parties were in the same state it falls under state law. Missouri's legislative branch being ignorant about the advances in communication left a hole in their criminal law and don't want to just let those responsible go because that would look very bad at the next election.
So obviously rather than let the "child abuser/harasser/evil adjective of your choosing, go they throw everything at the problem and see what sticks. To cover their own ass, that's all.
ah i should have known. Europeans are always so much more flexible then their American counterparts. Its really very sexy...
Seriously. The stagnation and rot in so many places in the US is just depressing.
You've used "fierce competition" to describe the ISP market place. So i must assume you are being sarcastic. You really shouldn't bury sarcasm like that in between rather insightful points, you'll confuse people who aren't familiar with the issue... New ISPs haha funny.
whoo hoo yet another educational puzzle game. I'd be sure to stay as far aways as possible. The only educational game i've ever found to be fun was Age of Empires series.(which im sure is debatable as to its educational value but it was at least fun)
Maybe when they start paying some of their fines and complying with court orders of their own accord. From american gov'ts or otherwise.
Sorta, AFAIK gecko stick to walls because of the geometry of nano sized "hairs" on their feet, sorta like velcro. This robot does that to a lesser degree but uses static cling to compensate.
There is no connection between Chuck Norris and Awesome (there is no whoopass article)
http://www.netsoc.tcd.ie/~mu/cgi-bin/shortpath.cgi?from=Chuck+Norris&to=Awesome
There actually is a chance that your feeling the magnetic field. Humans supposedly have small iron deposits around the nose area which are supposed to help with directional sense. I can't find any supporting articles but i've read about it in a few actual paper articles
I agree with the truth and transparency bit but you really shouldn't go to youtube for your worlds truths. Its hard to fit real truth in a poor quality 5-10 minute clip.
I'm sorry but i have a hard time respecting Rotten Tomatoes for the simple reason it rated Dragon wars above Wild Wild West, your epitomy of bad moviedom. I'd watch WWW again if there was nothing else to watch, you'd have to threaten me with actual physical violence to watch D-wars again
UK government ministers who were embarrassed this week when inadvertent movements revealed briefing papers long enough for a paparazzo to snap them and sell them to the papers. So why isn't anything being done to prevent this from happening again? That seems much more serious than a fuzzy photo of you walking down some street.
Or, we could decide that the odd person running around with high resolution cameras trying to photograph personal material kept in the privacy of someone's own home is the problem here, not the millions of people who have personal items on display in their home but don't want to live in a windowless castle their whole lives. If you expect absolute privacy there will be a lot of compromises one has to make. A windowless castle would be one of them. Yes there probably is a perfect balance between convenience and privacy, but that's a very personal line that differs from person to person, and i have no where near the facilities to judge what would be a good default balance.
Technology exists or is under active development to hear conversations inside a home from outside, Yes laser microphones, which as i understand only require a window to work.
to photograph at high resolution from hundreds of metres away
We can photograph planets in pretty high resolution from more than a few hundred meters. I agree that its not the same, but the point is yes we can do these things. But these aren't the things posing as much of an immediate threat.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/12/1648223&from=rss
I would hate to see how the 80 gbps Dpi machine could be abused by someone looking for dirt on someone else. That plus maybe some datamining. I'll take your three random photos in front of two municipal buildings and one rehab center and raise you your employer getting hold of any and all data from your ISP on you. And finding emails to your lawyer about a (false) rape and domestic abuse charge and the involved arrest, filed by a very angry vengeful ex. Emails from a drug rehab center with status updates about an unnamed(to protect their privacy) participant(a child of yours perhaps) as well as all the types of porn viewed over your connection, irregardless of whether or not you or even anyone in your household was the one to view it (maybe unsecured wifi or even simply an unsecured computer).
and yes this is another unfounded hypothetical situation. But as i see it the potential abuse of a powerful deep packet inspection machine is far more frightening and insidious than the potential abuse of a high resolution camera.
I invite you to get a photograph of yourself standing outside a drug rehabilitation clinic, another with you outside a court, and a third with you outside a police station, put these all on-line where anyone searching for your name will readily find them, and then explain that it's all a big prank and you're not really a druggie at your next job interview. By not giving any context or any real information at all you give me a lot of leeway. But you invited me so.
"My car got stolen by a drug addict. The cars was found at his rehab center, i had to file a police report and appear in court."
but in an attempt to get closer to on topic, this article was about blurring faces, not residential windows. I would understand and agree with blurring residential windows or even just all windows for simplicity's sake.
Not only that but in quite a few commercials that fine print isn't legible. I have a 50" sdtv, and many commercials fine print is just a fuzzy line across the bottom. If there are cover your ass requirement in there, im sorry but thats just fraud.
Taking pictures from a van is not the equivalent to upskirt photos. They're more like satellite photos albeit really good ones. Do these people who don't like pictures taken of them never look up? Not only that but this is just another example of "not in my backyard" mentality. All the people complaining about this i bet don't complain about celebrities being followed around by the paparazzi.
And the people who don't want the google van taking pictures of the inside of their house, there is a really easy solution to this. Curtains, blinds paint, newspaper, one way mirrors, etc take your pick.
Of all the privacy concerns in the world having your picture taken in public from a very standard (as in not from a shoe's) perspective is really a non-issue especially in comparison.
But they aren't using a parabolic microphone, more like 2 cans with string between them. At least quality wise. I mean i had a hard time reading the giant sign on the Cleveland Browns Stadium.
And to be honest i would have no problem with people walking around naked. But they shouldn't expect me not to stare at them. And the upskirt stuff, yes crosses a privacy line but thats done very stealthily, taking pictures from a giant van with cameras on top of it doesn't really resemble stealth.
I agree with your points but i think this situation is different
But which is better? a ban on cellphones (which will probably never be enforced) or stiffer penalties when they actually cause an accident. Which if its made part of the accident report procedure won't be some new toy because it would only be used when an accident actually happens. It also shouldn't be hard to prove or disprove. Phone records are well documented. The only thing that can cloud the issue is if the phone was active someone can claim that the phone was being used by someone else.
After reading the comments its quite apparent that some people can multitask or even do better multitasking, while many others do worse. If the problem really does need fixed (a question i don't have the information to answer) the answer is not to ban distraction, its to make the penalties stiff enough that people will stop and evaluate their own abilities.
What i propose is that if someone gets in an accident, which they are at fault for, while talking on the phone, revoke their license for a full year or more.
Yes its excessive, but that's the point. And it shouldn't be hard to check, just a simple subpoena to the cell phone provider to see if the phone is active at the time of the crash and if possible where it is, so as to avoid situation where the phone isn't in someone elses possession at the time