When I had Sprint it was so f'ing slow that there's no way I could ever approach 23GB. I always figure that's how they could get away with "unlimited" data plans.
There have been other cases of people interviewed remotely. It seems unusual that Sweden would not follow their regular procedure with him.Sweden has previously tried others in absentia. By international law, he has been "charged" with the crime (by the nature of the Interpol Warrant for Arrest Sweden has issued).
That's because the point was never to convict or even charge him with rape, it was to get him to somewhere where he could then be extradited to the US.
That's interesting. As a rule of thumb extradition treaties only cover acts that are crimes in both countries.
I think you may have the burden backwards. If it is a crime in both countries, then they are obligated to extradite him. If it's not a crime in both countries, they can still extradite him if they want to.
Weird times we live in when the only real American running for President is a socialist.
You probably think that's weird because you don't know what a Democratic Socialist is. When Republicans or Hillary supporters talks about socialism, they're really talking about a different form of socialism - where everything is under control of the government - but then confuse you into thinking that's the type of socialist Bernie is. Democratic socialism is about making things fair (people making millions per year don't pay lower tax rate than their janitor) and economically secure (making sure you have access to medical care, enough to eat, housing, access to education etc without having to work 80 hours per week and not being able to save any money for retirement).
Coming out against CISA shows this. CISA is about more government control. If Bernie was the type of socialist that Republicans and Hillary want you to think he is, he would be strongly in favor of CISA. Hillary and Republicans, conversely, are in favor of CISA. Isn't that pretty much the epitome of irony?
Perhaps it's time for a more open process and open source code backing these types devices before their results are accepted as forensic evidence.
Agreed, and it doesn't even have to be free to be open source. When someone's freedom is at stake, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, which in these cases means the burden of proof is on the software to show that it works. How can they possibly show that it works, beyond a reasonable doubt, without code review?
They already have an expert witness - the author of the program. He is willing to testify how his program reached the conclusion it did. At some point you need to accept whether or not an expert is indeed an expert, otherwise you get into an infinite loop of "my expert needs to verify your expert's expertise"
Said expert is not impartial, for 2 reasons: 1. It's his company, so he has a major financial stake in testifying that his software is perfect. 2. The prosecution is effectively his customer, and the any good business person know the customer is always right.
As somebody above stated, if the author of the software wasn't willing to submit to a code review, then he picked the wrong damn market. If your life and freedom were at stake, would you want to take the word of the author of the software, or would you want your own expert reviewing it?
should require the drone operator be a licensed pilot
I hope you don't mean the same type of pilot's license required for manned non-ultralight aircraft. I think there should, however be a separate license for drone pilots. There needs to be a set of rules and procedures, with a license test that requires you to demonstrate you know them via a written test, similar concept to a HAM technical class license . It doesn't have to be a huge barrier to entry, just make sure you know the rules. If you fly a drone without a license or you break the rules then you get a fine. The problem is that the FAA would take at least 15 years to come up with such a thing and the rules would be an arcane mishmash of 15 years worth of bureaucrats adding to them.
This is only really an issue because all the big EMR products are flaming piles of crap. If the software was decent, there would be no reason to have to memorize so much stuff, the software should guide them through it in a matter of seconds. The folks who deal directly with insurance should be the only ones that have to memorize all that.
So I assume this means that as part of the treaty, the US government disclosed to China the honeypots it knows about. China is in the process of disclosing it to their pet script kiddies, but only 75% of the script kiddies have so far stopped hitting those known honeypots.
And even then, a programmer or his/her manager could claim that code was for testing purposes, it should have never made it into production. It could all be copped up to an accident. It will really depend on whether the company wants scapegoats or wants to cop it up to institutional incompetence. Unless they find documentation that says, "TODO: Remove this test code" or "Bwahahaha cheat the emissions test!" how are they going to prove it either way?
That's because in reality, most of the time when D's are doing something bad, R's are doing that bad thing too, but not necessarily the other way around.
Both parties are horrible assholes, but R's are much more horrible.
Constant investigation of databases, storage, and records, as of this of a continuous FOIA request.
This is meaningless without a real consequence. If the consequence is merely that evidence gathered using it is inadmissible, so what? If they stop doing it, there is nothing anyway so there is no incentive to stop. How about prison time for those that knowingly violate the constitution?
Aside from the fact that they're suing the refilling company and not the consumer who you're saying is the one who agreed to it, let's pretend they're suing the consumer. So then it's really a question of how much power seller should implicitly have over consumers. If it's a contract the consumer signed, then this makes sense. But to have it be automatic by virtue of purchasing a product? Should companies have control over how their products are used once they are purchased? If I purchase a Kenmore oven, should Kenmore be able to tell me what kind of food I can bake with it? Now if they offered me a discount in exchange for signing a contract saying I would bake pizza in it, then fine, if I signed the contract then I'm bound to it. If I go to Lowe's and see that it's 20% off and buy it...then what?
Think more along the lines of cloning a few a prized bulls, which can be worth over a million dollars each. More clones means more semen to sell, which can be worth thousands of dollars per shot.
I wonder how many people will die over this revelation?
None, because nobody will give a shit. The same goes for little things that contradict any other religion. Christianity, Mormonism, etc etc. Plenty of evidence to contradict it. In this case, it's not even that contradictory, which is why it's a minor thing, not some Earth-shaking revelation that contradicts all of the teachings of Islam. The dates are still within his lifetime so he still could have received the words from God. Even if you want to take it all at face value, perhaps it means the Koran was compiled (written down in one place) a few years early that originally believed, which is a small detail that doesn't completely shake up Islam. The dates are close enough such that those who still want to believe the Koran wasn't actually compiled until 650AD could reasonably assume that the paper could be 18 years older when it was written on.
Why should municipalities be paying for these "pilots?" They're really beta-testers of new stuff. The companies should be paying for the beta test, not the taxpayers. This applies to all kinds of things, not just IoT, although I know/. commenters really like to bitch about IoT.
In my municipality, the corrupt mayoral administration wants to do waste-to-energy. Okay, great, the problem is that they want to be a beta-test for an entirely new technology - a method of fermenting municipal solid waste into biofuel. The company, Anaergia, has plants in Europe that convert cow poop, human poop, and food waste into fertilizer and some fuel, but that's very, very different than regular trash. Same bullshit. Whether it's IoT or any other domain, municipalities shouldn't be footing the bill and the risk to beta test a for-profit company's technology.
The F-35 will win, and the pork will continue to flow to the hundreds of congressional districts that get money from the F-35. The A-10 doesn't funnel billions of dollars to congressional districts
That is no longer the case. It doesn't have anything to do with congressional districts any more, it has everything to do with campaign contributors. It used to be a congressman would go to his home district and say, "reelect me, I brought in X jobs!" But now, they simply are bribed by defense contractors from any district and then use that money on TV advertisements that convince the people in their district that the other side wants to take away their guns and their medical care, sell baby parts on eBay, and let Muslims behead their children.
which will just cause someone else - presumably with better network security practices - to launch an identical service
People used the service because they thought it was a way to cheat without getting caught. While I'm sure there would be enough demand to make a future service profitable, I would expect the demand would be significantly reduced by this incident.
More to the point, if you keep getting fined for the same offenses, those fines are going to increase, and stronger measures may eventually be used to, if not assure compliance, then so damage the company that compliance ceases to be an issue.
So this company might stop doing it. But what about other companies doing this or other illegal things? It pretty much communicates that go you can go ahead and do whatever the heck you want until you get caught, because even after you've been busted the fine will be less than your profits. It's not like this is a new thing that they might not have known was illegal, they clearly just didn't give a shit because they knew if they got caught their illegal activity would still be profitable.
Slashdot Mirror
When I had Sprint it was so f'ing slow that there's no way I could ever approach 23GB. I always figure that's how they could get away with "unlimited" data plans.
There have been other cases of people interviewed remotely. It seems unusual that Sweden would not follow their regular procedure with him.Sweden has previously tried others in absentia. By international law, he has been "charged" with the crime (by the nature of the Interpol Warrant for Arrest Sweden has issued).
That's because the point was never to convict or even charge him with rape, it was to get him to somewhere where he could then be extradited to the US.
That's interesting. As a rule of thumb extradition treaties only cover acts that are crimes in both countries.
I think you may have the burden backwards. If it is a crime in both countries, then they are obligated to extradite him. If it's not a crime in both countries, they can still extradite him if they want to.
Weird times we live in when the only real American running for President is a socialist.
You probably think that's weird because you don't know what a Democratic Socialist is. When Republicans or Hillary supporters talks about socialism, they're really talking about a different form of socialism - where everything is under control of the government - but then confuse you into thinking that's the type of socialist Bernie is. Democratic socialism is about making things fair (people making millions per year don't pay lower tax rate than their janitor) and economically secure (making sure you have access to medical care, enough to eat, housing, access to education etc without having to work 80 hours per week and not being able to save any money for retirement).
Coming out against CISA shows this. CISA is about more government control. If Bernie was the type of socialist that Republicans and Hillary want you to think he is, he would be strongly in favor of CISA. Hillary and Republicans, conversely, are in favor of CISA. Isn't that pretty much the epitome of irony?
along with the banking and insurance sector
So does that really mean this is really primarily for HFT? Or is HFT a uniquely American bit of fuckery?
Perhaps it's time for a more open process and open source code backing these types devices before their results are accepted as forensic evidence.
Agreed, and it doesn't even have to be free to be open source. When someone's freedom is at stake, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, which in these cases means the burden of proof is on the software to show that it works. How can they possibly show that it works, beyond a reasonable doubt, without code review?
They already have an expert witness - the author of the program. He is willing to testify how his program reached the conclusion it did. At some point you need to accept whether or not an expert is indeed an expert, otherwise you get into an infinite loop of "my expert needs to verify your expert's expertise"
Said expert is not impartial, for 2 reasons: 1. It's his company, so he has a major financial stake in testifying that his software is perfect. 2. The prosecution is effectively his customer, and the any good business person know the customer is always right.
As somebody above stated, if the author of the software wasn't willing to submit to a code review, then he picked the wrong damn market. If your life and freedom were at stake, would you want to take the word of the author of the software, or would you want your own expert reviewing it?
should require the drone operator be a licensed pilot
I hope you don't mean the same type of pilot's license required for manned non-ultralight aircraft. I think there should, however be a separate license for drone pilots. There needs to be a set of rules and procedures, with a license test that requires you to demonstrate you know them via a written test, similar concept to a HAM technical class license . It doesn't have to be a huge barrier to entry, just make sure you know the rules. If you fly a drone without a license or you break the rules then you get a fine. The problem is that the FAA would take at least 15 years to come up with such a thing and the rules would be an arcane mishmash of 15 years worth of bureaucrats adding to them.
This is only really an issue because all the big EMR products are flaming piles of crap. If the software was decent, there would be no reason to have to memorize so much stuff, the software should guide them through it in a matter of seconds. The folks who deal directly with insurance should be the only ones that have to memorize all that.
So I assume this means that as part of the treaty, the US government disclosed to China the honeypots it knows about. China is in the process of disclosing it to their pet script kiddies, but only 75% of the script kiddies have so far stopped hitting those known honeypots.
Professional Engineers have the power to say no and they have Ethics rules to fall back on.
But do they have the power to say no and keep their job, and keep their job without management making their work life miserable?
And even then, a programmer or his/her manager could claim that code was for testing purposes, it should have never made it into production. It could all be copped up to an accident. It will really depend on whether the company wants scapegoats or wants to cop it up to institutional incompetence. Unless they find documentation that says, "TODO: Remove this test code" or "Bwahahaha cheat the emissions test!" how are they going to prove it either way?
That's because in reality, most of the time when D's are doing something bad, R's are doing that bad thing too, but not necessarily the other way around.
Both parties are horrible assholes, but R's are much more horrible.
Constant investigation of databases, storage, and records, as of this of a continuous FOIA request.
This is meaningless without a real consequence. If the consequence is merely that evidence gathered using it is inadmissible, so what? If they stop doing it, there is nothing anyway so there is no incentive to stop. How about prison time for those that knowingly violate the constitution?
Aside from the fact that they're suing the refilling company and not the consumer who you're saying is the one who agreed to it, let's pretend they're suing the consumer. So then it's really a question of how much power seller should implicitly have over consumers. If it's a contract the consumer signed, then this makes sense. But to have it be automatic by virtue of purchasing a product? Should companies have control over how their products are used once they are purchased? If I purchase a Kenmore oven, should Kenmore be able to tell me what kind of food I can bake with it? Now if they offered me a discount in exchange for signing a contract saying I would bake pizza in it, then fine, if I signed the contract then I'm bound to it. If I go to Lowe's and see that it's 20% off and buy it...then what?
Noone is going to clone for production
Think more along the lines of cloning a few a prized bulls, which can be worth over a million dollars each. More clones means more semen to sell, which can be worth thousands of dollars per shot.
anyone not know this already?.. it seems pretty obvious
Pretty obvious the world is flat too, but it's helpful to use the scientific method to confirm whether or not it actually is.
I wonder how many people will die over this revelation?
None, because nobody will give a shit. The same goes for little things that contradict any other religion. Christianity, Mormonism, etc etc. Plenty of evidence to contradict it. In this case, it's not even that contradictory, which is why it's a minor thing, not some Earth-shaking revelation that contradicts all of the teachings of Islam. The dates are still within his lifetime so he still could have received the words from God. Even if you want to take it all at face value, perhaps it means the Koran was compiled (written down in one place) a few years early that originally believed, which is a small detail that doesn't completely shake up Islam. The dates are close enough such that those who still want to believe the Koran wasn't actually compiled until 650AD could reasonably assume that the paper could be 18 years older when it was written on.
Why should municipalities be paying for these "pilots?" They're really beta-testers of new stuff. The companies should be paying for the beta test, not the taxpayers. This applies to all kinds of things, not just IoT, although I know /. commenters really like to bitch about IoT.
In my municipality, the corrupt mayoral administration wants to do waste-to-energy. Okay, great, the problem is that they want to be a beta-test for an entirely new technology - a method of fermenting municipal solid waste into biofuel. The company, Anaergia, has plants in Europe that convert cow poop, human poop, and food waste into fertilizer and some fuel, but that's very, very different than regular trash. Same bullshit. Whether it's IoT or any other domain, municipalities shouldn't be footing the bill and the risk to beta test a for-profit company's technology.
The F-35 will win, and the pork will continue to flow to the hundreds of congressional districts that get money from the F-35. The A-10 doesn't funnel billions of dollars to congressional districts
That is no longer the case. It doesn't have anything to do with congressional districts any more, it has everything to do with campaign contributors. It used to be a congressman would go to his home district and say, "reelect me, I brought in X jobs!" But now, they simply are bribed by defense contractors from any district and then use that money on TV advertisements that convince the people in their district that the other side wants to take away their guns and their medical care, sell baby parts on eBay, and let Muslims behead their children.
It's not that they can't do it. It's that it's not economically sane to try in most cases.
Compared to the cost of developing the F-35, it sure as hell would be economically sane.
which will just cause someone else - presumably with better network security practices - to launch an identical service
People used the service because they thought it was a way to cheat without getting caught. While I'm sure there would be enough demand to make a future service profitable, I would expect the demand would be significantly reduced by this incident.
How many suicides and divorces and single-parent homes will this lead to...
By "this," do you mean the cheating, or the getting caught? The getting caught wouldn't have happened without the cheating...
More to the point, if you keep getting fined for the same offenses, those fines are going to increase, and stronger measures may eventually be used to, if not assure compliance, then so damage the company that compliance ceases to be an issue.
So this company might stop doing it. But what about other companies doing this or other illegal things? It pretty much communicates that go you can go ahead and do whatever the heck you want until you get caught, because even after you've been busted the fine will be less than your profits. It's not like this is a new thing that they might not have known was illegal, they clearly just didn't give a shit because they knew if they got caught their illegal activity would still be profitable.
they signed a settlement agreement in the court room, so further infractions are really "contempt of court" with immediate jail for the offenders
Please tell me this is sarcasm and you don't actually think this would ever happen.