This is not true. Unless you live in an anarchy dominated territory, like somalia, you really cannot "live like they do" without violating several laws, including tax evasion.
Say for instance, I quit my job and packed up a knife, an axe, a tent, and some various other sundry items, then headed west into the large expanses of BLM owned forested wilderness:
Unless I sell all my properties first, and liquidate all my accounts, and sell my vehicle when I get there, I am guilty of tax evasion. (Property taxes, vehicular taxes, income taxes.)
Then, upon arrival, should I set my axe against the BLM owned forest so as to build myself a survival structure and to start a cooking fire, I break several more laws.
Illegal poaching, destruction of public property, endangering public property, building without a permit, creating a permanent structure that does not meet building code... (you get the idea.)
Simply put, what you suggest as the baseline comparison is not legally permitted in countries where there is an energy problem, and is actively discouraged by the governments of those countries which do.
This is why it is absurd to demand such measures from people wanting reform in energy production. If they are hipicrites for wanting such while consuming dirty energy, it is because they are forced into a legal catch-22 where there is no legal alternaative. Asserting that there is such an alternative without first getting said power production reform to enable its use is downright disingenuous.
It could be seen either way. There is a naturally limited resource (internationally standardized frequencies), with a single gatekeeper entity. Similar to the "last mile" issue with landlines, you cannot just conjure new frequencies into being, and have them work with standard hardware. (Likewise you can't just go lay new fiber.)
Its a bit ambiguous, I'll grant that. Regardless, its still not in the public interest, regardless of what kind of monopoly is granted.
As many christian fundementalists are publicly on record for asserting, the very people that would have access to this technology's data logs are also "secular, heathen, sinners" who "hate god", and "actively disparage and discriminate against true believers."
This tool would enable deadly and repressive government officials to prevent the spread of christianity though this technological outlet, and would function just as sensationally as a tool of religious and ideological censorship as it would as a powerful tool to identify and punish criminals.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too, 'brother'.
(My troll-o-meter is pegging a 10, but it could be a poes law false positive. If you be trollin, research your religious fundies more dutifully next time. If you were simply naive about the serious implications of software like this, and honestly felt that a "think of the children!" Argument was in any way grounds for outright debasement of fundemental liberties that everyone enjoys and society is demonstrably better for, my advice would be to always think about what would happen if an evil person had control over that part of the process. The price of freedom is eternal vigilence, and those that trade freedom for the illusion of safety deserve neither.)
The reason why allowing att to buy tmobile is "epically, boneheadedly bad for the public interest" is as follows:
The FCC licensed both tmobiles and atts GSM spectrum as exclusive licenses.
This means that if you want to use a gsm technology device on internaltionally standardized frequencies in the us, you either use att, or tmobile. (Or one of their downstream sublicensed local carriers.)
Allowing tmobile and att to merge (given the lopsided nature of such a process though, "buyout" seems more applicable..) would create a single, exclusively licensed "super carrier" that owns the whole standard gsm band, creating a natural monopoly. Historically, natural monopolies have never been in the public's best interest. (See standard oil, bell telephone, etc.)
Add to that the leaked inside documents showing that the cost of aquisition of tmobile exceeds by a large sum the estimated costs of builing out comparable capacity on att's existing network infrastructure, and also the fact that once att owns tmobile's spectrum license, it can choose to revoke any downstream sublicensing agreements with local gsm carriers that are currently contracted with tmobile.
The potential for upheval in the already low-diversity market for gsm carriers, the potential for massive job destruction from having licenses pulled, and the omnipresent risk of abusive monopoly pricing with no free market alternative (CDMA is not a valid alternative if you require international operation) is simply and demonstrably unacceptable.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Governme grievances.
Where in there is this prerequisite for "non stupidity" you seem to insist upon stated? As far as I can tell, literal application of that verbiage would imply that even appeals to seemingly sensible things like public health would not be sufficent grounds to break up the protesters, since as written, public sanitation is not a constitutionally garanteed right, while the power to assemble and protest for the address of grievances *IS*.
Further, you have the constitutionally founded prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, found in the 8th amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
As far as I can tell, there is no justifiable reason to forcibly disband or disperse the protestors, regardless of the absurdity of the demanded redress of their assemblages.
A band of protestors demanding bottles of invisible pink unicorn semen would have the exact same protections under the law.
A better use case is for pointing out the unsatisfiability of apple's developer restrictions, regarding interpreted languages/emulation.
This javascript jvm would allow you to run "anything you want" inside the stock idevice browser, since said browser needs to support javascript for a huge number of reasons.
It wouldn't be as good as a native arch jvm, or even better, native arch software, but the abstraction capability would render *all* modern browsers into a nonconforming state with the developer agreement. Apple would have to either forbid modern browsers, or remove the restriction.
If it has trees, and is not disturbed soil (dug up by something which broke the sod layer), then the property is called "marginal land"
Look up the definition. It essentially means "land that cannot support sustained agriculture, with little or no value for farming or housing, usually near arrid or inhospitable climates or conditions."
Good soil is rich in organic matter, and as such holds moisture well. Grasses dominate these pieces of land by creating sod, which is thick with their rhyzome systems, and which choke out opportunistic flora like tree seedlings. Poor soil lacks the nutrition to support a sod layer, and often has exposed bits of dirt. It tends to grow herbacious weeds (like pigweeds, cactus, tree seedlings, sorrels, mallows, etc. Essentially broadleaf dicots) because there is nothing to prevent them from getting a foothold.
Do a google image search for "marginal land", and see if it resembles the areas you are referring to.
This isn't meant to say marginal property cannot be farmed, it is meant to say it is not good for that purpose.
Uhm? I DID say that I was against the onerous legislation right? Yes?
The point was that while I am happy that these agencies are voicing opposition (and because they are big corps, which is all capital hill seems willing to listen to these days, such opposition is well received), I was merely pointing out that the reasons for which they are voicing that opposition are not the same reasons that little people like you or I are opposed to it.
Pointing this out does not automatically mean that I am in favor of insane bullshit. Yeesh. It was intended to be cautionary and insightful, not cynical and ungrateful.
Just who's interests are these entities protecting, Ours, or their own?
Google owns Youtube. I dont think I need to explain that.
Facebook sells people's personal data, including photos, to advertisers.
Zygna has been embroiled at least once for outright stealing of graphical assets from other commercial games companies.
I am not saying to look the gift horse in the mouth here-- if it gets our dumbass leaders to shelve their onerous legislation and bury it at sea without honors, I am all for it, but I draw the line at saying these corporations represent *MY* interests.
Mine was my dad's IBM PCjr, complete with tandy 3voice audio, highly modified EGA graphics, ugly chicklet keyboard, and a totally nonstandard hardware IRQ layout. Dad splurged on getting the Racore Rapport disk drive and DMA controller upgrade, which pumped the system RAM from 256k to 512k. This also added backed up real time clock, and a few other goodies.
It ran IBM DOS 2.1
Spent quite a bit of time playing Kings Quest 1, and banging out silliness on the built in bios BASIC interpreter. Dad insisted the computer was for work, and didnt like us kids using it, so my experiences with it are mostly nostalgic in the sense that it was like a forbidden fruit.
That computer lived an inordinate amount of time, and my folks refused to get a new one, so the next computer I got my hands on was an AST Advantage 486, with 4mb of RAM. It had a CDRom, and ran windows 3.11. It was about this time that I truly cut teeth on computers, and learned to be a computer repair guy then in the early 90s. The internet was just coming on the scene as a consumer service. I took apart that AST several times, much to my parents dismay, and pushed it as far as it could go upgrade wise. Ended up with 16mb of RAM and windows 95B on it before it met its end. Toward the end of its life, I learned of BBS services, and had lots of fun on local DOORS based systems in my area. Spent quite a bit of time playing LoRD, and pulling shareware disk images.
After that, I was old enough to start buying my own equipment, and built several personal computers for myself, and several garage sale specials.
As for technologies that I wish I had access to as a young brat, I would have to say it would be USB and high end GPUs. I dont know how much trouble I had getting external peripherals and printers to share an LPT port back in the day. (I still miss that logitech pagescan color LPT based scanner btw. That thing had unlimited length scanning, and was detachable, and self propelled. Was GREAT for scanning hardwood floors and fabric for artwork samples. They made a SCSI version, but logitech refused to make drivers beyond 95 OSR2.)
Most of my experiences with computers actually come from working on them as a technician in the 90s boom times. I worked on everything from professional voicemail systems to high end gaming rigs. (And more than my fair share of PackardBell POS systems with factory disabled cache memory....)
It was around that time (96ish) that I was introduced to Newsgroups. Things were already going downhill in that community, as the AOL kids were in full bloom demanding shitty webcam gifs of people's tits.
About the only kind of system I did not work on in that period was the Amiga series systems. Very few people in my area had amiga hardware, and nobody brought anything like that in. Lots of classic Macs in every possible flavor though, including an old apple IIgs running mac prodos.
I tried to get acquainted with Linux around that time, but all the distros I tried had X servers that ran like they had concrete enemas, had abysmally poor driver support for very common hardware, and were very much crippled when it came to commercial software.
After the bubble burst, I quickly burned out, and just used computers as tools and mild entertainment.
Unless it happens to be growing grass as the primary biome, it will make very poor farmland.
Forest property makes very poor farmland, as the soil is *NOT* very rich in nutrients. (That is why it grows trees. Grass crowds out forests when the soil is good.)
If the land you are referring to was forested, your evaluation of the usefulness as farmland is dead wrong.
Farmers own fat chunks of property that urban and suburban development companies constantly salivate for. Thr land is perfect for homes, in that it is already mostly flat, well drained, cleared of subsoil rocks, and conveniently located near a roadway. It's rural, and makes an attractive prospect for rich people wanting a "country house".
Farmer goes out of business, what happens to the farmland? Do you think a starving farmer that barely held onto his shirt is going to be the one buying it?
Once the developers put houses on it, it stops being farm land. Getting it back into production would mean evicting dozens of families, bulldozing and disposition of all the houses and foundations, removing all the underground plumbing, and possibly chemical cleanup. (Rich people and their use of ChemLawn...)
The result? The agricultural capacity of the US drops precipitously.
Alice is secretly a BDS&M dominatrix, into humiliation, flagellation, and golden showers. She also is president of the knitting club, and a well respected member of her local orthodox church.
Bob is secretly a masochist with a diaper fettish, and gay bestiality, and also the mayor who has openly critised alternative lifestyles to appease the conservative demographic of his constituency.
Eve is the reporter for the local tabloid, who suspects Alice and Bob of shennanigans, since they seem to spend inordinate amounts of time together, and always seem to be missing or unavailable at the same times. Hopes to gain subversive access to the private correspondences of Alice and Bob as part of her scoop.......... That's aways the way I envisioned the "alice, bob, eve" scenario anyway...
The better approach would be to preprocess the audio signal of the conversation through another device (such as the handset itself) which normalizes the audio in a fashion tailored to the advertised codec. The idea being that the resulting bitsream will obey certain predictable rules. (You need to have very detailed knowledge of the codec used, but that shouldn't be seen as a barrier.) Your steganographic payload makes subtle, but permitted changes to the encoded audio data to disrupt this predictable ruleset. Your message is thus folded into the bitstream using the mathematically freed bandwidth of the "noisy" audio channel. (Once you remove the normal audio signal, the difference bits are the secret message.) To the interceptor, the codec uses the correct bandwidth, uses the correct codec, and is easily played by that codec.
For a simplified example, say we have gzip'ed pcm audio, in the 44100khz,16bit,stereo flavor. The preprocessor makes all the pcm samples an even multiple of 2. This frees up a portion of the channel for data, by having an understood second codec that encodes say, RLL data into a series of single bit additions to the samples (making them odd values instead of even ones.)
The pcm decoder will play the steganographed audio file without any noticable signal (single bit manipulations are too small to be detected by human ears). The secret message codec looks at all the samples, records a bit pattern of even or odd, and then decodes the resulting RLL pattern, recovering the message.
More sophisticated codecs would require more sophisticated preprocessing of the raw audio, but the idea is still potentially employable.
However, it has more to do with inappropriate uses of the legal system being generally tolerated than it does with property law. The same series of events can occur with charged of libel, or of sexual misconduct, for instance.
As long as there exists a disproportionate level of wealth weilding a disproportionate force in the courtroom, coupled with a lack of punitive measures against such abuses, and the ability for legal agents to twist the law (like lawyers and supreme court judges often do.... interstate commerce much?) There will be no resolution to that particular problem.
So, while true, it really doesn't have a bearing on intellectual property law.
The idea is to kill the main dedicated lines using "accidents", (script kiddies are also in meatspace.) Forcing the exchange infrastructure into attackable channels.
So far, the risk of jailtime has not been a sufficient deturrent to anons.
Ahh, but apart from legislation from the bench, lawyers do not create laws. Only interpret existing ones.
From what legal interpretation is the claim that this is theft based?
(I understand that you are making a funny. I do appreciate that. But the bullshit these morons are engaging in is no laughing matter.)
If the argument, is that I, as the original domesticator of the wheat would not have domesticated the wheat without the implied power of being the sole distributor of that product, and that therefor permitting the new distributor to operate undermines the motivation of other producers of novel products (remember, *I*, personally, domesticated the wheat, and before that it was just a weed.), and as such his actions steal from me that implied reward, your argument is essentially one against *all* forms of competition, as that power (the power to solely dictate unit price) is automatically negated by other vendors operating in the market. The other person could have independently domesticated the wheat himself, just as I did. The result is still the same.
The answer of A) can only really be given if you logically link competition with stealing, in all cases.
The problem is in the assignment of the word "theft" to this phenomenon.
Say for a moment that I, personally, am responsible for domesticating wheat. I use this position to control the distribution of wheat and wheat based products, citing that my hard work in the domestication process is what justifies my monopolist behavior.
Now, let's say that some other person finds out that they can grow their own wheat. So, they do. They do this from a single wheat seed that they legally purchased from me.
They plant the wheat, and in a few years, have cultivated enough wheat seeds to start undercutting my monopoly. Let's say that they simply just give away the wheat seeds that they are now producing.
Which does this constitute?
A) stealing
Or,
B) competition
The person giving away the free wheat seeds is not stealing them from my grainary. I am not losing wheat by his actions. What I am losing is market power. I am losing the ability to solely dictate the unit price for wheat. Does this constitute theft? If so, how?
Questionable agency with questionable methods disapproves of mandate to test the questionable efficacy and questionable safety of their questionable equipment.
Seriously, is this a surprise? The public support for the intrusiveness of the tsa is dwindling rapidly, and a bombshell like "airport and transit station scanners linked with cancer" would set fire to that particularly nasty powderkeg.
Of course they want to ostritch headplant and hum to themselves rather than operate reputably! Their entire operation is a farce all the way down!
Slashdot Mirror
This is not true. Unless you live in an anarchy dominated territory, like somalia, you really cannot "live like they do" without violating several laws, including tax evasion.
Say for instance, I quit my job and packed up a knife, an axe, a tent, and some various other sundry items, then headed west into the large expanses of BLM owned forested wilderness:
Unless I sell all my properties first, and liquidate all my accounts, and sell my vehicle when I get there, I am guilty of tax evasion. (Property taxes, vehicular taxes, income taxes.)
Then, upon arrival, should I set my axe against the BLM owned forest so as to build myself a survival structure and to start a cooking fire, I break several more laws.
Illegal poaching, destruction of public property, endangering public property, building without a permit, creating a permanent structure that does not meet building code... (you get the idea.)
Simply put, what you suggest as the baseline comparison is not legally permitted in countries where there is an energy problem, and is actively discouraged by the governments of those countries which do.
This is why it is absurd to demand such measures from people wanting reform in energy production. If they are hipicrites for wanting such while consuming dirty energy, it is because they are forced into a legal catch-22 where there is no legal alternaative. Asserting that there is such an alternative without first getting said power production reform to enable its use is downright disingenuous.
There are quite a few flowering plants that produce ignitable levels of aromatic compounds.
One is the "gas-plant".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictamnus
It could be seen either way. There is a naturally limited resource (internationally standardized frequencies), with a single gatekeeper entity. Similar to the "last mile" issue with landlines, you cannot just conjure new frequencies into being, and have them work with standard hardware. (Likewise you can't just go lay new fiber.)
Its a bit ambiguous, I'll grant that. Regardless, its still not in the public interest, regardless of what kind of monopoly is granted.
Ahh, but therein lies the rub 'brother':
As many christian fundementalists are publicly on record for asserting, the very people that would have access to this technology's data logs are also "secular, heathen, sinners" who "hate god", and "actively disparage and discriminate against true believers."
This tool would enable deadly and repressive government officials to prevent the spread of christianity though this technological outlet, and would function just as sensationally as a tool of religious and ideological censorship as it would as a powerful tool to identify and punish criminals.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too, 'brother'.
(My troll-o-meter is pegging a 10, but it could be a poes law false positive. If you be trollin, research your religious fundies more dutifully next time. If you were simply naive about the serious implications of software like this, and honestly felt that a "think of the children!" Argument was in any way grounds for outright debasement of fundemental liberties that everyone enjoys and society is demonstrably better for, my advice would be to always think about what would happen if an evil person had control over that part of the process. The price of freedom is eternal vigilence, and those that trade freedom for the illusion of safety deserve neither.)
The reason why allowing att to buy tmobile is "epically, boneheadedly bad for the public interest" is as follows:
The FCC licensed both tmobiles and atts GSM spectrum as exclusive licenses.
This means that if you want to use a gsm technology device on internaltionally standardized frequencies in the us, you either use att, or tmobile. (Or one of their downstream sublicensed local carriers.)
Allowing tmobile and att to merge (given the lopsided nature of such a process though, "buyout" seems more applicable..) would create a single, exclusively licensed "super carrier" that owns the whole standard gsm band, creating a natural monopoly. Historically, natural monopolies have never been in the public's best interest. (See standard oil, bell telephone, etc.)
Add to that the leaked inside documents showing that the cost of aquisition of tmobile exceeds by a large sum the estimated costs of builing out comparable capacity on att's existing network infrastructure, and also the fact that once att owns tmobile's spectrum license, it can choose to revoke any downstream sublicensing agreements with local gsm carriers that are currently contracted with tmobile.
The potential for upheval in the already low-diversity market for gsm carriers, the potential for massive job destruction from having licenses pulled, and the omnipresent risk of abusive monopoly pricing with no free market alternative (CDMA is not a valid alternative if you require international operation) is simply and demonstrably unacceptable.
Where in there is this prerequisite for "non stupidity" you seem to insist upon stated? As far as I can tell, literal application of that verbiage would imply that even appeals to seemingly sensible things like public health would not be sufficent grounds to break up the protesters, since as written, public sanitation is not a constitutionally garanteed right, while the power to assemble and protest for the address of grievances *IS*.
Further, you have the constitutionally founded prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, found in the 8th amendment:
As far as I can tell, there is no justifiable reason to forcibly disband or disperse the protestors, regardless of the absurdity of the demanded redress of their assemblages.
A band of protestors demanding bottles of invisible pink unicorn semen would have the exact same protections under the law.
Deal with it.
A better use case is for pointing out the unsatisfiability of apple's developer restrictions, regarding interpreted languages/emulation.
This javascript jvm would allow you to run "anything you want" inside the stock idevice browser, since said browser needs to support javascript for a huge number of reasons.
It wouldn't be as good as a native arch jvm, or even better, native arch software, but the abstraction capability would render *all* modern browsers into a nonconforming state with the developer agreement. Apple would have to either forbid modern browsers, or remove the restriction.
If it has trees, and is not disturbed soil (dug up by something which broke the sod layer), then the property is called "marginal land"
Look up the definition. It essentially means "land that cannot support sustained agriculture, with little or no value for farming or housing, usually near arrid or inhospitable climates or conditions."
Good soil is rich in organic matter, and as such holds moisture well. Grasses dominate these pieces of land by creating sod, which is thick with their rhyzome systems, and which choke out opportunistic flora like tree seedlings. Poor soil lacks the nutrition to support a sod layer, and often has exposed bits of dirt. It tends to grow herbacious weeds (like pigweeds, cactus, tree seedlings, sorrels, mallows, etc. Essentially broadleaf dicots) because there is nothing to prevent them from getting a foothold.
Do a google image search for "marginal land", and see if it resembles the areas you are referring to.
This isn't meant to say marginal property cannot be farmed, it is meant to say it is not good for that purpose.
Uhm? I DID say that I was against the onerous legislation right? Yes?
The point was that while I am happy that these agencies are voicing opposition (and because they are big corps, which is all capital hill seems willing to listen to these days, such opposition is well received), I was merely pointing out that the reasons for which they are voicing that opposition are not the same reasons that little people like you or I are opposed to it.
Pointing this out does not automatically mean that I am in favor of insane bullshit. Yeesh. It was intended to be cautionary and insightful, not cynical and ungrateful.
As I said in the post, I dont want to look the gift horse in the mouth. I am very happy that they are doing this.
I was just pointing out that this is not a reason to get your fanboi on. These companies do not give a lick about little interests like ours.
Surprise surprise...
Look who supports this shitstained rag of legislation. Seeing MS and Apple on that list is hardly surprising.
Just who's interests are these entities protecting, Ours, or their own?
Google owns Youtube. I dont think I need to explain that.
Facebook sells people's personal data, including photos, to advertisers.
Zygna has been embroiled at least once for outright stealing of graphical assets from other commercial games companies.
I am not saying to look the gift horse in the mouth here-- if it gets our dumbass leaders to shelve their onerous legislation and bury it at sea without honors, I am all for it, but I draw the line at saying these corporations represent *MY* interests.
Mine was my dad's IBM PCjr, complete with tandy 3voice audio, highly modified EGA graphics, ugly chicklet keyboard, and a totally nonstandard hardware IRQ layout. Dad splurged on getting the Racore Rapport disk drive and DMA controller upgrade, which pumped the system RAM from 256k to 512k. This also added backed up real time clock, and a few other goodies.
It ran IBM DOS 2.1
Spent quite a bit of time playing Kings Quest 1, and banging out silliness on the built in bios BASIC interpreter. Dad insisted the computer was for work, and didnt like us kids using it, so my experiences with it are mostly nostalgic in the sense that it was like a forbidden fruit.
That computer lived an inordinate amount of time, and my folks refused to get a new one, so the next computer I got my hands on was an AST Advantage 486, with 4mb of RAM. It had a CDRom, and ran windows 3.11. It was about this time that I truly cut teeth on computers, and learned to be a computer repair guy then in the early 90s. The internet was just coming on the scene as a consumer service. I took apart that AST several times, much to my parents dismay, and pushed it as far as it could go upgrade wise. Ended up with 16mb of RAM and windows 95B on it before it met its end. Toward the end of its life, I learned of BBS services, and had lots of fun on local DOORS based systems in my area. Spent quite a bit of time playing LoRD, and pulling shareware disk images.
After that, I was old enough to start buying my own equipment, and built several personal computers for myself, and several garage sale specials.
As for technologies that I wish I had access to as a young brat, I would have to say it would be USB and high end GPUs. I dont know how much trouble I had getting external peripherals and printers to share an LPT port back in the day. (I still miss that logitech pagescan color LPT based scanner btw. That thing had unlimited length scanning, and was detachable, and self propelled. Was GREAT for scanning hardwood floors and fabric for artwork samples. They made a SCSI version, but logitech refused to make drivers beyond 95 OSR2.)
Most of my experiences with computers actually come from working on them as a technician in the 90s boom times. I worked on everything from professional voicemail systems to high end gaming rigs. (And more than my fair share of PackardBell POS systems with factory disabled cache memory....)
It was around that time (96ish) that I was introduced to Newsgroups. Things were already going downhill in that community, as the AOL kids were in full bloom demanding shitty webcam gifs of people's tits.
About the only kind of system I did not work on in that period was the Amiga series systems. Very few people in my area had amiga hardware, and nobody brought anything like that in. Lots of classic Macs in every possible flavor though, including an old apple IIgs running mac prodos.
I tried to get acquainted with Linux around that time, but all the distros I tried had X servers that ran like they had concrete enemas, had abysmally poor driver support for very common hardware, and were very much crippled when it came to commercial software.
After the bubble burst, I quickly burned out, and just used computers as tools and mild entertainment.
Unless it happens to be growing grass as the primary biome, it will make very poor farmland.
Forest property makes very poor farmland, as the soil is *NOT* very rich in nutrients. (That is why it grows trees. Grass crowds out forests when the soil is good.)
If the land you are referring to was forested, your evaluation of the usefulness as farmland is dead wrong.
The problem with this, is urban sprawl.
Seriously.
Farmers own fat chunks of property that urban and suburban development companies constantly salivate for. Thr land is perfect for homes, in that it is already mostly flat, well drained, cleared of subsoil rocks, and conveniently located near a roadway. It's rural, and makes an attractive prospect for rich people wanting a "country house".
Farmer goes out of business, what happens to the farmland? Do you think a starving farmer that barely held onto his shirt is going to be the one buying it?
Once the developers put houses on it, it stops being farm land. Getting it back into production would mean evicting dozens of families, bulldozing and disposition of all the houses and foundations, removing all the underground plumbing, and possibly chemical cleanup. (Rich people and their use of ChemLawn...)
The result? The agricultural capacity of the US drops precipitously.
That's easy.
Alice is secretly a BDS&M dominatrix, into humiliation, flagellation, and golden showers. She also is president of the knitting club, and a well respected member of her local orthodox church.
Bob is secretly a masochist with a diaper fettish, and gay bestiality, and also the mayor who has openly critised alternative lifestyles to appease the conservative demographic of his constituency.
Eve is the reporter for the local tabloid, who suspects Alice and Bob of shennanigans, since they seem to spend inordinate amounts of time together, and always seem to be missing or unavailable at the same times. Hopes to gain subversive access to the private correspondences of Alice and Bob as part of her scoop. .........
That's aways the way I envisioned the "alice, bob, eve" scenario anyway...
The better approach would be to preprocess the audio signal of the conversation through another device (such as the handset itself) which normalizes the audio in a fashion tailored to the advertised codec. The idea being that the resulting bitsream will obey certain predictable rules. (You need to have very detailed knowledge of the codec used, but that shouldn't be seen as a barrier.) Your steganographic payload makes subtle, but permitted changes to the encoded audio data to disrupt this predictable ruleset. Your message is thus folded into the bitstream using the mathematically freed bandwidth of the "noisy" audio channel. (Once you remove the normal audio signal, the difference bits are the secret message.) To the interceptor, the codec uses the correct bandwidth, uses the correct codec, and is easily played by that codec.
For a simplified example, say we have gzip'ed pcm audio, in the 44100khz,16bit,stereo flavor. The preprocessor makes all the pcm samples an even multiple of 2. This frees up a portion of the channel for data, by having an understood second codec that encodes say, RLL data into a series of single bit additions to the samples (making them odd values instead of even ones.)
The pcm decoder will play the steganographed audio file without any noticable signal (single bit manipulations are too small to be detected by human ears). The secret message codec looks at all the samples, records a bit pattern of even or odd, and then decodes the resulting RLL pattern, recovering the message.
More sophisticated codecs would require more sophisticated preprocessing of the raw audio, but the idea is still potentially employable.
I do not discount this as empirical truth.
However, it has more to do with inappropriate uses of the legal system being generally tolerated than it does with property law. The same series of events can occur with charged of libel, or of sexual misconduct, for instance.
As long as there exists a disproportionate level of wealth weilding a disproportionate force in the courtroom, coupled with a lack of punitive measures against such abuses, and the ability for legal agents to twist the law (like lawyers and supreme court judges often do.... interstate commerce much?) There will be no resolution to that particular problem.
So, while true, it really doesn't have a bearing on intellectual property law.
This is the problem with intellectual properties in general.
You cannot prevent people from using your ideas. If its a good idea, people will use it.
Patent and copyright laws are intended to COMPROMISE between necessary competitive agents, and incentivisation of creators.
It *ONLY* works, when the public at large defacto agrees on the compromise.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but:
The idea is to kill the main dedicated lines using "accidents", (script kiddies are also in meatspace.) Forcing the exchange infrastructure into attackable channels.
So far, the risk of jailtime has not been a sufficient deturrent to anons.
Wallstreet's exchange services have failover connections, in the event that primary ones go down.
Yes, saturating dedicated fiber is expensive.
A rented backhoe is not.
Ahh, but apart from legislation from the bench, lawyers do not create laws. Only interpret existing ones.
From what legal interpretation is the claim that this is theft based?
(I understand that you are making a funny. I do appreciate that. But the bullshit these morons are engaging in is no laughing matter.)
If the argument, is that I, as the original domesticator of the wheat would not have domesticated the wheat without the implied power of being the sole distributor of that product, and that therefor permitting the new distributor to operate undermines the motivation of other producers of novel products (remember, *I*, personally, domesticated the wheat, and before that it was just a weed.), and as such his actions steal from me that implied reward, your argument is essentially one against *all* forms of competition, as that power (the power to solely dictate unit price) is automatically negated by other vendors operating in the market. The other person could have independently domesticated the wheat himself, just as I did. The result is still the same.
The answer of A) can only really be given if you logically link competition with stealing, in all cases.
Quite right, quite right.
The rest of the question though:
"Why is it theft?" ;)
The problem is in the assignment of the word "theft" to this phenomenon.
Say for a moment that I, personally, am responsible for domesticating wheat. I use this position to control the distribution of wheat and wheat based products, citing that my hard work in the domestication process is what justifies my monopolist behavior.
Now, let's say that some other person finds out that they can grow their own wheat. So, they do. They do this from a single wheat seed that they legally purchased from me.
They plant the wheat, and in a few years, have cultivated enough wheat seeds to start undercutting my monopoly. Let's say that they simply just give away the wheat seeds that they are now producing.
Which does this constitute?
A) stealing
Or,
B) competition
The person giving away the free wheat seeds is not stealing them from my grainary. I am not losing wheat by his actions. What I am losing is market power. I am losing the ability to solely dictate the unit price for wheat. Does this constitute theft? If so, how?
Questionable agency with questionable methods disapproves of mandate to test the questionable efficacy and questionable safety of their questionable equipment.
Seriously, is this a surprise? The public support for the intrusiveness of the tsa is dwindling rapidly, and a bombshell like "airport and transit station scanners linked with cancer" would set fire to that particularly nasty powderkeg.
Of course they want to ostritch headplant and hum to themselves rather than operate reputably! Their entire operation is a farce all the way down!