Some states, such as California, impose "use taxes" on items imported from other states. These "use taxes" are exactly the same percentage as sales taxes in those areas, but because they aren't technically taxing the sale, they get away with it under our constitution.
Actually court rulings imply that if someone was able to get a lawsuit to the supreme court the court might find that to not actually be legal, because they have found anything even indirectly related to interstate commerce is controlled by Congress. The supreme court has ruled that even growing and using your own stuff falls under interstate commerce because your not buying it elsewhere.[1] If the courts say something like that falls under the commerce clause then I bet they would include something that actually seems like it should be. The Constitution covers anything involving interstate commerce, not just sales taxes, so it would appear that it Californias "use taxes" on goods from other states may not actually be legal. It isn't relevant whether you call it a "use tax" or a "sales tax" anything effecting interstate commerce is under Congress and putting a tax specifically on stuff from another state is clearly interstate commerce.
Using only the exact time from it and not having it calculate your location would only be useful for something like dead reckoning. They are not looking at a clock and deciding when to turn, they are looking at a GPS device to tell it where they are. The GPS is using the exact timing data to calculate it's location and even tiny errors can cause big errors in your location.
For every nanosecond off you get about 1 foot (0.3 meters) off on your location, 13.7 microseconds is enough for the GPS to think your location is 2.55 miles (4.11 KM) away from where you really are. That is also the error from only one satellite so the error from other ones adds even more error to where the GPS thinks you are.
Please, don't be fawning about the US nuclear weapons and how we take care of them, and pretend that we would be attacked if we didn't have them. Pure nonsense.
I am sure you know all this, but you are hoping that no one else knows or is paying attention. They will never be used because they are not needed, and can't be used. They are not stopping Russia or China from attacking us because Russia and China have no intention of attacking us. This kind of utter nonsense has to stop. I thought we were supposed to be smarter than that here at/. No country is about to attack the US, and it has nothing to do with the fact that we have nukes. Stop the idiocy.
The only reason they don't need to be used is because we have them. The only reason Russia and China have no intention of attacking us is because we have them. If they never existed we already would've either attacked or been attacked by Russia between now and the end of WW2. You know that the Soviets were very seriously considering not stopping in Germany at the end of WW2 before we showed off our nukes. Having them makes Russia or China directly going to war with us suicide for both sides. The west getting getting rid of all our nukes dramatically increases the chances of WW3 and a nuclear holocaust.
Only very few of the problems the military has had with nuclear weapons created a realistic risk of a accidental detonation, launch, or theft.
This is like people on psych meds thinking they don't need the meds because they are sane on them, even though they are only sane because they are taking the meds.
When was the last accidental detonation, launch, or theft of a nuclear weapon?
Congratulations your one of the few people on Slashdot that is both naive enough and dumb enough to think they way you.
We all remember what Nixon's articles of impeachment were about, right? Illegal surveillance of political opposition. Executive branch (which NSA is a part of) has not legal authority to spy on congressmen.
There is a big legal difference between Nixon spying on Americans inside America and spying on a foreign citizen in a foreign country and inadvertently picking up talk from an American that is talking to that foreigner.
Except the internet isn't just in a single country and whats illegal in one may be legal in another. One country can't make another country take something off the internet.
This guy clearly has no idea how the internet works. Even if the law in the USA said they could take down a site in another country they have no way of actually forcing the other country to do it short of invading the country or bombing the servers.
It may not seem unreasonable to you for any country to be able to dictate what can be online in other countries, but it is unreasonable to me.
Yes actually they should be treating them because they are not combatants in the fight between the USA and Taliban. It's also been pretty well established that doctors are supposed to treat anyone regardless of who they are or what side of the fight they are on. It is also well established in international law that it is illegal for any side in a fight to attack a hospital unless that hospital is actively attacking you, regardless of who is in it.
Someone attacking a known non combatant hospital is a war crime and it doesn't matter if the entire leadership of the Taliban was being treated inside it and you had no other way of getting them all.
If it is actually true that it happened, that they knew it was a hospital and nobody from in the hospital was actively attacking them, then everyone involved from the pilot to the person giving the order belongs in prison for a long time.
USA is not a jus sanguinis country. Please don't speak of what you know nothing about, moron
Actually it is in most cases, check out the law Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter 3 Part 1 Section 1401 Paragraph G https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Your a citizen at birth if your either born in the USA, both parents were American citizens at your birth and one had lived in the USA or its outlying possessions at some point before you were born, or if only one of your parents was an American citizen at your birth and prior to your birth they lived in the USA or its outlying possessions for at least 5 years and at least 2 of those 5 years were after turning 14.
Take your own advice and please don't speak of what you know nothing about, moron.
How much power do you have to radiate to get useful amounts to a phone 5 or 10 feet away? Inverse square law?
It seems like you could save a lot of power and get a lot more distance if you make a directional wireless charger that automatically senses the phone and the location of the phone and sends the power just to the phone and turns off when the phone is either charged or removed from the room.
Current omnidirectional and always on chargers waste a lot of power and can't add more distance without exponentially increasing the power output.
The final bill would be open when it is submitted to the countries to be ratified. The actual negotiations about what that final bill would be are what were supposed to be secret for 5 years. I think they do it so that the politicians can make deals with each other about the bill without the public knowing until 5 years after the bill is ratified.
First you would need very expensive and very powerful ones to actually defend against a drone. The cheap short range ones you talk about only work at short range like their name suggests. You would need very expensive jammers to be effective against drones. The power needed to jam every direction in the sky increases exponentially by distance. You also need a jammer that can jam the Russian GLONASS GPS system which operates at a different frequency range and most GPS chips have supported both GPS systems for years. Soon the Galileo system will also be up using even another frequency.
Jamming would never really be a viable solution in a city except during an actual attack. It would cause more damage then it could ever hope to prevent. It would have to block the radios and GPS used by planes, helicopters, police, firefighters, and anything else remotely near the jammer, to actually be effective at blocking a radio controlled drone.
With a lot you can simply plug the controller into a computer or cell phone. Then even if you somehow found the person using a common frequency among tens of thousands of others the controller could be anywhere by the time he has the thing take off.
Even if it wasn't plugged into a computer it would be hard to find someone using the 2.4ghz wifi band when every phone, tablet, laptop, game console, ipod, bluetooth and other things are running on it.
They are never going to run those kind of jammers in a city, they likely wouldn't at most military bases in most cases even if they were far from everything. Jamming everything would end up causing them more damage over time then a bomb from a small drone.
Actually a CRAM system which is the land version of the naval Phalanx system has stopped thousands of mortars. Mortars are actually be easier to stop then a light drone because of their very distinctive speed, angle, and mass
My mistake, I meant. "Actually a CRAM system "LIKE" the land version of the naval Phalanx" not "which is". There are different types of CRAM systems not just the one I mentioned
Actually a CRAM system which is the land version of the naval Phalanx system has stopped thousands of mortars. Mortars are actually be easier to stop then a light drone because of their very distinctive speed, angle, and mass
If the pilot is using something common like wifi it will be next to impossible to actually find them when there are likely dozens of running wifi networks within 50 yards of them.
Simple hook a cell phone up to it and unless your gonna also stop people from using cell phones there is nothing you can do.
Also there are so many 2.4 ghz wifi devices around it that another would exactly the same to most. It would have to be able to get a very accurate fix on it to know that it likely wasn't a random person. They can't base it just on height because it could be someone in a building, they can't base it simply on speed because it could be a car.
A lot of drones have plastic rings around the blades to protect them, so unless the radar is below aiming straight up it wont hit the blades. Also you would likely only need a very tiny amount of bird parts or a bird substitute on the outer parts of the thing to make its radar return similar to the bird.
Right except they only operate in the unlicensed bands which have a lot of random stuff to begin with and if they are using wifi the connection will look just like any of the thousands of other wifi connections within any mile of a downtown city. And if its WPA2/AES encrypted then the equipment can't even see what data is running on the wifi network.
Just like if you hooked a cell phone up to it and controlled it over the data connection. It will look like the thousands of other phones.
Considering that truck drivers and farmers have much more dangerous jobs then police, the wives should worry a lot. People aren't very good at judging risk though and think real life is like on TV or movies. I always hate on TV/Movies when the cops family member or friend talks about worrying if they're gonna come home safe.
In real life being a cop in America is a very safe job with very fat people.
Considering that truck drivers and farmers have much more dangerous jobs then police, the wives should worry a lot. People aren't very good at judging risk though and think real life is like on TV or movies. I always hate on TV/Movies when the cops family member or friend talks about worrying if they're gonna come home safe.
In real life being a cop in America is a very safe job with very fat people.
The CALEA ports aren't really a backdoor though, more like a side utility door it is just to make it easier for the police to do something they could already lawfully do with cause. Get the traffic that goes through the companies equipment with a warrant. The police have always been able to get a warrant to get data from anyone on anything either electronic or paper if they have cause. They can already right now get a warrant forcing you to allow them to install a bug inside your actual phone. The reason they don't do that is because obviously you wouldn't discuss things on it if you knew they were listening. Issuing a warrant to an intermediate with access to criminal information has always been legal. Just like if I ran a string between our homes with cans at the end to commit, confess, or coordinate crimes they could get a warrant to tap it surreptitiously or to force me to allow them to install mikes in the cans.
The Constitution only forbids unreasonable searches.
Their problem is with decent secure end to end crypto there is no independent intermediate handling the unencrypted data that they can issue a warrant to and issuing the warrant to the suspect would just make the suspect not use the thing.
I just wonder if they are doing this stuff to make stupid people believe they can use some simple magical device to never get caught.
Metadata is generally the most important information anyways, which simple end-end encryption doesn't solve. The actual content is usually just superfluous. The metadata lets them know everything about you including where you go, who your with, what you buy/read/watch, who you talk to, when you talk to someone, and all the same information on all those people, which is a much bigger privacy violation then most actual content. Metadata is also a very small amount of data that is very easy for computers to analyze. The metadata will also generally reveal exactly what the content was anyways. If they know you get called by your wife at home on your way home from work and then after less then 30 seconds on the phone turn around and drive to store to buy milk then it's a good bet that call was to buy milk. It would be great for blackmail, I could very simply filter the list for married government or company officials that often end up in the same place as hookers. You could also just filter for married people that often end up alone in a house or hotel room with someone unrelated of the opposite sex.
Slashdot Mirror
It won't take an amendment.
Some states, such as California, impose "use taxes" on items imported from other states. These "use taxes" are exactly the same percentage as sales taxes in those areas, but because they aren't technically taxing the sale, they get away with it under our constitution.
Actually court rulings imply that if someone was able to get a lawsuit to the supreme court the court might find that to not actually be legal, because they have found anything even indirectly related to interstate commerce is controlled by Congress. The supreme court has ruled that even growing and using your own stuff falls under interstate commerce because your not buying it elsewhere.[1] If the courts say something like that falls under the commerce clause then I bet they would include something that actually seems like it should be. The Constitution covers anything involving interstate commerce, not just sales taxes, so it would appear that it Californias "use taxes" on goods from other states may not actually be legal. It isn't relevant whether you call it a "use tax" or a "sales tax" anything effecting interstate commerce is under Congress and putting a tax specifically on stuff from another state is clearly interstate commerce.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Cops don't need a warrant to arrest someone for most crimes, for most they just need probable cause.
Using only the exact time from it and not having it calculate your location would only be useful for something like dead reckoning. They are not looking at a clock and deciding when to turn, they are looking at a GPS device to tell it where they are. The GPS is using the exact timing data to calculate it's location and even tiny errors can cause big errors in your location.
For every nanosecond off you get about 1 foot (0.3 meters) off on your location, 13.7 microseconds is enough for the GPS to think your location is 2.55 miles (4.11 KM) away from where you really are. That is also the error from only one satellite so the error from other ones adds even more error to where the GPS thinks you are.
http://www.montana.edu/gps/und...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There is actually a button on the front of it to turn off the LED lights.
Please, don't be fawning about the US nuclear weapons and how we take care of them, and pretend that we would be attacked if we didn't have them. Pure nonsense.
The nuke guys were all caught cheating on tests.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
We have lost nukes and sent them accidentally across the country, and had all sorts of problems that show we don't "maintain them well"..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
I am sure you know all this, but you are hoping that no one else knows or is paying attention. They will never be used because they are not needed, and can't be used. They are not stopping Russia or China from attacking us because Russia and China have no intention of attacking us. This kind of utter nonsense has to stop. I thought we were supposed to be smarter than that here at /. No country is about to attack the US, and it has nothing to do with the fact that we have nukes. Stop the idiocy.
The only reason they don't need to be used is because we have them. The only reason Russia and China have no intention of attacking us is because we have them. If they never existed we already would've either attacked or been attacked by Russia between now and the end of WW2. You know that the Soviets were very seriously considering not stopping in Germany at the end of WW2 before we showed off our nukes. Having them makes Russia or China directly going to war with us suicide for both sides. The west getting getting rid of all our nukes dramatically increases the chances of WW3 and a nuclear holocaust.
Only very few of the problems the military has had with nuclear weapons created a realistic risk of a accidental detonation, launch, or theft.
This is like people on psych meds thinking they don't need the meds because they are sane on them, even though they are only sane because they are taking the meds.
When was the last accidental detonation, launch, or theft of a nuclear weapon?
Congratulations your one of the few people on Slashdot that is both naive enough and dumb enough to think they way you.
We all remember what Nixon's articles of impeachment were about, right? Illegal surveillance of political opposition. Executive branch (which NSA is a part of) has not legal authority to spy on congressmen.
There is a big legal difference between Nixon spying on Americans inside America and spying on a foreign citizen in a foreign country and inadvertently picking up talk from an American that is talking to that foreigner.
Except the internet isn't just in a single country and whats illegal in one may be legal in another. One country can't make another country take something off the internet.
This guy clearly has no idea how the internet works. Even if the law in the USA said they could take down a site in another country they have no way of actually forcing the other country to do it short of invading the country or bombing the servers.
It may not seem unreasonable to you for any country to be able to dictate what can be online in other countries, but it is unreasonable to me.
Yes actually they should be treating them because they are not combatants in the fight between the USA and Taliban. It's also been pretty well established that doctors are supposed to treat anyone regardless of who they are or what side of the fight they are on. It is also well established in international law that it is illegal for any side in a fight to attack a hospital unless that hospital is actively attacking you, regardless of who is in it.
Someone attacking a known non combatant hospital is a war crime and it doesn't matter if the entire leadership of the Taliban was being treated inside it and you had no other way of getting them all.
If it is actually true that it happened, that they knew it was a hospital and nobody from in the hospital was actively attacking them, then everyone involved from the pilot to the person giving the order belongs in prison for a long time.
USA is not a jus sanguinis country. Please don't speak of what you know nothing about, moron
Actually it is in most cases, check out the law Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter 3 Part 1 Section 1401 Paragraph G https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Your a citizen at birth if your either born in the USA, both parents were American citizens at your birth and one had lived in the USA or its outlying possessions at some point before you were born, or if only one of your parents was an American citizen at your birth and prior to your birth they lived in the USA or its outlying possessions for at least 5 years and at least 2 of those 5 years were after turning 14.
Take your own advice and please don't speak of what you know nothing about, moron.
5 or 10 feet is a waste.
How much power do you have to radiate to get useful amounts to a phone 5 or 10 feet away?
Inverse square law?
It seems like you could save a lot of power and get a lot more distance if you make a directional wireless charger that automatically senses the phone and the location of the phone and sends the power just to the phone and turns off when the phone is either charged or removed from the room.
Current omnidirectional and always on chargers waste a lot of power and can't add more distance without exponentially increasing the power output.
The final bill would be open when it is submitted to the countries to be ratified. The actual negotiations about what that final bill would be are what were supposed to be secret for 5 years. I think they do it so that the politicians can make deals with each other about the bill without the public knowing until 5 years after the bill is ratified.
First you would need very expensive and very powerful ones to actually defend against a drone. The cheap short range ones you talk about only work at short range like their name suggests. You would need very expensive jammers to be effective against drones. The power needed to jam every direction in the sky increases exponentially by distance. You also need a jammer that can jam the Russian GLONASS GPS system which operates at a different frequency range and most GPS chips have supported both GPS systems for years. Soon the Galileo system will also be up using even another frequency.
Jamming would never really be a viable solution in a city except during an actual attack. It would cause more damage then it could ever hope to prevent. It would have to block the radios and GPS used by planes, helicopters, police, firefighters, and anything else remotely near the jammer, to actually be effective at blocking a radio controlled drone.
Just hook up it up to the internet with a 4g modem on the drone, leave the drone somewhere for a few days and connect to it from across the world
With a lot you can simply plug the controller into a computer or cell phone. Then even if you somehow found the person using a common frequency among tens of thousands of others the controller could be anywhere by the time he has the thing take off.
Even if it wasn't plugged into a computer it would be hard to find someone using the 2.4ghz wifi band when every phone, tablet, laptop, game console, ipod, bluetooth and other things are running on it.
They are never going to run those kind of jammers in a city, they likely wouldn't at most military bases in most cases even if they were far from everything. Jamming everything would end up causing them more damage over time then a bomb from a small drone.
Actually a CRAM system which is the land version of the naval Phalanx system has stopped thousands of mortars. Mortars are actually be easier to stop then a light drone because of their very distinctive speed, angle, and mass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
My mistake, I meant.
"Actually a CRAM system "LIKE" the land version of the naval Phalanx" not "which is". There are different types of CRAM systems not just the one I mentioned
Actually a CRAM system which is the land version of the naval Phalanx system has stopped thousands of mortars. Mortars are actually be easier to stop then a light drone because of their very distinctive speed, angle, and mass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If the pilot is using something common like wifi it will be next to impossible to actually find them when there are likely dozens of running wifi networks within 50 yards of them.
Simple hook a cell phone up to it and unless your gonna also stop people from using cell phones there is nothing you can do.
Also there are so many 2.4 ghz wifi devices around it that another would exactly the same to most. It would have to be able to get a very accurate fix on it to know that it likely wasn't a random person. They can't base it just on height because it could be someone in a building, they can't base it simply on speed because it could be a car.
A lot of drones have plastic rings around the blades to protect them, so unless the radar is below aiming straight up it wont hit the blades. Also you would likely only need a very tiny amount of bird parts or a bird substitute on the outer parts of the thing to make its radar return similar to the bird.
Right except they only operate in the unlicensed bands which have a lot of random stuff to begin with and if they are using wifi the connection will look just like any of the thousands of other wifi connections within any mile of a downtown city. And if its WPA2/AES encrypted then the equipment can't even see what data is running on the wifi network.
Just like if you hooked a cell phone up to it and controlled it over the data connection. It will look like the thousands of other phones.
Considering that truck drivers and farmers have much more dangerous jobs then police, the wives should worry a lot. People aren't very good at judging risk though and think real life is like on TV or movies. I always hate on TV/Movies when the cops family member or friend talks about worrying if they're gonna come home safe.
In real life being a cop in America is a very safe job with very fat people.
http://time.com/3637967/police...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news...
They also get paid a lot more then almost all of the top 10 dangerous jobs in the USA.
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/protect...
Considering that truck drivers and farmers have much more dangerous jobs then police, the wives should worry a lot. People aren't very good at judging risk though and think real life is like on TV or movies. I always hate on TV/Movies when the cops family member or friend talks about worrying if they're gonna come home safe.
In real life being a cop in America is a very safe job with very fat people.
http://time.com/3637967/police...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news...
It certainly sounds similar but it's really not.
The CALEA ports aren't really a backdoor though, more like a side utility door it is just to make it easier for the police to do something they could already lawfully do with cause. Get the traffic that goes through the companies equipment with a warrant. The police have always been able to get a warrant to get data from anyone on anything either electronic or paper if they have cause. They can already right now get a warrant forcing you to allow them to install a bug inside your actual phone. The reason they don't do that is because obviously you wouldn't discuss things on it if you knew they were listening. Issuing a warrant to an intermediate with access to criminal information has always been legal. Just like if I ran a string between our homes with cans at the end to commit, confess, or coordinate crimes they could get a warrant to tap it surreptitiously or to force me to allow them to install mikes in the cans.
The Constitution only forbids unreasonable searches.
Their problem is with decent secure end to end crypto there is no independent intermediate handling the unencrypted data that they can issue a warrant to and issuing the warrant to the suspect would just make the suspect not use the thing.
I just wonder if they are doing this stuff to make stupid people believe they can use some simple magical device to never get caught.
Metadata is generally the most important information anyways, which simple end-end encryption doesn't solve. The actual content is usually just superfluous. The metadata lets them know everything about you including where you go, who your with, what you buy/read/watch, who you talk to, when you talk to someone, and all the same information on all those people, which is a much bigger privacy violation then most actual content. Metadata is also a very small amount of data that is very easy for computers to analyze. The metadata will also generally reveal exactly what the content was anyways. If they know you get called by your wife at home on your way home from work and then after less then 30 seconds on the phone turn around and drive to store to buy milk then it's a good bet that call was to buy milk. It would be great for blackmail, I could very simply filter the list for married government or company officials that often end up in the same place as hookers. You could also just filter for married people that often end up alone in a house or hotel room with someone unrelated of the opposite sex.
Space Balls had a lovely Winnebago that traveled through space quite fine thank you very much