A wiretap warrant involves government access to a public/regulated utility. A software warrant involves government access to a private residence. The former is a matter of "hi, we're the government, we have a warrant to tap line XYZ"; the latter is a matter of "let's sneak this into a citizen's private effects, on their private property, with only us in the know". And by "doesn't have root", I mean it can't create whatever false forensic trail you want within said citizen's private effects. If you insert your tap/backdoor/soldier in the middle, it can pretend to be one or the other or even both, but (1) if Ada and Bob are using proper encryption it can't fool both and might not fool either, and (2) encryption or no encryption, if a third party - e.g. a technical expert for the defence - audits Ada's and Bob's machines they'll figure out something fishy is going on. If you've got root on either person's machine, however, you can plant incriminating evidence that can be a lot harder or even impossible to show as fake no matter how good the defence's technical experts are, especially if you're a state actor with a state's resources to get the job done.
"More to the point, where you attach a tap has nothing to do with quartering soldiers in time of peace or war."
I do realise the Third isn't applicable for a number of technical legal reasons (and despite them all I'd argue it should be, but good luck with that, self) but please consider as a rhetorical exercise:/what/ is a soldier, and/why/ is it unconstitutional to quarter a soldier in any house?
"They had a warrant to install the software so it no different than a wiretap other than the point of collection."
The difference is that a wiretap on the line between Ada and Bob doesn't have root.
Or to use a Third Amendment analogy, it's the difference between sending a uniformed soldier up the telegraph pole to listen to someone's morse, and quartering an invisible soldier in that someone's house (where the soldier can easily forge the owner's morse).
That wording is present tense, not future tense: "_is_ being committed, or attempted" (emphasis mine). So unless there's a part you've left out, that uses future tense, it's only illegal if you're already committing some other felony.
It's poorly worded; specifically the paragraph ends with a conclusory phrase to which one is to agree or disagree: the "Dark Net" should be shut down.
People tend to instinctively associate formal surveys with an "authority figure" in their mental space, and feel inclination or pressure to conform to expectations, so when an "authority" asks someone to agree or disagree with a conclusory phrase...
Conducting a truly unbiased survey is difficult, even if that's what you're trying to accomplish.
The Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination only applies to the contents of your mind, it's established precedent that it doesn't apply to your body (i.g. blood, DNA, finger prints, etc.) or property.
Would that precedent put a potential expiry date on the Fifth, because sufficiently advanced technology will not care whether it's reading chromosomes from your blood cells or memories from your brain cells? "I plead the Fifth." "Not a problem, we also imaged your cerebral cortex while you were being fingerprinted at the station. Your Honor, we draw your attention to the defendant's engram record D0441-17-2016..."
If I'm that smart, I'm smart enough to both find an alternative and to ask, "What if my termination of all other sapient life within my sphere of influence, is used as evidence by an as-yet unknown superior force to decide my own continued existence is an unacceptable risk?"
"An interesting tidbit. Despite its desert location, this plant needs 1.7 million m3 of water per year to keep the reflectors clean."
That is not interesting. That is meaningless. 1.7 million m3 of water per year compared to... what, exactly? How much water does a coal/nuclear plant use? How much to mine, refine and transport the coal/uranium? What's that calculated in litres per megawatt hour? What's the tradeoff in terms of emissions and waste?
Also, I found $3.9 billion per 160 MW peak is just for stage one; the total project is projected at $9 billion for 580 MW peak (and NOOR uses molten salt storage - so unlike Ivanpah, the NOOR plants will continue generating power at night). That rather alters the ratio, doesn't it.
As it happens, the amount of water usage is apparently about twice that of a wet-cooled coal plant, though (1) only NOOR's first stage is wet-cooled, (2) the post-process water quality is also important and (3) really, a proper study would examine the complete life cycle of solar vs coal vs nuclear power generation including all ongoing costs (e.g. fuel, emissions, cleanup, etc).
This is supposed to be news for nerds, stuff that matters. I am unimpressed when people offhandedly mention a big-sounding number and then go on to make vague derogatory apples-and-oranges comparisons.
According to the Ford website, the feature is only used when you have (1) linked your mobile to the car's bluetooth, AND (2) have turned the Emergency Assistance on. It calls the standard emergency telephone number of your country (e.g. 911 in US, 112 in UK, 000 in Australia, etc).
For example, from the Australian entry on the site: "In the event of an accident severe enough to either trigger airbag deployment or shut off the fuel pump, Emergency Assistance uses your mobile phone, which must be within mobile reception range, to dial triple zero (000). Once connected, Emergency Assistance then transmits a message stating that your vehicle has been in an accident and provides the emergency services operator your precise GPS coordinates. The phone line remains open so that anyone in the vehicle may speak to the operator using the vehicle’s receiver."
So you really think that all the small business that have a mere half dozen machines should go through the gods-damned rigmarole of buying Windows Server from Microsoft, configuring it, securing it and connecting their machines to it, just so they don't have to deal with Microsoft forcing an OS change on them?
Odds the 13-year-old has been told where the bomb has been planted: low. Odds the 13-year-old will make up something even remotely believable just to make the torturing stop: not low. Odds the 13-year-old has been told, if at all, where the enemy wants you to believe the bomb has been planted: not low. Odds the parents and neighbours of the 13-year-old didn't notice "large quantities" of bomb-making material being delivered: not insignificant.
Odds you will fuck up by torturing a 13-year-old to no avail and create a perception that the US government finds torturing children acceptable in the eyes of its citizens, its allies and its enemies: high.
Odds that even if the torture "works", you have created a perception that the US government finds torturing children acceptable in the eyes of its citizens, its allies and its enemies: high.
If I was your CO and you did this, even if you succeeded: arrest you and throw the entire damn book at you, because you just made that kid a martyr. AQ is not an existential threat to the nation, but agents of the state endorsing or carrying out the torture of minors? Are.
I was going to say "nice use of satire" but then I noticed a fundamental flaw in your argument. Speed limit signs aren't (or shouldn't) be posted arbitrarily. They are supposed to be posted to alert and remind the public to the limitations of the road and of human ability, as decided by professional road safety engineers.
"Speed limit 30": engineers consider speeds beyond this limit to be dangerous. It's not just human 'laws', it's the consequences of physics. Even if you fully intend to be a law-abiding citizen, it is still useful for you to be alerted to or reminded of the local speed limit, and you have more (even if not necessarily much) chance of avoiding or at least surviving a collision with a criminal driver if you are not speeding yourself.
"Gun free zone": seems to be a case of someone thinking that a mere sign, in a country where guns are cheaply and easily obtained, will magically protect those behind the sign, despite a complete lack of professional (or even amateur) 'border' controls. If you fully intend to be a law-abiding citizen, you may be placing yourself at greater risk of being targeted by an armed criminal seeking a victim-rich environment.
Now if the "gun free zone" sign is backed up by real security to protect those behind the sign? Fine. But if it's just yet another case of "security theater"? That's not fine. My question would be: how many of those "gun free" signs/zones have been professionally rated by qualified actuaries?
Is it possible that MS has fingerprinted your machine's hardware and is using that as an alternative to you having to manually enter a product key, much the same way as it already requires you to re-authenticate Windows if your hardware changes significantly?
It's interesting that all your fighting and hard work has left you with less empathy for your fellows rather than an appreciation for your collective plight. It makes me suspect you are being burnt out.
And no, I did not say that _I_ find such paperwork burdensome. Because I am in tolerable health. But the government does not demand that (additional) paperwork from the healthy and the working. They demand it from the sick and the frail. "Prove you are valuable to us. Prove that you are worthy of our generosity. Despite your years of paying taxes on time, we demand you expend more time and more effort on sating our need for control."
It may - and does - claim to the contrary all it likes, but by the results the US does not truly "care" for the poor, not even its own veterans.
Should one day you call out for aid in lifting your hand to the bowl, I hope whoever listens reaches out to aid you without first demanding you prove you cannot.
Where did you get the idea that a UBI is communist?
Are you using some strange definition of communism that would not only allow but provide individuals to have money to spend as they choose, on products from whomever they choose, without the state dictating who they can buy from and at what prices?
Even a poorly-regulated UBI would be a vast improvement over the hodge-podge of shoddy cronyistic "welfare" programs (e.g. food stamps) implemented by committees of (maybe) well-intentioned do-gooders that we have now.
How do you prevent such a program from resulting in a bloated public service and/or a population falling into what is basically indentured servitude as corporations take advantage (much like they are doing now with the prison-industrial complex) of subcontracting minimum-wage government "employees"?
There is one very good reason to choose a basic income policy: it altruistically empowers individuals rather than place control in the hands of a privileged few.
Rather than trying to give people more money, I would rather see an approach that starts incentivizing production and reducing barriers to entry to all markets.
Lack of money is one of those barriers to entry to all markets. Think of UBI as venture capital financing on a ubiquitous scale; the return sought is a more advanced civilization with a higher quality of life for all concerned.
How much of the money in the current system is eaten by overhead/management? How much is eaten by knock-on effects of failing to prevent the consequences of poverty? What's the cost of the mal-nourished and the homeless in additional welfare, police and emergency services? What's the cost of poverty-derived crime?
Congratulations, you just posted a classic strawman attack.
UBI is about giving _everyone_ a basic income sufficient to live on in times of individual adversity. It takes advantage of macroeconomic forces so that even if a small fraction of the populace abuse the privilege - and it is a small _fraction_ that you are talking about - the overall benefit to society will be a greater net positive than the crap shoot we have now.
Yes, it's very nice how hard you worked. Very inspirational. Pity if all that goes to shit through one bad day, like you get hit by a car or struck by a falling branch or slip on a piece of litter. Suddenly you're not working any more, you'll be bedridden for weeks, and the landlord is evicting you because you haven't paid the rent with the income you no longer have. What a shame. Time for you to begin that long slow crawl back out of the mud so you can strive for the glittering paradise you dream exists at the top of the wheel.
But the wheel always keep turning. Every spoke will be inexorably forced back into the mud. Screw that, you selfish moron, I want a future that doesn't involve these endless games of thrones. I want a future with flying cars that don't need roads.
Slashdot Mirror
A wiretap warrant involves government access to a public/regulated utility. A software warrant involves government access to a private residence. The former is a matter of "hi, we're the government, we have a warrant to tap line XYZ"; the latter is a matter of "let's sneak this into a citizen's private effects, on their private property, with only us in the know". And by "doesn't have root", I mean it can't create whatever false forensic trail you want within said citizen's private effects. If you insert your tap/backdoor/soldier in the middle, it can pretend to be one or the other or even both, but (1) if Ada and Bob are using proper encryption it can't fool both and might not fool either, and (2) encryption or no encryption, if a third party - e.g. a technical expert for the defence - audits Ada's and Bob's machines they'll figure out something fishy is going on. If you've got root on either person's machine, however, you can plant incriminating evidence that can be a lot harder or even impossible to show as fake no matter how good the defence's technical experts are, especially if you're a state actor with a state's resources to get the job done.
"More to the point, where you attach a tap has nothing to do with quartering soldiers in time of peace or war."
I do realise the Third isn't applicable for a number of technical legal reasons (and despite them all I'd argue it should be, but good luck with that, self) but please consider as a rhetorical exercise: /what/ is a soldier, and /why/ is it unconstitutional to quarter a soldier in any house?
"They had a warrant to install the software so it no different than a wiretap other than the point of collection."
The difference is that a wiretap on the line between Ada and Bob doesn't have root.
Or to use a Third Amendment analogy, it's the difference between sending a uniformed soldier up the telegraph pole to listen to someone's morse, and quartering an invisible soldier in that someone's house (where the soldier can easily forge the owner's morse).
That wording is present tense, not future tense: "_is_ being committed, or attempted" (emphasis mine). So unless there's a part you've left out, that uses future tense, it's only illegal if you're already committing some other felony.
I'll add that's not the only problem with it; if you look through the thread, there are posts pointing out additional issues.
It's poorly worded; specifically the paragraph ends with a conclusory phrase to which one is to agree or disagree: the "Dark Net" should be shut down.
People tend to instinctively associate formal surveys with an "authority figure" in their mental space, and feel inclination or pressure to conform to expectations, so when an "authority" asks someone to agree or disagree with a conclusory phrase...
Conducting a truly unbiased survey is difficult, even if that's what you're trying to accomplish.
The 13th Amendment didn't abolish slavery, it made it require government approval - and that is exactly what happened.
Would that precedent put a potential expiry date on the Fifth, because sufficiently advanced technology will not care whether it's reading chromosomes from your blood cells or memories from your brain cells? "I plead the Fifth." "Not a problem, we also imaged your cerebral cortex while you were being fingerprinted at the station. Your Honor, we draw your attention to the defendant's engram record D0441-17-2016..."
If I'm that smart, I'm smart enough to both find an alternative and to ask, "What if my termination of all other sapient life within my sphere of influence, is used as evidence by an as-yet unknown superior force to decide my own continued existence is an unacceptable risk?"
I think you meant digiKam, not digicam?
"An interesting tidbit. Despite its desert location, this plant needs 1.7 million m3 of water per year to keep the reflectors clean."
That is not interesting. That is meaningless. 1.7 million m3 of water per year compared to... what, exactly? How much water does a coal/nuclear plant use? How much to mine, refine and transport the coal/uranium? What's that calculated in litres per megawatt hour? What's the tradeoff in terms of emissions and waste?
Also, I found $3.9 billion per 160 MW peak is just for stage one; the total project is projected at $9 billion for 580 MW peak (and NOOR uses molten salt storage - so unlike Ivanpah, the NOOR plants will continue generating power at night). That rather alters the ratio, doesn't it.
As it happens, the amount of water usage is apparently about twice that of a wet-cooled coal plant, though (1) only NOOR's first stage is wet-cooled, (2) the post-process water quality is also important and (3) really, a proper study would examine the complete life cycle of solar vs coal vs nuclear power generation including all ongoing costs (e.g. fuel, emissions, cleanup, etc).
This is supposed to be news for nerds, stuff that matters. I am unimpressed when people offhandedly mention a big-sounding number and then go on to make vague derogatory apples-and-oranges comparisons.
According to the Ford website, the feature is only used when you have (1) linked your mobile to the car's bluetooth, AND (2) have turned the Emergency Assistance on. It calls the standard emergency telephone number of your country (e.g. 911 in US, 112 in UK, 000 in Australia, etc).
For example, from the Australian entry on the site: "In the event of an accident severe enough to either trigger airbag deployment or shut off the fuel pump, Emergency Assistance uses your mobile phone, which must be within mobile reception range, to dial triple zero (000). Once connected, Emergency Assistance then transmits a message stating that your vehicle has been in an accident and provides the emergency services operator your precise GPS coordinates. The phone line remains open so that anyone in the vehicle may speak to the operator using the vehicle’s receiver."
So you really think that all the small business that have a mere half dozen machines should go through the gods-damned rigmarole of buying Windows Server from Microsoft, configuring it, securing it and connecting their machines to it, just so they don't have to deal with Microsoft forcing an OS change on them?
My favorite photo forensics moment was in Red Dwarf; they knew the cliche was ridiculous so they decided to go the whole hog.
The first command given? "Uncrop."
Sorry, "didn't notice" should be "did notice".
Odds the 13-year-old has been told where the bomb has been planted: low.
Odds the 13-year-old will make up something even remotely believable just to make the torturing stop: not low.
Odds the 13-year-old has been told, if at all, where the enemy wants you to believe the bomb has been planted: not low.
Odds the parents and neighbours of the 13-year-old didn't notice "large quantities" of bomb-making material being delivered: not insignificant.
Odds you will fuck up by torturing a 13-year-old to no avail and create a perception that the US government finds torturing children acceptable in the eyes of its citizens, its allies and its enemies: high.
Odds that even if the torture "works", you have created a perception that the US government finds torturing children acceptable in the eyes of its citizens, its allies and its enemies: high.
If I was your CO and you did this, even if you succeeded: arrest you and throw the entire damn book at you, because you just made that kid a martyr. AQ is not an existential threat to the nation, but agents of the state endorsing or carrying out the torture of minors? Are.
I was going to say "nice use of satire" but then I noticed a fundamental flaw in your argument. Speed limit signs aren't (or shouldn't) be posted arbitrarily. They are supposed to be posted to alert and remind the public to the limitations of the road and of human ability, as decided by professional road safety engineers.
"Speed limit 30": engineers consider speeds beyond this limit to be dangerous. It's not just human 'laws', it's the consequences of physics. Even if you fully intend to be a law-abiding citizen, it is still useful for you to be alerted to or reminded of the local speed limit, and you have more (even if not necessarily much) chance of avoiding or at least surviving a collision with a criminal driver if you are not speeding yourself.
"Gun free zone": seems to be a case of someone thinking that a mere sign, in a country where guns are cheaply and easily obtained, will magically protect those behind the sign, despite a complete lack of professional (or even amateur) 'border' controls. If you fully intend to be a law-abiding citizen, you may be placing yourself at greater risk of being targeted by an armed criminal seeking a victim-rich environment.
Now if the "gun free zone" sign is backed up by real security to protect those behind the sign? Fine. But if it's just yet another case of "security theater"? That's not fine. My question would be: how many of those "gun free" signs/zones have been professionally rated by qualified actuaries?
Is it possible that MS has fingerprinted your machine's hardware and is using that as an alternative to you having to manually enter a product key, much the same way as it already requires you to re-authenticate Windows if your hardware changes significantly?
It's interesting that all your fighting and hard work has left you with less empathy for your fellows rather than an appreciation for your collective plight. It makes me suspect you are being burnt out.
And no, I did not say that _I_ find such paperwork burdensome. Because I am in tolerable health. But the government does not demand that (additional) paperwork from the healthy and the working. They demand it from the sick and the frail. "Prove you are valuable to us. Prove that you are worthy of our generosity. Despite your years of paying taxes on time, we demand you expend more time and more effort on sating our need for control."
It may - and does - claim to the contrary all it likes, but by the results the US does not truly "care" for the poor, not even its own veterans.
Should one day you call out for aid in lifting your hand to the bowl, I hope whoever listens reaches out to aid you without first demanding you prove you cannot.
Where did you get the idea that a UBI is communist?
Are you using some strange definition of communism that would not only allow but provide individuals to have money to spend as they choose, on products from whomever they choose, without the state dictating who they can buy from and at what prices?
Even a poorly-regulated UBI would be a vast improvement over the hodge-podge of shoddy cronyistic "welfare" programs (e.g. food stamps) implemented by committees of (maybe) well-intentioned do-gooders that we have now.
Frankly, compared to the welfare system we currently have, UBI _is_ well-regulated capitalism.
How do you prevent such a program from resulting in a bloated public service and/or a population falling into what is basically indentured servitude as corporations take advantage (much like they are doing now with the prison-industrial complex) of subcontracting minimum-wage government "employees"?
There is one very good reason to choose a basic income policy: it altruistically empowers individuals rather than place control in the hands of a privileged few.
Lack of money is one of those barriers to entry to all markets. Think of UBI as venture capital financing on a ubiquitous scale; the return sought is a more advanced civilization with a higher quality of life for all concerned.
How much of the money in the current system is eaten by overhead/management? How much is eaten by knock-on effects of failing to prevent the consequences of poverty? What's the cost of the mal-nourished and the homeless in additional welfare, police and emergency services? What's the cost of poverty-derived crime?
How much of the money in the current system is eaten by overhead/management?
Congratulations, you just posted a classic strawman attack.
UBI is about giving _everyone_ a basic income sufficient to live on in times of individual adversity. It takes advantage of macroeconomic forces so that even if a small fraction of the populace abuse the privilege - and it is a small _fraction_ that you are talking about - the overall benefit to society will be a greater net positive than the crap shoot we have now.
Yes, it's very nice how hard you worked. Very inspirational. Pity if all that goes to shit through one bad day, like you get hit by a car or struck by a falling branch or slip on a piece of litter. Suddenly you're not working any more, you'll be bedridden for weeks, and the landlord is evicting you because you haven't paid the rent with the income you no longer have. What a shame. Time for you to begin that long slow crawl back out of the mud so you can strive for the glittering paradise you dream exists at the top of the wheel.
But the wheel always keep turning. Every spoke will be inexorably forced back into the mud. Screw that, you selfish moron, I want a future that doesn't involve these endless games of thrones. I want a future with flying cars that don't need roads.