ATT has switched over to "UVerse" in my home town (not exactly a big metro...In fact, we were the LAST city in the entire USA to get HD local channels from DirecTV). I'm getting an 18mbps connection. I think it caps out at 25mbps.
Have you tried to really saturate the connection for a long period of time? Fiber to the home (like FiOS and Google, and a few other random providers) is pretty much the way to really get the stated bandwidth regardless of the time of day.
I seed torrents to insanely high ratios, and run about 8Mbps outbound 24/7 and don't notice it on my 35/35 FiOS connection. And, when I need it, I can download a few dozen ISOs from Microsoft Technet at 10-20Mbps (their limit, not mine) for a day or two./p.
Sure, but I could probably still get the 5 channels I want for less than I spend on the 300 I never watch.
I hear a lot of people quote such small numbers of channels, but the reality is that most households watch at least parts of a lot more than that, especially if you count the OTA channels (which you would still have to pay for if you wanted them from your cable/satellite provider instead of actually OTA).
Excluding OTA, my 2-person household watches shows on 18 channels every month. We don't watch a lot of TV, but we do have enough varied interests to spread out a little. For a family of 4, I'd expect that the number would easily grow to 30. I can't imagine prices as low as $1/channel, what with all the extra record-keeping that would be required, so you'd still be looking at a $45-60 bill. For $70, I get a lot more channels from DirecTV (even ignoring home shopping and music-only channels). Even if the family of 4 still only watches 30 channels, it's certainly not the huge rip-off that a la carte proponents would make you think it is.
Depends on the team and the game, but I feel I can get the majority of my sports games from either OTA antenna, EPSN3, or some other major network website.
There are a few cities where OTA channels broadcast a decent percentage of major sports (LA and Chicago come to mind), but others have sports almost completely locked up on the RSN. Here in the DC/Baltimore area if you don't have access to the RSN, you would see about 25% of baseball games, and 10% of basketball and hockey. NFL, of course, you will see all of your home team games.
It's even worse in Philadelphia, where about the same percentages are available OTA, but Comcast SportsNet Philly is only available on Comcast cable.
And there isn't a solution available (that I could find) that would aggregate all of the available shows into one, easy to use guide for selections. I do watch sports, and losing those would be the only reason I would potentially not switch if I were single because I wouldn't mind using different systems for different things.
Depending on how agressive DirecTV pushes the channels to allow more content on its "DirecTV Everywhere" service, that will also make people more resistant to cord cutting.
Right now, the selection on DirecTV Everywhere is limited for both live and "on demand", but if it expands so that you could have a decent percentage of live programs (for sports, news, etc.) and still have the ability to copy to a device for offline viewing, that would make it quite a deal, since it doesn't have any addtional fees (at least as of right now).
It probably is an act on infringement because a copyrighted movie was used in the creation of your output data.
"Probably"? If you don't know whether making an encrypted copy of a copyrighted work is infringment, how can you speak on any other part of copyright law?
The matter in front of the judge is not going to be the strength of your encryption, but the question of copyright infringement.
And tell me, exactly how a copyright holder is going to prove the infringment if they can't show that the data is a copy of their movie? Any statement I might have made about whether it was or was not an encrypted copy is going to be useless in a lawsuit, as I could post details claiming I have rented and copied every DVD available from Netflix, and no court would even consider starting a lawsuit based on solely that to be anything close to valid.
Making a loud enough "SSSssss" noise did the same thing as the plastic sqeeze-ball whistle doodad, but was much less attention getting than clapping.
My roommate in college had one of these, and had lost the squeeze part, so whenever we just hissed at the light to turn it on or off.
An advantage to doing it this way was that the sensor couldn't pick up the noise as easily, so you had to aim your head at it, which would have allowed multiple independent units in the same room.
Since what was uploaded can't be played as a movie, then it can't be copyright infringement.
From that perspective, any representation in bytes or any other transform is irrelevant.
You can't have it both ways. If an encrypted version is infringement because it can be transformed into an infringing file, then any file that can be transformed into an infringing file is infringement.
After some point, the amount of work that must be done to convert an possibly infringing work into a definitely infringing one must be enough that no reasonable person would claim infringement. This won't stop the big media companies, because we know they aren't reasonable, but hopefully some judges will start to understand that technology does change how copyright law needs to be interpreted.
You take a copyrighted work, apply any number of whatever operations on it, make a copy and distribute it and you're in violation of copyright, plain and simple.
Please refer us to the rulings in court cases that shows your statement is correct.
Based on the current state of rulings on "fair use" where the original work is copied fairly whole (like the Obama "Hope" poster), making an exact but transformed copy may or may not be infringement.
For all the law cares, math is a tool to apply transformations on content, but that doesn't change the fact that the content is copyrighted, end of story.
This is not what the law says. The law refers to copies being "fixed" into a medium, and for digital media, it's not the "fixed bits", but rather what the bits express (e.g., the pictures and sound of a movie, or the sound of a song). This is how copyright infringement can be claimed on Blu-Ray rips, which aren't an exact copy of either the bits or the pictures, but rather the content of the pictures. Since an encrypted version of the copyrighted content cannot be shown to contain the content in any way, it's not infringing.
If you make your copy available online, you are guilty. Encryption doesn't matter. It's just a reversible transformation. That the downloader can't use it without the key doesn't matter.
So, if take output of/dev/urandom that's the same number of bytes as Blu-Ray movie image, XOR it with Blu-Ray movie image, upload it and announce to the world that it is an encrypted version of Blu-Ray movie image, then I'm guilty of infringement? It's just a "reversible transformation"..all you have to do is guess the 40-billion byte key.
You are thinking like a geek, not like a lawyer or judge.
This is one of the many problems with lawyers and judges...they are making and enforcing rules about things that they don't comprehend. Regardless of the length of the key, distributing an encrypted version of a copyrighted work isn't copyright infringement.
I said that the student is responsible for the infringement. I never said it would be proven in court.
Even if it could be proven in court, that would set the precendent that any file of exactly the right number of bytes could be called "infringing".
This is because for any given set of bytes the same length as copyrighted content, there is some transform that will convert the bytes into the copyrighted content. Even if you really did start with the copyrighted content, until you perform the transform, there is no infringement.
As an example, if I encrypted the image of a commercial Blu-Ray disk with a random key that I do not know and then posted it to someplace that anybody could download it, I have not infringed, since all I did was post some bytes. If somebody guesses the key and posts it, then they are also not guilty of infringement. The only people who might be guilty of infringement would be those who use the key and decrypt the bytes into the copyrighted work.
You'd have to activate the sleeper so theirs risk of being tapped at that point if they are watching you. And you'd have to have some way of messaging the troops to download a particular movie to get the embedded instructions.
What does that really get you that some guy posting cat videos on youtube doesn't?
That's why Facebook would be the best, but Amazon or eBay would also pretty good.
For Facebook, you could add steganography to photos of any account that allows "open" followers (i.e., not an individual). For Amazon or eBay, you could do the same to the user-provided item photos. The fact that the photo isn't the same as the original isn't suspicious as these companies already alter the photos in various ways.
The reason for a system like this instead of posting to YouTube, 4chan, etc., is that the poster could be under suspicion, and thus everything they do would be watched. Posting from inside is harder to track by outside authorities. In addition, you could alter enough photos with the same message that no two recipients would need to look at the same Facebook page, Amazon item, or eBay auction. That means that even if the recipients are under suspicion, their actions couldn't be correlated.
It also allows easy innocent explanations, like somebody looking for messages in photos of concert T-shirts on eBay could actually be buying and wearing a few of the shirts, and that cover could go back several years. A extra advantage to this would be that the completely innocent sender of the T-shirt might come under suspicion if the recipient was deemed suspicious. This isn't the sort of planning you would do for something one-off, but rather for a concerted, long-term effort. This is the kind of cover that agents built over many years during the Cold War.
If you downloaded it from netflix, hulu, itunes, or amazon... how do you plan to embed your communications?
My sleeper agent who was specifically trained to get a job at one of those places (although Facebook would be the best) will do the embedding. If I was organizing any sort of wide-ranging criminal activity like terrorism, getting somebody inside one of those big companies would be one of my bigges priorities, as it would allow covert communications with almost no chance of detection.
Meanwhile, as long as you have the hashes for the files, you don't even need to store the file. You can validate netflix sent party X a copy of Joe Dirt... so why bother permantly saving a copy?
Doesn't Netflix vary the quality based on the bandwidth? If so, there is no fixed hash. In addition, you now have to deal with some sort of live database that sums up the packets from Netflix to the destination, but only those packets that are the movie (no control packets), and keeps the running checksum/hash. Without deep packet inspection, this isn't possible.
You hear any Marvel Comics fan complaining about Disney?
Disney came fairly late to the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" franchise, and even then all they are is a distributor...Paramount and Marvel are the creative and monetary forces behind the franchise.
My guess is that since Disney was the only studio that wasn't cashing in on superhero movies, they found a way to make some money off the genre.
At least it keeps the kids from having to swap discs on long car rides...but even that use case is quite hindered if you're restricted to 10 GB, unless your kids want to watch nothing but, say, the same three seasons of spongebob...over...and over...and over... On the other hand, give me a USB or SDHC port (and something behind the dash that can read what I put on there) and I'm happy as a clam on a long road trip:o)
Ford's implementation doesn't support video loading to the hard drive. You can only rip CDs. No, there is no way to directly copy MP3 or other media files, and although it will play a DVD, it won't play video files. Luckily, it rips at about 5x, and you can be listening to other things while it works. I loaded about 250 CDs during my commmute. Ford does have USB connections, and you can plug in pretty much any sized device, but the software for reading the tags from the tracks tends to get confused after about 5000 or so. So, I just load up old time radio shows, which take up a lot of time per track.
This kind of problem will never really be solved until car companies just bite the bullet and use Android as the controlling software. This would allow the user to add apps to extend functionality.
And how much if you only record each youtube video once? . And log only meta information about vpn/ssl/https traffic. (source / dest / time...) And just ignore netflix, hulu, itunes, and the top 10,000 hollywood torrents...
Thank you for giving me great ideas on how to safely communicate with my terrorist buddies.
Kidding about the "my terrorist buddies", but the point is that you can't discount any data transfer as having the information that you need to stop/solve a crime.
Every time that it's liked, re-tweeted, emailed, hotlinked, or otherwise used elsewhere, It's more or less recorded as "At [TIME/DATE], mianne viewed phantomfive's cat video obtained at prior {TIME/DATE]."
That's not possible without deep packet inspection to know the context of the data transfer(s)
For example, if I upload a picture to my personal website using SFTP, there is no way to even know what the data is without inspecting and decrypting the packets. Even if you figured that out, once the file is on that server, I (or the server itself) might move or rename it, so any future retrievals with HTTP would pull a different filename. That's a trivial example, but it basically shows that matching "upload" with "download" isn't really possible.
Facebook, etc., would be just as much of a problem, as the system would have to track the upload and figure out what Facebook ended up calling the picture, since you can upload pictures with the same filename and have them show up as separate pictures.
His "extraordinary" claim is that the government is doing what Google has already done: Indexing the entire internet, with the only difference being one of scale.
And the scale is many, many orders of magnitude larger, since Google only keeps the latest copy and only indexes every week or so (on average...more important sites get much faster updates to the index).
Even if Google started with a baseline and kept diffs of the changes made, their data storage requirements would be much larger. Then, imagine that instead of scanning every so often, Google was notified by the web site every time a change was made to any page, and re-indexed immediately. Then, imagine that Google also indexed every e-mail ever sent through any US network. Add in all the other Internet traffic, plus other communications like phone calls, text messages, television signals (encrypted sub-channels would be a great way to broadcast instructions to bad guys), and you'll see that it's just not possible to even start to keep that much data, much less have a meaningful index into it that would allow searches to not take weeks.
Without a database of source, destination, and keywords (as a minimum), you won't know where to look for the original, and whether taking the time to retrieve it from tape (as some have supposed it would be stored) is worth it. In addition, voice recognition would be crucial for tracking the truly paranoid who use limited use source and destination phones.
For dumb criminals you wouldn't need such a database, but I highly doubt that this would ever be used to track anything but the highest value crimes. Even with that limitation, it would be widely known at this point that the tool exists, if it really did, as there have been plenty of those "highest value" crimes in the past 5 years, and those are the sorts of crimes where there are so many people involved in the investigation that somebody would have let it slip long before this.
You have: 60/3.3
You want:
Definition: 18.181818 <-- Zero to 60
That's why the tests are insanely unrealistic. Even the most underpowered car can manage 0-60 in far less than 18 seconds, and the vast majority of standard sedans will accomplish the task in less than half the time.
I think that over a certain speed, fuel economy goes way down.
The smaller the engine, the more you will see this effect. This is because it has to work much harder (relatively) to move the car faster.
For a larger engine on the same car, you generally get worse gas mileage at lower speeds because the idle fuel usage is higher. But, as you go faster, the larger engine doesn't work much harder, so mileage doesn't drop as much. After a certain speed, a larger engine will be more efficient on the same car.
This is why turbochargers are now all the rage. You get the advantage of the lower idle consumption of the smaller engine, while still having the acceleration you need for emergencies and the better mileage at higher speeds.
Near as I can tell, any typical mom-n-pop vehicle, the pedal goes to the floor until the desired speed is hit.
Not around here. The standard is to drive about 10mph over the speed limit, but to take a long time to get to that speed.
I try to avoid the "pedal to the floor" thing because it scares people to see a 5000 pound car starting out from a stop and hit the speed limit before it's across the intersection.
I was able to retrieve it, but it was broken. Instead of buying a new one, I fixed it. Myself.
Then, it wasn't broken too badly, as prisms, shutters, and the sensor aren't going to be fixed by anybody who doesn't do it for a living and have replacement parts available. In fact, if any of the crucial parts concerned with movement or alignment were damaged, the camera is effectively totaled, as the replacement parts are often as much as a new camera.
I have repaired SLR lenses with essentially minor issues on generic parts (like broken springs), but anything complicated requires OEM parts or equivalent, and that means it's likely a trip to the repar shop is cheaper than doing it yourself, because they have access to the parts at much cheaper prices.
OK, so it's not what you were referencing, but it is a card game, and the name is close, and it is quite fun. And, it's probably not the sort of game that an AI could come up with.
In fact it is funding the inventor of always-online DRM lest you forget.
Steam doesn't require you to be always online. Although Steam is a form of DRM, the advantages to the customer far outweigh the disadvantages:
Download to multiple machines using the same Steam login
Re-download at any time after purchase
Add physically purchased games to Steam for the best of both worlds
The only thing you can't easily do is sell a used Steam game, but if you wait and buy on sale, the prices are low enough that you never need to sell for the money, and storage space (either shelf or disk) isn't an issue, either.
Slashdot Mirror
ATT has switched over to "UVerse" in my home town (not exactly a big metro...In fact, we were the LAST city in the entire USA to get HD local channels from DirecTV). I'm getting an 18mbps connection. I think it caps out at 25mbps.
Have you tried to really saturate the connection for a long period of time? Fiber to the home (like FiOS and Google, and a few other random providers) is pretty much the way to really get the stated bandwidth regardless of the time of day.
I seed torrents to insanely high ratios, and run about 8Mbps outbound 24/7 and don't notice it on my 35/35 FiOS connection. And, when I need it, I can download a few dozen ISOs from Microsoft Technet at 10-20Mbps (their limit, not mine) for a day or two./p.
Sure, but I could probably still get the 5 channels I want for less than I spend on the 300 I never watch.
I hear a lot of people quote such small numbers of channels, but the reality is that most households watch at least parts of a lot more than that, especially if you count the OTA channels (which you would still have to pay for if you wanted them from your cable/satellite provider instead of actually OTA).
Excluding OTA, my 2-person household watches shows on 18 channels every month. We don't watch a lot of TV, but we do have enough varied interests to spread out a little. For a family of 4, I'd expect that the number would easily grow to 30. I can't imagine prices as low as $1/channel, what with all the extra record-keeping that would be required, so you'd still be looking at a $45-60 bill. For $70, I get a lot more channels from DirecTV (even ignoring home shopping and music-only channels). Even if the family of 4 still only watches 30 channels, it's certainly not the huge rip-off that a la carte proponents would make you think it is.
Depends on the team and the game, but I feel I can get the majority of my sports games from either OTA antenna, EPSN3, or some other major network website.
There are a few cities where OTA channels broadcast a decent percentage of major sports (LA and Chicago come to mind), but others have sports almost completely locked up on the RSN. Here in the DC/Baltimore area if you don't have access to the RSN, you would see about 25% of baseball games, and 10% of basketball and hockey. NFL, of course, you will see all of your home team games.
It's even worse in Philadelphia, where about the same percentages are available OTA, but Comcast SportsNet Philly is only available on Comcast cable.
And there isn't a solution available (that I could find) that would aggregate all of the available shows into one, easy to use guide for selections. I do watch sports, and losing those would be the only reason I would potentially not switch if I were single because I wouldn't mind using different systems for different things.
Depending on how agressive DirecTV pushes the channels to allow more content on its "DirecTV Everywhere" service, that will also make people more resistant to cord cutting.
Right now, the selection on DirecTV Everywhere is limited for both live and "on demand", but if it expands so that you could have a decent percentage of live programs (for sports, news, etc.) and still have the ability to copy to a device for offline viewing, that would make it quite a deal, since it doesn't have any addtional fees (at least as of right now).
It probably is an act on infringement because a copyrighted movie was used in the creation of your output data.
"Probably"? If you don't know whether making an encrypted copy of a copyrighted work is infringment, how can you speak on any other part of copyright law?
The matter in front of the judge is not going to be the strength of your encryption, but the question of copyright infringement.
And tell me, exactly how a copyright holder is going to prove the infringment if they can't show that the data is a copy of their movie? Any statement I might have made about whether it was or was not an encrypted copy is going to be useless in a lawsuit, as I could post details claiming I have rented and copied every DVD available from Netflix, and no court would even consider starting a lawsuit based on solely that to be anything close to valid.
Making a loud enough "SSSssss" noise did the same thing as the plastic sqeeze-ball whistle doodad, but was much less attention getting than clapping.
My roommate in college had one of these, and had lost the squeeze part, so whenever we just hissed at the light to turn it on or off.
An advantage to doing it this way was that the sensor couldn't pick up the noise as easily, so you had to aim your head at it, which would have allowed multiple independent units in the same room.
The copyright is on the movie, not the bytes.
Since what was uploaded can't be played as a movie, then it can't be copyright infringement.
From that perspective, any representation in bytes or any other transform is irrelevant.
You can't have it both ways. If an encrypted version is infringement because it can be transformed into an infringing file, then any file that can be transformed into an infringing file is infringement.
After some point, the amount of work that must be done to convert an possibly infringing work into a definitely infringing one must be enough that no reasonable person would claim infringement. This won't stop the big media companies, because we know they aren't reasonable, but hopefully some judges will start to understand that technology does change how copyright law needs to be interpreted.
You take a copyrighted work, apply any number of whatever operations on it, make a copy and distribute it and you're in violation of copyright, plain and simple.
Please refer us to the rulings in court cases that shows your statement is correct.
Based on the current state of rulings on "fair use" where the original work is copied fairly whole (like the Obama "Hope" poster), making an exact but transformed copy may or may not be infringement.
For all the law cares, math is a tool to apply transformations on content, but that doesn't change the fact that the content is copyrighted, end of story.
This is not what the law says. The law refers to copies being "fixed" into a medium, and for digital media, it's not the "fixed bits", but rather what the bits express (e.g., the pictures and sound of a movie, or the sound of a song). This is how copyright infringement can be claimed on Blu-Ray rips, which aren't an exact copy of either the bits or the pictures, but rather the content of the pictures. Since an encrypted version of the copyrighted content cannot be shown to contain the content in any way, it's not infringing.
If you make your copy available online, you are guilty. Encryption doesn't matter. It's just a reversible transformation. That the downloader can't use it without the key doesn't matter.
So, if take output of /dev/urandom that's the same number of bytes as Blu-Ray movie image, XOR it with Blu-Ray movie image, upload it and announce to the world that it is an encrypted version of Blu-Ray movie image, then I'm guilty of infringement? It's just a "reversible transformation"..all you have to do is guess the 40-billion byte key.
You are thinking like a geek, not like a lawyer or judge.
This is one of the many problems with lawyers and judges...they are making and enforcing rules about things that they don't comprehend. Regardless of the length of the key, distributing an encrypted version of a copyrighted work isn't copyright infringement.
I said that the student is responsible for the infringement. I never said it would be proven in court.
Even if it could be proven in court, that would set the precendent that any file of exactly the right number of bytes could be called "infringing".
This is because for any given set of bytes the same length as copyrighted content, there is some transform that will convert the bytes into the copyrighted content. Even if you really did start with the copyrighted content, until you perform the transform, there is no infringement.
As an example, if I encrypted the image of a commercial Blu-Ray disk with a random key that I do not know and then posted it to someplace that anybody could download it, I have not infringed, since all I did was post some bytes. If somebody guesses the key and posts it, then they are also not guilty of infringement. The only people who might be guilty of infringement would be those who use the key and decrypt the bytes into the copyrighted work.
You'd have to activate the sleeper so theirs risk of being tapped at that point if they are watching you. And you'd have to have some way of messaging the troops to download a particular movie to get the embedded instructions.
What does that really get you that some guy posting cat videos on youtube doesn't?
That's why Facebook would be the best, but Amazon or eBay would also pretty good.
For Facebook, you could add steganography to photos of any account that allows "open" followers (i.e., not an individual). For Amazon or eBay, you could do the same to the user-provided item photos. The fact that the photo isn't the same as the original isn't suspicious as these companies already alter the photos in various ways.
The reason for a system like this instead of posting to YouTube, 4chan, etc., is that the poster could be under suspicion, and thus everything they do would be watched. Posting from inside is harder to track by outside authorities. In addition, you could alter enough photos with the same message that no two recipients would need to look at the same Facebook page, Amazon item, or eBay auction. That means that even if the recipients are under suspicion, their actions couldn't be correlated.
It also allows easy innocent explanations, like somebody looking for messages in photos of concert T-shirts on eBay could actually be buying and wearing a few of the shirts, and that cover could go back several years. A extra advantage to this would be that the completely innocent sender of the T-shirt might come under suspicion if the recipient was deemed suspicious. This isn't the sort of planning you would do for something one-off, but rather for a concerted, long-term effort. This is the kind of cover that agents built over many years during the Cold War.
If you downloaded it from netflix, hulu, itunes, or amazon... how do you plan to embed your communications?
My sleeper agent who was specifically trained to get a job at one of those places (although Facebook would be the best) will do the embedding. If I was organizing any sort of wide-ranging criminal activity like terrorism, getting somebody inside one of those big companies would be one of my bigges priorities, as it would allow covert communications with almost no chance of detection.
Meanwhile, as long as you have the hashes for the files, you don't even need to store the file. You can validate netflix sent party X a copy of Joe Dirt... so why bother permantly saving a copy?
Doesn't Netflix vary the quality based on the bandwidth? If so, there is no fixed hash. In addition, you now have to deal with some sort of live database that sums up the packets from Netflix to the destination, but only those packets that are the movie (no control packets), and keeps the running checksum/hash. Without deep packet inspection, this isn't possible.
You hear any Marvel Comics fan complaining about Disney?
Disney came fairly late to the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" franchise, and even then all they are is a distributor...Paramount and Marvel are the creative and monetary forces behind the franchise.
My guess is that since Disney was the only studio that wasn't cashing in on superhero movies, they found a way to make some money off the genre.
At least it keeps the kids from having to swap discs on long car rides...but even that use case is quite hindered if you're restricted to 10 GB, unless your kids want to watch nothing but, say, the same three seasons of spongebob...over...and over...and over... On the other hand, give me a USB or SDHC port (and something behind the dash that can read what I put on there) and I'm happy as a clam on a long road trip :o)
Ford's implementation doesn't support video loading to the hard drive. You can only rip CDs. No, there is no way to directly copy MP3 or other media files, and although it will play a DVD, it won't play video files. Luckily, it rips at about 5x, and you can be listening to other things while it works. I loaded about 250 CDs during my commmute. Ford does have USB connections, and you can plug in pretty much any sized device, but the software for reading the tags from the tracks tends to get confused after about 5000 or so. So, I just load up old time radio shows, which take up a lot of time per track.
This kind of problem will never really be solved until car companies just bite the bullet and use Android as the controlling software. This would allow the user to add apps to extend functionality.
And how much if you only record each youtube video once? . And log only meta information about vpn/ssl/https traffic. (source / dest / time...) And just ignore netflix, hulu, itunes, and the top 10,000 hollywood torrents...
Thank you for giving me great ideas on how to safely communicate with my terrorist buddies.
Kidding about the "my terrorist buddies", but the point is that you can't discount any data transfer as having the information that you need to stop/solve a crime.
Every time that it's liked, re-tweeted, emailed, hotlinked, or otherwise used elsewhere, It's more or less recorded as "At [TIME/DATE], mianne viewed phantomfive's cat video obtained at prior {TIME/DATE]."
That's not possible without deep packet inspection to know the context of the data transfer(s)
For example, if I upload a picture to my personal website using SFTP, there is no way to even know what the data is without inspecting and decrypting the packets. Even if you figured that out, once the file is on that server, I (or the server itself) might move or rename it, so any future retrievals with HTTP would pull a different filename. That's a trivial example, but it basically shows that matching "upload" with "download" isn't really possible.
Facebook, etc., would be just as much of a problem, as the system would have to track the upload and figure out what Facebook ended up calling the picture, since you can upload pictures with the same filename and have them show up as separate pictures.
His "extraordinary" claim is that the government is doing what Google has already done: Indexing the entire internet, with the only difference being one of scale.
And the scale is many, many orders of magnitude larger, since Google only keeps the latest copy and only indexes every week or so (on average...more important sites get much faster updates to the index).
Even if Google started with a baseline and kept diffs of the changes made, their data storage requirements would be much larger. Then, imagine that instead of scanning every so often, Google was notified by the web site every time a change was made to any page, and re-indexed immediately. Then, imagine that Google also indexed every e-mail ever sent through any US network. Add in all the other Internet traffic, plus other communications like phone calls, text messages, television signals (encrypted sub-channels would be a great way to broadcast instructions to bad guys), and you'll see that it's just not possible to even start to keep that much data, much less have a meaningful index into it that would allow searches to not take weeks.
Nobody needs to actively mine the data.
Then it would be useless.
Without a database of source, destination, and keywords (as a minimum), you won't know where to look for the original, and whether taking the time to retrieve it from tape (as some have supposed it would be stored) is worth it. In addition, voice recognition would be crucial for tracking the truly paranoid who use limited use source and destination phones.
For dumb criminals you wouldn't need such a database, but I highly doubt that this would ever be used to track anything but the highest value crimes. Even with that limitation, it would be widely known at this point that the tool exists, if it really did, as there have been plenty of those "highest value" crimes in the past 5 years, and those are the sorts of crimes where there are so many people involved in the investigation that somebody would have let it slip long before this.
You have: 60/3.3 You want: Definition: 18.181818 <-- Zero to 60
That's why the tests are insanely unrealistic. Even the most underpowered car can manage 0-60 in far less than 18 seconds, and the vast majority of standard sedans will accomplish the task in less than half the time.
So I wonder, do you thing more accidents are caused by those going below sit speed limits or those going above it?
Neither is a problem by themselves. It's the difference in speeds that cause problems.
I think that over a certain speed, fuel economy goes way down.
The smaller the engine, the more you will see this effect. This is because it has to work much harder (relatively) to move the car faster.
For a larger engine on the same car, you generally get worse gas mileage at lower speeds because the idle fuel usage is higher. But, as you go faster, the larger engine doesn't work much harder, so mileage doesn't drop as much. After a certain speed, a larger engine will be more efficient on the same car.
This is why turbochargers are now all the rage. You get the advantage of the lower idle consumption of the smaller engine, while still having the acceleration you need for emergencies and the better mileage at higher speeds.
Near as I can tell, any typical mom-n-pop vehicle, the pedal goes to the floor until the desired speed is hit.
Not around here. The standard is to drive about 10mph over the speed limit, but to take a long time to get to that speed.
I try to avoid the "pedal to the floor" thing because it scares people to see a 5000 pound car starting out from a stop and hit the speed limit before it's across the intersection.
I was able to retrieve it, but it was broken. Instead of buying a new one, I fixed it. Myself.
Then, it wasn't broken too badly, as prisms, shutters, and the sensor aren't going to be fixed by anybody who doesn't do it for a living and have replacement parts available. In fact, if any of the crucial parts concerned with movement or alignment were damaged, the camera is effectively totaled, as the replacement parts are often as much as a new camera.
I have repaired SLR lenses with essentially minor issues on generic parts (like broken springs), but anything complicated requires OEM parts or equivalent, and that means it's likely a trip to the repar shop is cheaper than doing it yourself, because they have access to the parts at much cheaper prices.
Shall we play Global Thermonuclear War?
Sure, I love that game.
OK, so it's not what you were referencing, but it is a card game, and the name is close, and it is quite fun. And, it's probably not the sort of game that an AI could come up with.
In fact it is funding the inventor of always-online DRM lest you forget.
Steam doesn't require you to be always online. Although Steam is a form of DRM, the advantages to the customer far outweigh the disadvantages:
The only thing you can't easily do is sell a used Steam game, but if you wait and buy on sale, the prices are low enough that you never need to sell for the money, and storage space (either shelf or disk) isn't an issue, either.