In this case it was enough. This prompted the local police to investigate when someone directed them to the forum post. They found witnesses to the event in the area where he committed the crime, and the guy ended up pleading guilty as a result.
The story doesn't claim that he was found guilty on his confession alone, but it was enough to get him convicted of a crime.
Maybe you can construe it as that but in a court of law as long as you don't formally plead guilty there simply is no way that admitting guilt in an online forum rises beyond the level of resonable doubt.
Self-incrimination has existed for a very long time.
No. The man basically confessed to a crime. The forum post is their 'evidence'. It's not even hearsay, as it came directly from the 'horses mouth' so to speak. If you're going to brag about a crime, you damn well better make sure you did it, because your liable if they choose to prosecute, and those bragging rights will cost you. I'm assuming those above who are rightfully being modded as trolls and crying about 'snitches' and 'minding their own business' don't have children, or have ever thought long enough to think about everything that can go wrong when racing in a residential area. An automobile which is ok to drive on public roads is not a recreational vehicle, and has been considered a deadly weapon when used in such a manner and things took a turn for the worse.
What if such a person killed one of your family?
Would you be so forgiving then?
Statements made online are neither the equivalent of testifying in court nor expected to be 100% TRUE. If the only "evidence" the cops had was his online statement, they had no evidence at all.
It's amazing how far folks are falling over themselves to defend this type of activity on the Android platform ("well it's their own fault" and "they should have read the warning"). I hate to break it to everyone, but most Android users are not geeks, nerds, or techies. They will do just as windows users have been doing for decades and click 'OK' when prompted. Such behavior should be expected and accounted for, or provisions made to protect end users in spite of themselves.
The difference here? There is no virus scan or malware blocker to save them.
A National Research Council report released last Friday revealed that only $4 million annually has been allotted to identify civilization-ending near-Earth objects (NEOs). Of the $3.1 trillion in the 2009 US federal budget, four million dollars represents only 0.000129%. To put it in more concrete terms, if your salary was $40,000 last year, you would have spent 5 cents protecting yourself.
We don't know what's out there, and won't catalogue every object for a very long time. There will always be unknown and unmapped objects, at least in the foreseeable future. Even when they do see these objects in advance, the accuracy for impact zones, although improved, still has a rather large variance until a rather short time before they actually hit.
Although you might have a warm fuzzy about such ambiguity, I don't, and I don't imagine many other do either.
I don't think in the larger scale of things, a few years is what he's concerned about. Although the chances of a larger meteor impact in the next 50 years may be negligible and dismissed, I would think it scales up rather quickly as you add centuries to the equation. We don't necessarily have to move to mars. We have the moon fairly close by, which has water, along with essential base elements, and tons of rock to keep us protected from those nasty cosmic rays.
Unfortunately, this is one of those things that you have to work towards to make it realistic and do-able. It's not a spur of the moment sort of thing we could just pull out of our asses at a moments notice, which also unfortunately, life devastating events seem to be, according to history. They always seem to be more the 'Oh Shit!' variety that you just can't plan for. If we start working on these problems now, it better positions us for the unforeseen in the future. I think that's the point he's trying to make.
At least in the event of some earth catastrophe, at least some would survive, assuming they have a fully self sustaining environment elsewhere. Until we have that, we're guaranteed to be 'screwed' should such an event occur. It is not a matter of IF, but of WHEN.
I wonder why they just don't put some custom software in the router to block a specific MAC after X amount of time? Give people their cake and eat it too so to speak...
I have to disagree. That might have been true for the 'AOL' generation, because everything was presented in a nice cosmetic package. The newest generation most certainly does not exist in the 'Facebook Bubble'. They are in blogs, in chat rooms, porn sites, fan sites, AmericanIdol.com, etc.
Although the old social bubbles might have served as the 'internet' in it's infancy, there is no way that would or could happen now. Although they may not 'go online' in this day and age, they most certainly wouldn't be satisfied by only a single service. They may not know the technical details but they know where to go to find things that interest them. The internet is an endless supply of 'apps' to borrow the iTunes phrase. There will always be new, endless curiosities to be seen, heard, and experienced, be that for 5 minutes, or 5 years, and no single 'site' can provide all of that.
They don't differentiate between "The Internet" and a service. To them, FaceBook is the internet.
Main Entry: irregardless Pronunciation: \ir-i-gärd-ls\ Function: adverb Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless Date: circa 1912 nonstandard : regardless usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
You believe that Jar Jar is what made Star Wars sell? Irregardless of the abomination known as Jar Jar, I believe it sold well not due to the FX, but also for the story. It had a huge following and the story had been deeply ingrained into modern culture. Unlike 'Piranha' and other recent tripe, this story has depth, regardless of it's flaws (acting, directing, and Jar Jar).
Jar Jar didn't make Episode 1 a success (and make no mistake, it was with over a billion in revenue and a cost of 280 million to make). The story, it's fans, and the fact that it is a part of modern culture did make it a win, no Jar Jar.
Jar Jar wasn't a triumph. He was almost unilaterally hated in the franchise with actual 'hate jar jar' fan sites dedicated to the topic. I wouldn't hold him up as an good example.
When it comes to FX, I would look more to something like Star Trek the Motion Picture. Big on visuals (for it's time) and technical achievements, but lacking in story.
FX done right would be more along the lines of Golem in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Great visuals and a great character to drive him.
The only thing I take issue with is that they imply that 3D doesn't add anything to the experience. Done properly, it can. Used improperly, it can simply be a crutch for a bad movie, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done right and add to the story. I would imagine the same arguments took place about technicolor, yet here we are...
We see the world in 3D just as we see it in color. It is a natural progression.
If you have followed your history, you'd know that when Apple did allow 'clones' using Apple's OS licensed to third parties, it almost destroyed the company. They make their money off of their hardware, not their software. Their current hardware model wouldn't support clones just as it didn't in the 90's.
You also assume they don't have the exclusivity contract with AT&T. At the time, no other cell provider wanted to talk to them or take a chance on the iPhone. Apple didn't have a 'choice' in AT&T. They were the only option.
Is Apple arrogant for not producing multiple lines? Frankly, I wasn't aware they were failing miserably. They currently hold a tiny sliver of the PC market. Essentially the same landscape that I would imagine the smartphone market will turn into, yet they currently have more market cap than Microsoft. I think their stock holders might disagree with your assessment.
That was exactly my point and Windows vs. Mac is a good example. This is about as relevant as saying that Windows sells more OS in a quater than Mac. It's just kind of a 'duh' statement. Although Apple is extremely popular in the smartphone segment, they are only a single company. They can't hope to compete with every other smartphone vendor releasing an Android phone.
This would be significant if it was a 'Droid X outsells iPhone' headline. Instead, they are grouping a slew of hardware models together into one big group who happen to all use the same base OS, and then comparing them to a handset that only comes on a single piece of hardware from a single vendor.
I get tickled at news like this. There are numerous vendors selling Android phones, and only 1 vendor selling a current model iPhone from one provider in the U.S. These numbers also do not take into account iPhone 4 sales after it's release. Funny this article doesn't mention that.
This is not something to 'brag' about. They should be solidly trouncing iPhone considering how popular Android is becoming. It's a common thing to see Apple hardware sales decline before a new line is introduced. People hold back on buying in order to get the latest. Just look at the sales history for iPhone and Apple Mac hardware.
This is like saying all other PC vendors combined outsold Dell. It's a silly argument.
It cites the law the FBI quoted. That does not mean the quoted law applies. They also cite this on the image URL:
This image is a work of a Federal Bureau of Investigation employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.
In order for the FBI law to have bearing, I believe Wiki's defense is that they basically state right on the image page that it is a public domain image, they cite the laws prohibiting specific uses of the image, which pretty much prevents anyone from misunderstanding that their looking at an image of the seal, not the official seal.
U.S.C. 701 would seem to refer to 709 and 712, neither of which would apply here. Wiki is not misrepresenting itself as a government agency (709), or attempting to convey the false impression that such communication is from a department, agency, bureau, or instrumentality of the United States (712).
701. Official badges, identification cards, other insignia Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
709. False advertising or misuse of names to indicate Federal agency
712. Misuse of names, words, emblems, or insignia Whoever, in the course of collecting or aiding in the collection of private debts or obligations, or being engaged in furnishing private police, investigation, or other private detective services, uses or employs in any communication, correspondence, notice, advertisement, or circular the words “national”, “Federal”, or “United States”, the initials “U.S.”, or any emblem, insignia, or name, for the purpose of conveying and in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the false impression that such communication is from a department, agency, bureau, or instrumentality of the United States or in any manner represents the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Walking onto a military base and using USAF equipment isn't exactly the same thing as reproducing a graphic on a web page now is it? There are obviously laws that prevent civilians from just wandering onto a military base and borrowing equipment.
Not exactly the same thing as reprinting a government graphic on a web page.
A more sane example would be utilizing the design specifications for said fighter (assuming they are not classified) to build your own fighter and not getting sued for IP violation for doing so.
Access and ownership are two different entities. For instance, the taxpayer pays the salaries of the police force, but you certainly can't expect them to follow your orders, at least not in a general sense. Although you could have laws changed which the police would then have to follow, they are not your personal servants who will perform to your every whim.
In terms of ownership though, that is a different story. Development of ideas (intellectual property), fully funded by taxpayer dollars, are technically owned by the the public. A government office claiming copyright to something that is publicly owned isn't exactly logical to my mind. The state can't come in and sue you for using something which you technically already own unless it violates some law that states as much.
Oregon has already tried to claim copyright over the right to publish state laws. They eventually saw the stupidity of their claims, although they didn't learn their lesson either.
Any properly fire walled device should be protected for the most part. That said, giving anyone physical access to a network device on your internal network exposes this type weakness. It's a bit ridiculous to state it's on the internal network and then get everyone riled up that it has access to said network resources. The simple fact remains that any network connected device could do this.
TFA states that they could do this with a pirated version of a game. Although this may be much more common in a home environment, I'm thinking a work supplied device that never leaves the office would be a bit harder to do this to? Some simple physical restraints or claims to limit what media can be placed into it, and proper firewall controls to prevent unauthorized browsing should mitigate this is a big exposure.
I actually found this far more interesting. Apparently the sunspot that created the intial flare is large enough it can be spotted with the naked eye. This sunspot is huge.
SUNSPOT SUNRISE: Sunspot 1092, a key player in yesterday's Earth-directed eruptions, is big enough to see without the aid of a solar telescope. Oleg Toumilovitch "spotted" it on July 31st rising over Blairgowrie, South Africa:
"During the first few minutes of sunrise only a fraction of the sunlight makes it's way to the observer - mostly from the red part of visible spectrum," notes Toumilovitch. "During this time large sunspots can be seen without a special solar filter." Be careful, though! Even when dimmed by clouds and haze, direct sunlight can hurt your eyes. "If you try to take a picture like this," advises Toumilovitch, "look only at the screen of your digital camera, not the optical viewfinder."
Scientists classify solar flares according to their x-ray brightness in the wavelength range 1 to 8 Angstroms. There are 3 categories: X-class flares are big; they are major events that can trigger planet-wide radio blackouts and long-lasting radiation storms. M-class flares are medium-sized; they can cause brief radio blackouts that affect Earth's polar regions. Minor radiation storms sometimes follow an M-class flare. Compared to X- and M-class events, C-class flares are small with few noticeable consequences here on Earth.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case it was enough. This prompted the local police to investigate when someone directed them to the forum post. They found witnesses to the event in the area where he committed the crime, and the guy ended up pleading guilty as a result.
The story doesn't claim that he was found guilty on his confession alone, but it was enough to get him convicted of a crime.
Then why bother with the right to remain silent?
Self-incrimination has existed for a very long time.
No. The man basically confessed to a crime. The forum post is their 'evidence'. It's not even hearsay, as it came directly from the 'horses mouth' so to speak. If you're going to brag about a crime, you damn well better make sure you did it, because your liable if they choose to prosecute, and those bragging rights will cost you. I'm assuming those above who are rightfully being modded as trolls and crying about 'snitches' and 'minding their own business' don't have children, or have ever thought long enough to think about everything that can go wrong when racing in a residential area. An automobile which is ok to drive on public roads is not a recreational vehicle, and has been considered a deadly weapon when used in such a manner and things took a turn for the worse.
What if such a person killed one of your family?
Would you be so forgiving then?
It's amazing how far folks are falling over themselves to defend this type of activity on the Android platform ("well it's their own fault" and "they should have read the warning"). I hate to break it to everyone, but most Android users are not geeks, nerds, or techies. They will do just as windows users have been doing for decades and click 'OK' when prompted. Such behavior should be expected and accounted for, or provisions made to protect end users in spite of themselves.
The difference here? There is no virus scan or malware blocker to save them.
That wouldn't be an accurate statement. They've cataloged about 10% of the local sky.
http://www.space.com/news/earth-asteroid-impact-congress-commision-100719.html
We don't know what's out there, and won't catalogue every object for a very long time. There will always be unknown and unmapped objects, at least in the foreseeable future. Even when they do see these objects in advance, the accuracy for impact zones, although improved, still has a rather large variance until a rather short time before they actually hit.
Although you might have a warm fuzzy about such ambiguity, I don't, and I don't imagine many other do either.
I don't think in the larger scale of things, a few years is what he's concerned about. Although the chances of a larger meteor impact in the next 50 years may be negligible and dismissed, I would think it scales up rather quickly as you add centuries to the equation. We don't necessarily have to move to mars. We have the moon fairly close by, which has water, along with essential base elements, and tons of rock to keep us protected from those nasty cosmic rays.
Unfortunately, this is one of those things that you have to work towards to make it realistic and do-able. It's not a spur of the moment sort of thing we could just pull out of our asses at a moments notice, which also unfortunately, life devastating events seem to be, according to history. They always seem to be more the 'Oh Shit!' variety that you just can't plan for. If we start working on these problems now, it better positions us for the unforeseen in the future. I think that's the point he's trying to make.
At least in the event of some earth catastrophe, at least some would survive, assuming they have a fully self sustaining environment elsewhere. Until we have that, we're guaranteed to be 'screwed' should such an event occur. It is not a matter of IF, but of WHEN.
I wonder why they just don't put some custom software in the router to block a specific MAC after X amount of time? Give people their cake and eat it too so to speak...
I have to disagree. That might have been true for the 'AOL' generation, because everything was presented in a nice cosmetic package. The newest generation most certainly does not exist in the 'Facebook Bubble'. They are in blogs, in chat rooms, porn sites, fan sites, AmericanIdol.com, etc.
Although the old social bubbles might have served as the 'internet' in it's infancy, there is no way that would or could happen now. Although they may not 'go online' in this day and age, they most certainly wouldn't be satisfied by only a single service. They may not know the technical details but they know where to go to find things that interest them. The internet is an endless supply of 'apps' to borrow the iTunes phrase. There will always be new, endless curiosities to be seen, heard, and experienced, be that for 5 minutes, or 5 years, and no single 'site' can provide all of that.
Main Entry: irregardless
Pronunciation: \ir-i-gärd-ls\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : regardless
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
You believe that Jar Jar is what made Star Wars sell? Irregardless of the abomination known as Jar Jar, I believe it sold well not due to the FX, but also for the story. It had a huge following and the story had been deeply ingrained into modern culture. Unlike 'Piranha' and other recent tripe, this story has depth, regardless of it's flaws (acting, directing, and Jar Jar).
Jar Jar didn't make Episode 1 a success (and make no mistake, it was with over a billion in revenue and a cost of 280 million to make). The story, it's fans, and the fact that it is a part of modern culture did make it a win, no Jar Jar.
Jar Jar wasn't a triumph. He was almost unilaterally hated in the franchise with actual 'hate jar jar' fan sites dedicated to the topic. I wouldn't hold him up as an good example.
When it comes to FX, I would look more to something like Star Trek the Motion Picture. Big on visuals (for it's time) and technical achievements, but lacking in story.
FX done right would be more along the lines of Golem in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Great visuals and a great character to drive him.
The only thing I take issue with is that they imply that 3D doesn't add anything to the experience. Done properly, it can. Used improperly, it can simply be a crutch for a bad movie, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done right and add to the story. I would imagine the same arguments took place about technicolor, yet here we are...
We see the world in 3D just as we see it in color. It is a natural progression.
If you have followed your history, you'd know that when Apple did allow 'clones' using Apple's OS licensed to third parties, it almost destroyed the company. They make their money off of their hardware, not their software. Their current hardware model wouldn't support clones just as it didn't in the 90's.
You also assume they don't have the exclusivity contract with AT&T. At the time, no other cell provider wanted to talk to them or take a chance on the iPhone. Apple didn't have a 'choice' in AT&T. They were the only option.
Is Apple arrogant for not producing multiple lines? Frankly, I wasn't aware they were failing miserably. They currently hold a tiny sliver of the PC market. Essentially the same landscape that I would imagine the smartphone market will turn into, yet they currently have more market cap than Microsoft. I think their stock holders might disagree with your assessment.
Then why not properly report the headline as "Android outsells iOS4"?
The numbers don't even take the new iPhone into account. The summary is definitely slanted towards 'fanboi' news.
That was exactly my point and Windows vs. Mac is a good example. This is about as relevant as saying that Windows sells more OS in a quater than Mac. It's just kind of a 'duh' statement. Although Apple is extremely popular in the smartphone segment, they are only a single company. They can't hope to compete with every other smartphone vendor releasing an Android phone.
This would be significant if it was a 'Droid X outsells iPhone' headline. Instead, they are grouping a slew of hardware models together into one big group who happen to all use the same base OS, and then comparing them to a handset that only comes on a single piece of hardware from a single vendor.
I get tickled at news like this. There are numerous vendors selling Android phones, and only 1 vendor selling a current model iPhone from one provider in the U.S. These numbers also do not take into account iPhone 4 sales after it's release. Funny this article doesn't mention that.
This is not something to 'brag' about. They should be solidly trouncing iPhone considering how popular Android is becoming. It's a common thing to see Apple hardware sales decline before a new line is introduced. People hold back on buying in order to get the latest. Just look at the sales history for iPhone and Apple Mac hardware.
This is like saying all other PC vendors combined outsold Dell. It's a silly argument.
It cites the law the FBI quoted. That does not mean the quoted law applies. They also cite this on the image URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg
In order for the FBI law to have bearing, I believe Wiki's defense is that they basically state right on the image page that it is a public domain image, they cite the laws prohibiting specific uses of the image, which pretty much prevents anyone from misunderstanding that their looking at an image of the seal, not the official seal.
U.S.C. 701 would seem to refer to 709 and 712, neither of which would apply here. Wiki is not misrepresenting itself as a government agency (709), or attempting to convey the false impression that such communication is from a department, agency, bureau, or instrumentality of the United States (712).
Walking onto a military base and using USAF equipment isn't exactly the same thing as reproducing a graphic on a web page now is it? There are obviously laws that prevent civilians from just wandering onto a military base and borrowing equipment.
Not exactly the same thing as reprinting a government graphic on a web page.
A more sane example would be utilizing the design specifications for said fighter (assuming they are not classified) to build your own fighter and not getting sued for IP violation for doing so.
Access and ownership are two different entities. For instance, the taxpayer pays the salaries of the police force, but you certainly can't expect them to follow your orders, at least not in a general sense. Although you could have laws changed which the police would then have to follow, they are not your personal servants who will perform to your every whim.
In terms of ownership though, that is a different story. Development of ideas (intellectual property), fully funded by taxpayer dollars, are technically owned by the the public. A government office claiming copyright to something that is publicly owned isn't exactly logical to my mind. The state can't come in and sue you for using something which you technically already own unless it violates some law that states as much.
Oregon has already tried to claim copyright over the right to publish state laws. They eventually saw the stupidity of their claims, although they didn't learn their lesson either.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091030/1537066744.shtml
Wouldn't this seal be owned and payed for by the tax payers of the U.S.?
Apologies for the typos. I have obviously NOT had enough coffee yet this morning...
physical restraints or claims = physical restraints or CLAMPS
mitigate this is a big exposure == mitigate this AS a big exposure
Any properly fire walled device should be protected for the most part. That said, giving anyone physical access to a network device on your internal network exposes this type weakness. It's a bit ridiculous to state it's on the internal network and then get everyone riled up that it has access to said network resources. The simple fact remains that any network connected device could do this.
TFA states that they could do this with a pirated version of a game. Although this may be much more common in a home environment, I'm thinking a work supplied device that never leaves the office would be a bit harder to do this to? Some simple physical restraints or claims to limit what media can be placed into it, and proper firewall controls to prevent unauthorized browsing should mitigate this is a big exposure.
How is this different from any workstation?
I actually found this far more interesting. Apparently the sunspot that created the intial flare is large enough it can be spotted with the naked eye. This sunspot is huge.
http://spaceweather.com/
Image of the sunspot in question: http://spaceweather.com/swpod2010/02aug10/Oleg-Toumilovitch1_strip.jpg
Here are the classifications, and a C3 means few if any noticeable impact on Earth. It is the X class flares that we need to be concerned about:
http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/flareclasses.html
I was thinking more like an artificial lung. Sensors could determine CO2 or O2 content and allow gas exchange based on the content of the gas.
No, the first amendment protects free speech, not the right to bribe.