Do you wait until they blow up the building so you can actually arrest them?
No. The police wait, and then they do their job: Which is investigating. Keep (legal) surveillance on the suspect until he or she has the materials.
Now there's motive, means, and opportunity. Those three tests were used to protect the innocent, as well as prove beyond reasonable doubt a person really was up to no good. Take away any one of those three tests, and what you've got isn't justice: It's sugar-coated crap.
That's how we did it back before there was all this public hysteria to the point where people like you started believing the only way to keep your sorry existance secure was to delete another's liberties wholesale on the premise they might commit a crime. Dude... if you think someone might commit a crime, you watch, wait, and learn. It's called patience, and it has been a virtue for the last 16,000 years of human evolution, and only eschewed for the last 8 in western culture for being "too soft".
If your private businesses don't want to come into town and lay wire and such, so the local government has to step in to provide a service that many countries consider a fundamental human right to have... Don't pee down the back of the municipalities and then say it's raining. And guys, given that this is Georgia, why don't you just do a little bit of country justice on this guy... say with a large amount of tar, feathers, and a prompt adjustment of his attitude.
Legitimate business is kindof an oxymoron when dealing with copyright issues. There's no such thing as a "legitimate" business... only "Has many lawyers" and "has no lawyers".
It's not the drones that people have a problem with; It's how they're used. No amount of positive publicity on their 'good' uses can erase the fact that many, if not most, law enforcement agencies envision an armada of cheap surveillance drones monitoring everyone and everyplace they decide they don't like. Protesting wall street? Drones. Add in the crowd-control microwave emitter for only an additional $2,999. How about some drones patrolling over the freeways during rush hour, equipped with a radar gun? Now an officer can write tickets for anyone speeding over a several mile stretch of road, rather than just a particular point. Only $1,599 after mail in rebate. The list goes on.
Okay, so... going against every warning label on the side of an MRI machine, we're going to stick something that is metallic, magnetized, and decently sized... and put it in a person, and then put that person in the machine?
'Every other country understands that this makes people healthier and creates a better workforce.'"
No, every other country isn't ruled by supersized multinational corporations who can co-opt every government process, override any legal review, and sidestep any political controversy, if they pay enough. America's government can be properly classified now as "Dollar." That, right there, is what is causing the problem -- it's not that the government doesn't understand, it's that the government doesn't care.
It's not even slightly free. You're paying by giving them a huge amount of marketable data about yourself. Just because it doesn't cost you actual dollars doesn't mean you aren't paying.
Speak for yourself. My profile only has a few profile pictures and my name on it. Everything else is bogus or empty. I don't like anything, I don't play games, and I don't use apps. If I could, I'd delete anything I posted > 60 days ago, but as of yet, I haven't been able to write a script that does that without failing spectacularly.
2) "Getting the hose" is unconstitutional. It may be that law enforcement does not see fit to follow the constitution, but in that case they have no need for the hose: They can just lock you up on false charges without ever reading the disk.
No, haven't you heard? They're making legislation now to just have an ex-parte hearing and declare your citizenship void because you are "hostile" to the United States. Constitutional rights are only for US citizens, don'tchaknow.
SOPA breaks DNSSEC -- that's one of its main problems from a technological perspective.
I hear this argument all the time. "Now we've got Criminal X!.. Oh wait, he's encrypted his drive with 1024 bit military grade encryption! It'll cost BILLIONS to crack the key! We're hosed."... More likely it's "Huh. Drive's encrypted. Joey, get the hose."
DNSSEC is no proof against the men with shotguns and a court order saying "You will remove this domain from your server... or else."
If anything, DNSSEC makes SOPA more powerful because I can't just setup a rogue DNS server, change it to authoritative for that domain, and have it serve the IP address of that server out to its clients.
Only DNS that is signed by your government overlords will be allowed. All other DNS will be shot, banninated from the internets, and subject to prosecution.
I guess I'm not sure how SOPA and DNSSEC overlap, could someone explain it in a couple of sentences? Does DNSSEC hinder or help? I would assume hinder SOPA... I'm going to research more, but was hoping to get a quick brief from someone knowledged...
Well, let's try a car analogy. Before DNSSEC, anyone could put up a road sign, and you'd have no way of knowing whether it would send you the right way or not. There were a few publicized cases of cars going down the wrong road, a few pileups, but most people got to/from work everyday.
However, some very smart people were worried some other smart people could swap the road signs. So they added smaller digital tags on the back of the signs that had a special number encoded in it and the name of the municipality that placed the sign there. You need a special box to tell you what it says. Not many people were keen on spending the money to impliment this, since the only people that could read the special codes were police, firefighters, and some guys riding around in black SUVs. For the majority of drivers, nothing changed.
Separately, these municipalities were threatened with lawsuits by very large companies and the government if they allowed signs to stay up on roads they didn't like, or went to places they didn't like... So they've been busy tearing down signage all over the place to appease these well-monied interests. Sometimes the signs being taken down have the little tags, but most of the time they don't. Drivers that are familiar with the area won't have a problem because they know the address and route already, but younger, and inexperienced drivers might not, and for them, these new laws could keep them from getting to those places.
Yes, and for our next trick, we're going to disable end-users' ability to do their own DNS lookups to only our servers -or- selectively deny DNS lookups that have a destination outside the United States. You know... to stop people from getting around SOPA and other anti-piracy measures. YAY DNSSEC!/sarcasm.
Interesting how my phone's GPS speed reporting matches up far more accurately with measured time between mile posts than those road-side radar signs (Your speed is: ). If that's the same "precise" radar gun technology police use, I'd rather trust the GPS.
Anyone with a basic understanding of statistical sampling can see the flaw in your conclusion.
Over the course of a mile, travelling at highway speeds, your average speed will more closely correlate with your GPS because your GPS is also averaging your speed over a number of datapoints lasting about 15 seconds or so (the time it takes to get a 'warm' GPS lock). Those posts are standing still, calibrated to measure the speed of more than one object passing through a narrow cone -- optimistically 50' across, but more likely considerably smaller.
In 15 seconds, at 60 MPH, your car travels 1,320 feet (About 3-1/2 football fields). I assure you, the area being measured by that stationary device is far, far smaller.
Stay in school, kid. Someday you might make a half-way decent engineer.
Accident reconstructionists must be aware of the limitations of the data recorded... should compare the recorded data with the physical evidence...
Those disclaimers do mean things. The data was never intended to be used as a "black box"; That's purely media hyperbole comparing it to what's in an aircraft, which is designed to aid in accident reconstruction. The courts routinely dismiss GPS tracking data on phones used as evidence that the driver wasn't speeding because the device isn't meant to be used for that, and isn't precise enough anyway. An officer's radar gun, however, is.
That said... let us all look to the sky now and return to mumblings about conspiracies between or about the government and/or insurance companies.
I'm firmly convinced the main reason IIS is even in the top 10 is because so many large corporations sign secret agreements with Microsoft to get discounted software in exchange for not using "free" or "open source" software. No joke -- I am working at a company right now where it is banned, and the only reason given is either that "info security" said so, or "legal" did. But when pressed, nobody can quite identify why. It's just policy, and nobody questions it. IIS' market share is vastly inflated; If it weren't for these clandestine agreements, I sincerely doubt it would be deployed very often, even WITH all the MS tech tie-ins, there's too many compelling reasons not to use it. Even Microsoft doesn't use it on it's major websites because it doesn't scale and it is prone to failure.
Please, come off it. MS has a plenty lengthy support cycle. They support all their OSes for 10 years from release minimum. XP has been extended 3 years past that. That is quite reasonable.
No thanks. It still works. Linux has been the same for that long. Something about a continuous upgrade cycle... rather than only releasing an upgrade every, uhh... ten years. And there's any number of products that are still supported decades after their release because they still work. See also: Most mainframes.
'The longer they let them run XP, the more enterprises will slow down their migration.'"
'The longer they let them run XP, the more enterprises will eat into our profit margin and not let us impliment our more restrictive and convoluted licensing...'", a Microsoft spokesperson said. "Businesses are sick of products that meet their needs and are amply tested and well-understood," he continued. "They want a product that has a restrictive licensing agreement, is much more resource-intensive, and offers little or no benefit to the business segment beyond being pretty." He went on to add, "Plus, Apple is kicking the crap out of us in the consumer market and we need extra cash to burn, and let's face it... the only successful big products we've launched are Windows and Office. We have to force business users to adopt it, or our shareholders will tar and feather us before setting our homes on fire for not creating a single smash hit in the consumer market since Halo.
Cable companies screw their employees just as much as their customers. Stay tuned while we go deep undercover into the world of cable company management and ask the really tough question why can they charge so much for a shit product? We'll get into that and more after the following commercials showing dancing toilet paper, talking animals, cars driving in the rain, and finally... angry white men trying to get elected. STAY TUNED!
Yes, Apple can sell millions of tablets, but this is only because they have a very gullible following that other manufacturers just don't have.
Most iPhones purchased 3-4 years ago still receive software updates from Apple. You won't find another domestic phone manufacturer with that level of support. Techies bemoan people's use of macintosh, but 1 in 7 people use a mac, and yet 98% of the phone calls to technical support are for PCs. If PC owners are comparatively "smarter", shouldn't that number be lower? "Apple fanatics, on the other, don't care about utility, but rather just the possession of expensive status symbols" -- I would say that the statistics do not bear that out. Apple customers want things that are easy to use, have long end-of-life product support, and have excellent customer service.
It's a very convoluted one not built upon the more traditional and common factors underlying real markets caused by need and demand.
Yeah. I can't see the appeal in a product you can take anywhere, use for 10 hours, and provides quick and ready access to the internet and multimedia resources, and has a powerful enough processor to play many kinds of games. Oh. Wait... that's what us "PC users" keep hoping our phones are going to do for us. Someday. Also... if the market isn't doing what you want it to, it must have become martian and no longer reacting to supply and demand instead of say, simply not meeting your expectations.
But more seriously, that is a problem with environmentalists -- they can't separate the forest from the trees (I'm only being slightly sarcastic here). From what I've been able to tell by talking to these 'greenies', any environmental impact is bad. It's not enough to be carbon neutral, or conserve energy, save the whales, or whatever else is currently in vogue in their movement. It is a political movement that is based on a sliding scale of "purity". I can easily see one of them extolling the virtues of living in a house that has no electricity, is built entirely out of clay, and they don't cook their food (because fire releases carbon). What's worse, they feel guilty about having any modern conveniences, and so they try to buy indulgences like "carbon credits" or "EVA cars"... which when you look into the total lifecycle of the vehicle and it's total environmental impact, you don't wind up any better off than a conventional car. A lot of environmentalism is just a shell game... it's moving the responsibility around so they can claim they're "carbon neutral" or whatever while someone else (usually the government, or some corporation) are the bad guys.
The bottom line is, the problem with the movement is that they can't see that progress towards environmental goals are only achievable by being economically competitive. I mean, everybody right now is going crazy about living "grid free". But the problem isn't the grid. The 'grid' is just a collection of wires and transformers. It's the management and production of that resource that is the problem; If the environmentalists wanted to "save the planet", they'd come up with a way to transport electricity over very long distances with minimal losses. That, right there, is the kind of tech we need to reduce our dependence on coal, oil, etc. Until we can cheaply move energy to where it's needed on demand, we're stuck with dino fuel because it's the only thing with a high energy density that can be built right now -- you can't build a nuclear power plant anywhere in this country right now even if you wanted to... and even if you could, nobody wants it near a city, which is where it needs to be to be useful.
He was too busy congratulating himself on his inflated sense of intelligence to answer that. And I only say inflated because only someone of average to below average actual intelligence would confuse being underinformed with being stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you wait until they blow up the building so you can actually arrest them?
No. The police wait, and then they do their job: Which is investigating. Keep (legal) surveillance on the suspect until he or she has the materials. Now there's motive, means, and opportunity. Those three tests were used to protect the innocent, as well as prove beyond reasonable doubt a person really was up to no good. Take away any one of those three tests, and what you've got isn't justice: It's sugar-coated crap.
That's how we did it back before there was all this public hysteria to the point where people like you started believing the only way to keep your sorry existance secure was to delete another's liberties wholesale on the premise they might commit a crime. Dude... if you think someone might commit a crime, you watch, wait, and learn. It's called patience, and it has been a virtue for the last 16,000 years of human evolution, and only eschewed for the last 8 in western culture for being "too soft".
Autobots, move out!
If your private businesses don't want to come into town and lay wire and such, so the local government has to step in to provide a service that many countries consider a fundamental human right to have... Don't pee down the back of the municipalities and then say it's raining. And guys, given that this is Georgia, why don't you just do a little bit of country justice on this guy... say with a large amount of tar, feathers, and a prompt adjustment of his attitude.
Legitimate business is kindof an oxymoron when dealing with copyright issues. There's no such thing as a "legitimate" business... only "Has many lawyers" and "has no lawyers".
It's not the drones that people have a problem with; It's how they're used. No amount of positive publicity on their 'good' uses can erase the fact that many, if not most, law enforcement agencies envision an armada of cheap surveillance drones monitoring everyone and everyplace they decide they don't like. Protesting wall street? Drones. Add in the crowd-control microwave emitter for only an additional $2,999. How about some drones patrolling over the freeways during rush hour, equipped with a radar gun? Now an officer can write tickets for anyone speeding over a several mile stretch of road, rather than just a particular point. Only $1,599 after mail in rebate. The list goes on.
Er, ok.
Pretty sure the person you want to read that does not read slashdot. You should forward it to your intended audience, not your incidental one.
'Every other country understands that this makes people healthier and creates a better workforce.'"
No, every other country isn't ruled by supersized multinational corporations who can co-opt every government process, override any legal review, and sidestep any political controversy, if they pay enough. America's government can be properly classified now as "Dollar." That, right there, is what is causing the problem -- it's not that the government doesn't understand, it's that the government doesn't care.
It's not even slightly free. You're paying by giving them a huge amount of marketable data about yourself. Just because it doesn't cost you actual dollars doesn't mean you aren't paying.
Speak for yourself. My profile only has a few profile pictures and my name on it. Everything else is bogus or empty. I don't like anything, I don't play games, and I don't use apps. If I could, I'd delete anything I posted > 60 days ago, but as of yet, I haven't been able to write a script that does that without failing spectacularly.
2) "Getting the hose" is unconstitutional. It may be that law enforcement does not see fit to follow the constitution, but in that case they have no need for the hose: They can just lock you up on false charges without ever reading the disk.
No, haven't you heard? They're making legislation now to just have an ex-parte hearing and declare your citizenship void because you are "hostile" to the United States. Constitutional rights are only for US citizens, don'tchaknow.
SOPA breaks DNSSEC -- that's one of its main problems from a technological perspective.
I hear this argument all the time. "Now we've got Criminal X! .. Oh wait, he's encrypted his drive with 1024 bit military grade encryption! It'll cost BILLIONS to crack the key! We're hosed." ... More likely it's "Huh. Drive's encrypted. Joey, get the hose."
DNSSEC is no proof against the men with shotguns and a court order saying "You will remove this domain from your server... or else."
If anything, DNSSEC makes SOPA more powerful because I can't just setup a rogue DNS server, change it to authoritative for that domain, and have it serve the IP address of that server out to its clients.
There. DNSSEC has a point now with SOPA. :)
I guess I'm not sure how SOPA and DNSSEC overlap, could someone explain it in a couple of sentences? Does DNSSEC hinder or help? I would assume hinder SOPA... I'm going to research more, but was hoping to get a quick brief from someone knowledged...
Well, let's try a car analogy. Before DNSSEC, anyone could put up a road sign, and you'd have no way of knowing whether it would send you the right way or not. There were a few publicized cases of cars going down the wrong road, a few pileups, but most people got to/from work everyday.
However, some very smart people were worried some other smart people could swap the road signs. So they added smaller digital tags on the back of the signs that had a special number encoded in it and the name of the municipality that placed the sign there. You need a special box to tell you what it says. Not many people were keen on spending the money to impliment this, since the only people that could read the special codes were police, firefighters, and some guys riding around in black SUVs. For the majority of drivers, nothing changed.
Separately, these municipalities were threatened with lawsuits by very large companies and the government if they allowed signs to stay up on roads they didn't like, or went to places they didn't like... So they've been busy tearing down signage all over the place to appease these well-monied interests. Sometimes the signs being taken down have the little tags, but most of the time they don't. Drivers that are familiar with the area won't have a problem because they know the address and route already, but younger, and inexperienced drivers might not, and for them, these new laws could keep them from getting to those places.
Yes, and for our next trick, we're going to disable end-users' ability to do their own DNS lookups to only our servers -or- selectively deny DNS lookups that have a destination outside the United States. You know... to stop people from getting around SOPA and other anti-piracy measures. YAY DNSSEC! /sarcasm.
Interesting how my phone's GPS speed reporting matches up far more accurately with measured time between mile posts than those road-side radar signs (Your speed is: ). If that's the same "precise" radar gun technology police use, I'd rather trust the GPS.
Anyone with a basic understanding of statistical sampling can see the flaw in your conclusion.
Over the course of a mile, travelling at highway speeds, your average speed will more closely correlate with your GPS because your GPS is also averaging your speed over a number of datapoints lasting about 15 seconds or so (the time it takes to get a 'warm' GPS lock). Those posts are standing still, calibrated to measure the speed of more than one object passing through a narrow cone -- optimistically 50' across, but more likely considerably smaller.
In 15 seconds, at 60 MPH, your car travels 1,320 feet (About 3-1/2 football fields). I assure you, the area being measured by that stationary device is far, far smaller.
Stay in school, kid. Someday you might make a half-way decent engineer.
There's a disclaimer right there on page one:
Accident reconstructionists must be aware of the limitations of the data recorded... should compare the recorded data with the physical evidence...
Those disclaimers do mean things. The data was never intended to be used as a "black box"; That's purely media hyperbole comparing it to what's in an aircraft, which is designed to aid in accident reconstruction. The courts routinely dismiss GPS tracking data on phones used as evidence that the driver wasn't speeding because the device isn't meant to be used for that, and isn't precise enough anyway. An officer's radar gun, however, is.
That said... let us all look to the sky now and return to mumblings about conspiracies between or about the government and/or insurance companies.
I'm firmly convinced the main reason IIS is even in the top 10 is because so many large corporations sign secret agreements with Microsoft to get discounted software in exchange for not using "free" or "open source" software. No joke -- I am working at a company right now where it is banned, and the only reason given is either that "info security" said so, or "legal" did. But when pressed, nobody can quite identify why. It's just policy, and nobody questions it. IIS' market share is vastly inflated; If it weren't for these clandestine agreements, I sincerely doubt it would be deployed very often, even WITH all the MS tech tie-ins, there's too many compelling reasons not to use it. Even Microsoft doesn't use it on it's major websites because it doesn't scale and it is prone to failure.
Please, come off it. MS has a plenty lengthy support cycle. They support all their OSes for 10 years from release minimum. XP has been extended 3 years past that. That is quite reasonable.
No thanks. It still works. Linux has been the same for that long. Something about a continuous upgrade cycle... rather than only releasing an upgrade every, uhh... ten years. And there's any number of products that are still supported decades after their release because they still work. See also: Most mainframes.
So no, time since release is not a determinant.
'The longer they let them run XP, the more enterprises will slow down their migration.'"
'The longer they let them run XP, the more enterprises will eat into our profit margin and not let us impliment our more restrictive and convoluted licensing...'", a Microsoft spokesperson said. "Businesses are sick of products that meet their needs and are amply tested and well-understood," he continued. "They want a product that has a restrictive licensing agreement, is much more resource-intensive, and offers little or no benefit to the business segment beyond being pretty." He went on to add, "Plus, Apple is kicking the crap out of us in the consumer market and we need extra cash to burn, and let's face it... the only successful big products we've launched are Windows and Office. We have to force business users to adopt it, or our shareholders will tar and feather us before setting our homes on fire for not creating a single smash hit in the consumer market since Halo.
Cable companies screw their employees just as much as their customers. Stay tuned while we go deep undercover into the world of cable company management and ask the really tough question why can they charge so much for a shit product? We'll get into that and more after the following commercials showing dancing toilet paper, talking animals, cars driving in the rain, and finally... angry white men trying to get elected. STAY TUNED!
Yes, Apple can sell millions of tablets, but this is only because they have a very gullible following that other manufacturers just don't have.
Most iPhones purchased 3-4 years ago still receive software updates from Apple. You won't find another domestic phone manufacturer with that level of support. Techies bemoan people's use of macintosh, but 1 in 7 people use a mac, and yet 98% of the phone calls to technical support are for PCs. If PC owners are comparatively "smarter", shouldn't that number be lower? "Apple fanatics, on the other, don't care about utility, but rather just the possession of expensive status symbols" -- I would say that the statistics do not bear that out. Apple customers want things that are easy to use, have long end-of-life product support, and have excellent customer service.
It's a very convoluted one not built upon the more traditional and common factors underlying real markets caused by need and demand.
Yeah. I can't see the appeal in a product you can take anywhere, use for 10 hours, and provides quick and ready access to the internet and multimedia resources, and has a powerful enough processor to play many kinds of games. Oh. Wait... that's what us "PC users" keep hoping our phones are going to do for us. Someday. Also... if the market isn't doing what you want it to, it must have become martian and no longer reacting to supply and demand instead of say, simply not meeting your expectations.
Wanna play a game of thermonuclear warfare? There's an app for that.
But more seriously, that is a problem with environmentalists -- they can't separate the forest from the trees (I'm only being slightly sarcastic here). From what I've been able to tell by talking to these 'greenies', any environmental impact is bad. It's not enough to be carbon neutral, or conserve energy, save the whales, or whatever else is currently in vogue in their movement. It is a political movement that is based on a sliding scale of "purity". I can easily see one of them extolling the virtues of living in a house that has no electricity, is built entirely out of clay, and they don't cook their food (because fire releases carbon). What's worse, they feel guilty about having any modern conveniences, and so they try to buy indulgences like "carbon credits" or "EVA cars" ... which when you look into the total lifecycle of the vehicle and it's total environmental impact, you don't wind up any better off than a conventional car. A lot of environmentalism is just a shell game... it's moving the responsibility around so they can claim they're "carbon neutral" or whatever while someone else (usually the government, or some corporation) are the bad guys.
The bottom line is, the problem with the movement is that they can't see that progress towards environmental goals are only achievable by being economically competitive. I mean, everybody right now is going crazy about living "grid free". But the problem isn't the grid. The 'grid' is just a collection of wires and transformers. It's the management and production of that resource that is the problem; If the environmentalists wanted to "save the planet", they'd come up with a way to transport electricity over very long distances with minimal losses. That, right there, is the kind of tech we need to reduce our dependence on coal, oil, etc. Until we can cheaply move energy to where it's needed on demand, we're stuck with dino fuel because it's the only thing with a high energy density that can be built right now -- you can't build a nuclear power plant anywhere in this country right now even if you wanted to... and even if you could, nobody wants it near a city, which is where it needs to be to be useful.
He was too busy congratulating himself on his inflated sense of intelligence to answer that. And I only say inflated because only someone of average to below average actual intelligence would confuse being underinformed with being stupid.
For example lots of former Apple drones and die-hard fans are now turning away from the once idolized company
Clearly they're not dying fast enough or hard enough for management to notice.