The other problem with "the ends justify the means" type counter argument is frequently that said ends do NOT justify said means. If the means to permanent world peace (probably one of the most desirable ends I can think of) is to eliminate 99% of the world's population, the end does NOT justify the means. People seem to use this in lieu of "no matter the cost" but really it's far more rational.
In my opinion, it should be the majority that gets to decide. From what I have seen, democrats in general tend to be in favor of supporting stem cell research. Plenty of republican women hold the opinion that abortion should be legal, and if that is the case, would agree with embryonic stem cell research. Even if 100% of republican men are against it, if democrats and republicans are anywhere near a 50/50 split, I would bet that the majority is in favor of embryonic stem cell research.
The people who sit around all day and are too lazy to change the batteries in their remotes even when it dies while watching c-span. Which party does said person belong to?
There is a distinction here - stem cell research is being done for the public good. If stem cells could be made from plants, would there be anything holding us back from a stem cell bonanza? Pacifism is understandable - war protesters will agree that wars are NOT in the public's best interest.
So do we have to stop doing research based on this research? How is it that a process without negative effects, that has produced positive effects, is being ruled illegal?
While this would seem like a no-brainer, "Circumvent this law for the good of society, RIGHT NOW!" type moments, I have to say that the regulators obeying their legislative and judicial overlords is probably in the best interest of the country.
I think that is an oversimplification - everyone agrees that the intended ends (cures for diseases, etc) are desirable, its just that a small but vocal minority says that the means are bad because some book can vaguely be interpreted to say so.
Cancer has been researched for decades. People still die from cancer. Therefore, the research was pointless.
As another point - many times research bears no fruits initially. Just because there haven't been any results yet doesn't mean there will never be results
Things always go smoothly. But seriously - the "debate" (can't believe there even is one) over creationism is harmful intellectually, but I doubt it is actively inhibiting research on anything. Stem cell research, on the other hand, IS being held back by religious groups that believe any fertilized embryo is a human. And I for one truly detest the role religion is playing in actively inhibiting research on diseases that are currently killing people. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins - I can't find a clever way to say it, but why must this still not apply to religion?
The "stereo" equipment I described was separate from the USEFUL stuff. This was solely an analog fm/am radio box, with no electrical cable for an outlet (plugged into the stereo amp). It looks like, and truly is, a worthless piece of junk, and if you saw it, you'd recognize it as such.
Other than that, the only hiding spot of mine that you'd get would be things in the freezer. Everything else would stay safe
I like the toekick idea, but that is more of an access-once type location (multi-access would probably make it look conspicuous).
Another thing: when it comes to money dogs, vac sealed cash that gets washed is an easy way around them.
Finally, a disclaimer: I have never (and will never) post the hiding spots I would potentially use if I had to hide cash on the internet.
I would be wary of any hiding spot that must be accessed alone in an area so far removed from the public. One's home is an attractive place to store cash as it provides good cover of where the specific spots are, and is also highly defensible.
My recommendations are more apt at hiding it from thieves than from government. The way you hide it from government is renting a place for cash with your name not on the lease, only walking or biking there starting from a public location, and returning to a public location (before going back home) and NEVER carrying any electronic device with you. Renting a garage works perfectly for this.
When you store money to store it, you use 100s. My VHS player could hold 200 bills. My radio holds 50. Wall outlets are generally good for 100. Light switches 25 or so. Jars of pills can do about 100. Freezer wrapping tricks can easily get you several hundred. Door hinge spots are good for 100. Cereal boxes are good for several hundred (tho I'd never use more than 50 in one) and the meat freezer trick is ~50.
Disclaimer: I get all this info from watching TV shows like to catch a thief and Burn Notice
So, to tally this up: Count your light switches (say, 10?) X 25 = 250. Wall outlets x 10 = 1000. Junk electronics = 250-500. 5 doors x 100 = 500. Kitchen spots x 5 = 250. Total thus far: ~2500 bills. Now ask yourself: Who needs more than $25k in readily, frequently accessible cash (not counting one time accessible cash built into walls, furniture, etc)? Drug dealers, maybe. But any drug dealer who is dealing with that much cash almost certainly has a stash spot and a cash spot both separate from where they live.
The stereo radio receiver I have is a piece of junk (old, spotty aluminum look) and I keep it thrown somewhere like a closet. Compared to the ~5 laptops, ps3 and 2 360s in the house, no thief is going to take it.
People lacking a significant criminal background ALWAYS tend to be stupid when it comes to hiding cash. Especially once you reach a certain amount where hiding it within your house requires multiple hiding spots. Wall sockets, light switches, and inside of old, large electronics (CRT monitors, VHS players) with difficult-to-remove siding are all viable home storage locations. Then again, it really depends on what your goals are. If you want to hide money so well that no one will find it, get some custom furniture with places to hide cash that can be built around the cash, so the couch (or table, sometimes) must be physically destroyed to access it.
Most people who store lots of cash tend to be stupid about it. They place it in a location that is difficult for them to get to, say, under some boxes, or in the back of the closet. Thing is, someone who wants that cash couldn't care less about what they destroy in the process to get it.
/tinfoil hat on/ Ideally, to hide large sums of cash in your home, you need to determine what percent must be easily accessible, accessible, and largely inaccessible. Easily accessible means that it takes you less than a minute to get to it. A 500 count jar of advil is a great place to store a roll of cash, and then pour the pills back over it. (Also have some underneath). Food containers also work well for this (Cereal, milk jug, etc).
For accessible, but not easily so, you have more options. Generally, this category can fall into "Things with screws." As previously mentioned, a CRT monitor or VHS player with removable back/side/bottom works wonders for hiding things. My favorite was a radio receiver from 1980 that went with some other stereo equipment. It had 6 screws on the bottom, and there was a thin space for hiding something flat between it and the circuit board. The panel was slightly smaller than the gap, too, so you could see the circuit board 1cm away, but the panel was big enough to hide any cash. Another great place is to take your door off the wall, remove the hinges (from the wall) and drill into that area. It is easy cut in deep enough to store something. Lastly, most light switches or wall outlets have a small gap in the wall, which is perfect for storing a roll. Oh, and also, a favorite: Get 2 fairly large cuts of prewrapped meat at the supermarket, and unwrap them. Throw 1 away, and keep the white bottom tray. Put some cash between that tray and the other one (with the meat on it) and then press the edges together, put the meat back on top, and then wrap it really tightly (even better to reuse the wrap it came with) and then throw it in the freezer.
Apple doesn't want the corporate market
IBM couldn't even get it together with OS/2 but they didn't want the home market
Linux doesn't want the computer incompetent
An idea that I used when I helped my friend try to set up a wireless, no-collar alarm system for his pets involved multiple cameras that were set up to triangulate position, and track it as it moved between cameras. His goal was to play an alarm any time the cats got near the fish, or got into his room, or when his dogs got past their fence, etc. Disclaimer: we never really got it working well, but we got it working sometimes.
The system worked fairly simply: The cameras were stationary and usually ~10 ft high. They would detect motion sources, and then the system would calculate the angle from the wall to the object. This data then was used to determine which other camera(s) could see the object. As soon as one camera detected it, other cameras would try to find it to triangulate its location. Location then got plotted on a 2d graph of the property (no walls, just a large grid) and was moved around accordingly.
I did much of the coding in java, mainly using some apis I found for motion detection. I calculated angles based on the object's position on the screen. The toughest part (that we overcame) was how to pass objects off between camera zones. We found that for things to run smoothly, we needed 3 cameras on the zone change so that the animal was always seen by 2 cameras. The system worked great indoors, with only 1-2 pets, but outside didn't work at all due to too much motion noise. Ultimately, we scrapped the tracking project and just went with motion detecting cameras that would go off whenever a pet moved within a certain area of the frame.
To make this relevant to you, I would think that this system would be much easier to implement using cars. Motorcycles could be a bit of a problem, but still, there's one vehicle moving and it's much bigger (and faster) than everything else. All you'd need is 2 layer camera coverage on every square cm of road, and then some math running to calculate speed. The biggest problem here, I bet, would be powering all the cameras (although if you're in the Middle East, I bet you could use solar).
I think that the overuse of 3G (and subsequent use of 3G as an advertised speed) is a result of locked phones being tied to carriers. When Joe Average Consumer goes out to buy landline internet, there really isn't a whole lot to choose from that differentiates comcast, att, and whoever else. The main thing he decides on is speed; the hardware that comes with is usually irrelevant. What we have in the cell phone market is 3G being used as a sort of loose guarantee that internet will be somewhat fast. The whole using a protocol as a speed definition is stupid, but the reason Joe doesn't notice is that he is too busy choosing which phone to use, which determines the carrier. It seems all carriers have realized that it is significantly easier to advertise "3G enabled" and not put a speed on it, and let the phone pull in sales, rather than the network. If we lived in a world (or nearly any foreign country) where unlocked phones are the norm, you'd pick your phone, then comparison shop for either the fastest or cheapest (or balance of the 2) network.
tl;dr version: Overuse of 3G is caused by locked phones
My current non-tech savvy user package that I install for relatives consists of firefox running adblock plus, noscript (configured to auto-allow only first party scripts) and avg. If they get an infection, I have a handy script (on their desktop) they can run if anything ever breaks that will system restore 7 days back. I have not had to repair one of these computers in well over a year.
Any piece of security software that can be unraveled by discussing it is not a solution. The article mentions that the developer is already trying to prepare counter-countermeasures, so hopefully this one has some extended relevance.
Slashdot Mirror
The other problem with "the ends justify the means" type counter argument is frequently that said ends do NOT justify said means. If the means to permanent world peace (probably one of the most desirable ends I can think of) is to eliminate 99% of the world's population, the end does NOT justify the means. People seem to use this in lieu of "no matter the cost" but really it's far more rational.
In my opinion, it should be the majority that gets to decide. From what I have seen, democrats in general tend to be in favor of supporting stem cell research. Plenty of republican women hold the opinion that abortion should be legal, and if that is the case, would agree with embryonic stem cell research. Even if 100% of republican men are against it, if democrats and republicans are anywhere near a 50/50 split, I would bet that the majority is in favor of embryonic stem cell research.
The people who sit around all day and are too lazy to change the batteries in their remotes even when it dies while watching c-span. Which party does said person belong to?
There is a distinction here - stem cell research is being done for the public good. If stem cells could be made from plants, would there be anything holding us back from a stem cell bonanza? Pacifism is understandable - war protesters will agree that wars are NOT in the public's best interest.
So do we have to stop doing research based on this research? How is it that a process without negative effects, that has produced positive effects, is being ruled illegal?
While this would seem like a no-brainer, "Circumvent this law for the good of society, RIGHT NOW!" type moments, I have to say that the regulators obeying their legislative and judicial overlords is probably in the best interest of the country.
I think that is an oversimplification - everyone agrees that the intended ends (cures for diseases, etc) are desirable, its just that a small but vocal minority says that the means are bad because some book can vaguely be interpreted to say so.
By your logic:
Cancer has been researched for decades. People still die from cancer. Therefore, the research was pointless.
As another point - many times research bears no fruits initially. Just because there haven't been any results yet doesn't mean there will never be results
.
Things always go smoothly. But seriously - the "debate" (can't believe there even is one) over creationism is harmful intellectually, but I doubt it is actively inhibiting research on anything. Stem cell research, on the other hand, IS being held back by religious groups that believe any fertilized embryo is a human. And I for one truly detest the role religion is playing in actively inhibiting research on diseases that are currently killing people. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins - I can't find a clever way to say it, but why must this still not apply to religion?
The "stereo" equipment I described was separate from the USEFUL stuff. This was solely an analog fm/am radio box, with no electrical cable for an outlet (plugged into the stereo amp). It looks like, and truly is, a worthless piece of junk, and if you saw it, you'd recognize it as such.
Other than that, the only hiding spot of mine that you'd get would be things in the freezer. Everything else would stay safe
I like the toekick idea, but that is more of an access-once type location (multi-access would probably make it look conspicuous).
Another thing: when it comes to money dogs, vac sealed cash that gets washed is an easy way around them.
Finally, a disclaimer: I have never (and will never) post the hiding spots I would potentially use if I had to hide cash on the internet.
I would be wary of any hiding spot that must be accessed alone in an area so far removed from the public. One's home is an attractive place to store cash as it provides good cover of where the specific spots are, and is also highly defensible.
My recommendations are more apt at hiding it from thieves than from government. The way you hide it from government is renting a place for cash with your name not on the lease, only walking or biking there starting from a public location, and returning to a public location (before going back home) and NEVER carrying any electronic device with you. Renting a garage works perfectly for this.
What is Burn Notice? Never heard of it :D
I doubt anything is going to happen. In fact, I thi- brb, weird noises coming from my back door.
When you store money to store it, you use 100s. My VHS player could hold 200 bills. My radio holds 50. Wall outlets are generally good for 100. Light switches 25 or so. Jars of pills can do about 100. Freezer wrapping tricks can easily get you several hundred. Door hinge spots are good for 100. Cereal boxes are good for several hundred (tho I'd never use more than 50 in one) and the meat freezer trick is ~50.
Disclaimer: I get all this info from watching TV shows like to catch a thief and Burn Notice
So, to tally this up: Count your light switches (say, 10?) X 25 = 250. Wall outlets x 10 = 1000. Junk electronics = 250-500. 5 doors x 100 = 500. Kitchen spots x 5 = 250. Total thus far: ~2500 bills. Now ask yourself: Who needs more than $25k in readily, frequently accessible cash (not counting one time accessible cash built into walls, furniture, etc)? Drug dealers, maybe. But any drug dealer who is dealing with that much cash almost certainly has a stash spot and a cash spot both separate from where they live.
The stereo radio receiver I have is a piece of junk (old, spotty aluminum look) and I keep it thrown somewhere like a closet. Compared to the ~5 laptops, ps3 and 2 360s in the house, no thief is going to take it.
People lacking a significant criminal background ALWAYS tend to be stupid when it comes to hiding cash. Especially once you reach a certain amount where hiding it within your house requires multiple hiding spots. Wall sockets, light switches, and inside of old, large electronics (CRT monitors, VHS players) with difficult-to-remove siding are all viable home storage locations. Then again, it really depends on what your goals are. If you want to hide money so well that no one will find it, get some custom furniture with places to hide cash that can be built around the cash, so the couch (or table, sometimes) must be physically destroyed to access it.
Most people who store lots of cash tend to be stupid about it. They place it in a location that is difficult for them to get to, say, under some boxes, or in the back of the closet. Thing is, someone who wants that cash couldn't care less about what they destroy in the process to get it.
/tinfoil hat on/ Ideally, to hide large sums of cash in your home, you need to determine what percent must be easily accessible, accessible, and largely inaccessible. Easily accessible means that it takes you less than a minute to get to it. A 500 count jar of advil is a great place to store a roll of cash, and then pour the pills back over it. (Also have some underneath). Food containers also work well for this (Cereal, milk jug, etc).
For accessible, but not easily so, you have more options. Generally, this category can fall into "Things with screws." As previously mentioned, a CRT monitor or VHS player with removable back/side/bottom works wonders for hiding things. My favorite was a radio receiver from 1980 that went with some other stereo equipment. It had 6 screws on the bottom, and there was a thin space for hiding something flat between it and the circuit board. The panel was slightly smaller than the gap, too, so you could see the circuit board 1cm away, but the panel was big enough to hide any cash. Another great place is to take your door off the wall, remove the hinges (from the wall) and drill into that area. It is easy cut in deep enough to store something. Lastly, most light switches or wall outlets have a small gap in the wall, which is perfect for storing a roll. Oh, and also, a favorite: Get 2 fairly large cuts of prewrapped meat at the supermarket, and unwrap them. Throw 1 away, and keep the white bottom tray. Put some cash between that tray and the other one (with the meat on it) and then press the edges together, put the meat back on top, and then wrap it really tightly (even better to reuse the wrap it came with) and then throw it in the freezer.
Apple doesn't want the corporate market IBM couldn't even get it together with OS/2 but they didn't want the home market Linux doesn't want the computer incompetent
Hits the nail on the head
An idea that I used when I helped my friend try to set up a wireless, no-collar alarm system for his pets involved multiple cameras that were set up to triangulate position, and track it as it moved between cameras. His goal was to play an alarm any time the cats got near the fish, or got into his room, or when his dogs got past their fence, etc. Disclaimer: we never really got it working well, but we got it working sometimes.
The system worked fairly simply: The cameras were stationary and usually ~10 ft high. They would detect motion sources, and then the system would calculate the angle from the wall to the object. This data then was used to determine which other camera(s) could see the object. As soon as one camera detected it, other cameras would try to find it to triangulate its location. Location then got plotted on a 2d graph of the property (no walls, just a large grid) and was moved around accordingly.
I did much of the coding in java, mainly using some apis I found for motion detection. I calculated angles based on the object's position on the screen. The toughest part (that we overcame) was how to pass objects off between camera zones. We found that for things to run smoothly, we needed 3 cameras on the zone change so that the animal was always seen by 2 cameras. The system worked great indoors, with only 1-2 pets, but outside didn't work at all due to too much motion noise. Ultimately, we scrapped the tracking project and just went with motion detecting cameras that would go off whenever a pet moved within a certain area of the frame.
To make this relevant to you, I would think that this system would be much easier to implement using cars. Motorcycles could be a bit of a problem, but still, there's one vehicle moving and it's much bigger (and faster) than everything else. All you'd need is 2 layer camera coverage on every square cm of road, and then some math running to calculate speed. The biggest problem here, I bet, would be powering all the cameras (although if you're in the Middle East, I bet you could use solar).
I think that the overuse of 3G (and subsequent use of 3G as an advertised speed) is a result of locked phones being tied to carriers. When Joe Average Consumer goes out to buy landline internet, there really isn't a whole lot to choose from that differentiates comcast, att, and whoever else. The main thing he decides on is speed; the hardware that comes with is usually irrelevant. What we have in the cell phone market is 3G being used as a sort of loose guarantee that internet will be somewhat fast. The whole using a protocol as a speed definition is stupid, but the reason Joe doesn't notice is that he is too busy choosing which phone to use, which determines the carrier. It seems all carriers have realized that it is significantly easier to advertise "3G enabled" and not put a speed on it, and let the phone pull in sales, rather than the network. If we lived in a world (or nearly any foreign country) where unlocked phones are the norm, you'd pick your phone, then comparison shop for either the fastest or cheapest (or balance of the 2) network.
tl;dr version: Overuse of 3G is caused by locked phones
The problem is, it should NEVER occur, and if it does, the offending officer should spend some time getting to know the people he helped put away.
So make the release of an edited recording illegal. Simple?
Is this lawyer advice or "I hope the law is reasonable" advice because the latter tends to rarely be correct, sad as that may be.
My current non-tech savvy user package that I install for relatives consists of firefox running adblock plus, noscript (configured to auto-allow only first party scripts) and avg. If they get an infection, I have a handy script (on their desktop) they can run if anything ever breaks that will system restore 7 days back. I have not had to repair one of these computers in well over a year.
Any piece of security software that can be unraveled by discussing it is not a solution. The article mentions that the developer is already trying to prepare counter-countermeasures, so hopefully this one has some extended relevance.