It's not that they can't get it through, that's been the case all along. They couldn't even bring it to the floor for a vote. SCHIP didn't have a chance of passing either, but they had the votes to bring it to the floor (and even override the veto in the senate).
It sounds to me that this was not really a systems penetration type of 'hack', rather the kid forged his Caller ID. But it also says "False 911 calls are placed all the time, McHenry said, but he said this is the first time someone has hacked into Orange County's system and created a false call in this way." It sounds to me like normally it's CID spoofing, but in this case it seems they're implying that the OC 911 system was hacked. But it's pretty vague.
I read it as more of a "school spirit" kind of spiritual. Challenging people to learn about it, with the (I believe correct) idea that people will then truly believe what is happening, and will then rally behind the cause in a far more significant way than "maybe we ought to put up some weather stripping this year".
TFA doesn't say much, but it seems like this would end up a lot like Miis... where whatever style they chose for the avatars would only work in certain scenarios. I suppose they could make a more generalized system which would then be translated to whatever format "fits", but it seems like it would end up too generalized to really be useful.
If you're locking up your tires at a red light you're either not paying attention and braking late, or you're going too fast for the conditions. Don't go blaming the cameras for that. Usually the way it goes is, light turns yellow, and I start to brake at the same time the idiot behind me floors it trying to make the light. It's not my tires doing the squealing.
And yes, they would have done the same thing prior to the cameras, but I used to not have a problem being half a second under a red. Safer than getting plowed into.
Supposedly there are studies showing more accidents in places that have the red light cams. I had read something similar (maybe the same thing), that there were more accidents overall, but less side-impact, which are by far the more fatal type.
I don't think the red light cams are an overall bad thing, just that there ought to be some human judgement entering the occasion.
And taking it to court doesn't count... the court fees (Apparently they don't drop the charge now, they just reduce the fine to $0, so you still need to pay court fees) are significantly more than the ticket.
Then slow down, even if you are already under the speed limit. Obviously you're driving at a speed that's not safe.
I used to live in Farifax county, drivers there are nuts and the roads aren't well-lit at night, even in dense areas. If you used to live in Fairfax county, you should know how that goes... I don't care if the guy riding five inches from my rear bumper is the one at fault when he smashes into me, it STILL sucks. The drivers are all nuts, all concept of waiting your turn seems to be lost once people get behind the wheel in this area. And certainly nobody knows how to drive in less-than-optimal conditions, as evidenced by the number of people in ditches on the side of the road in less than an inch of snow.
They're just automating an inspection that could have been performed by cops on the ground That's what bothers me more than the privacy aspect of this... the automated law enforcement. Same deal with the red light cameras they put up all over the area (at least, Loudoun and Fairfax counties)... A friend of mine got an automated ticket for being 0.1 seconds under the red. And we have some short yellows, that are difficult to stop for in good conditions. If it was raining, you could easily end up fishtailing into an intersection trying to stop for the silly things.
I've been in a lot of squealing-tires, near-accidents to avoid these cameras in situations that, were the enforcement done by a human being who could apply rational judgement, would be ignored (barring cops on a power trip - and most here seem to be good, rational people).
So, that's exactly what scares me... this general migration towards automated law enforcement.
The first Clause of the Fourth Amendment provides that the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . .." This text protects two types of expectations, one involving "searches," the other "seizures." A "search" occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. 4 A "seizure" of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property. 5 This Court has also consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable "to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." Walter v. [466 U.S. 109, 114] United States, 447 U.S. 649, 662 (1980) (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting). 6 (emphasis mine)
So I read that as "The government is the only entity which is bound by the Constitution". Which perhaps makes sense given the assumption that ordinary laws would address this. In the context of the decision I think all it says is that the evidence retrieved by the DEA agent was admissable because the unreasonable search was not performed by the DEA agent, and the agent had no involvement or knowledge of the search before it had taken place. Something along the lines of the shipping company's crime has no bearing on the DEA agent's actions. The person who had shipped the package would then certainly be allowed to go after the person performing the unreasonable search under any applicable state or federal law. Do you read that the same way?
Not that I agree... especially the way that the Bill of Rights is written, asserting our rights rather than what the government can't do. But I don't think it's quite as heinous as it seemed at first, given that the government agent must have no involvement whatsoever... so it isn't like they can get around the Constitution by recruiting private citizens to run around opening people's mail to find drugs.
Applied to this situation, I believe it would mean that, although you couldn't go after Circuit City on the 4th amendment, you most certainly could go after them for assault and the unreasonable search under federal or state law. At least, I certainly hope there's a law somewhere that says you can't just go up to someone and force them to show you their posessions.
fascinating read, though... thank you for the link!
McAfee CEO David DeWalt, said that cyber-crime has become a US$105 billion business that now surpasses the value of the illegal drug trade worldwide. erm, conflict of interest?
Once you are able to view the video I think your opinion will change. I was just now finally able to watch them. It's too bad that the one with the best angle was the shakiest..
It honestly looked to me like he had given up resisting at that point... he had managed to turn around and partially sit up, but looked immobile at the time of the tase. Regardless, it's not like I've ever had any experience in the matter, and it sounds like you either are or were an officer and have firsthand knowledge, so I'll take your read over mine.
These types of attitudes are what hamstring the police My attitude towards the police has only come from my personal experience... there seem to be a great many officers in my area that do not act in accordance with the powers they have, which i've personally experienced several times. Not that there aren't good cops as well... after being harassed and prevented from leaving a public park by plainclothes officers that refused to show any form of identification (they claimed they didn't need to because of the patriot act - they turned on the siren of their unmarked car, and claimed that was all the identification they needed), I drove straight to the nearest state police satellite office, where a very kind and understanding state trooper made certain that they were in fact county officers.
So, I may not have been a goody-two-shoes kid, but i certainly wasn't a bad one either. Yet, i've had enough run ins with cops abusing their power that I have a natural distrust, and it seems that when providing and authorizing the kind of force available to police, we'd better be damn sure that this force is used only when appropriate and necessary to the situation. I do truly believe that there are many good officers out there who go to work every morning willing to give their lives to save mine. But their power does unfortunately seem to be abused frequently enough to warrant a scrutinizing eye.
The fact that he was warned repeatedly that if he did not stop resisting he would be tasered is lost on everyone. I don't think that's lost on most people... I believe the question is whether or not the use of force was appropriate.
It sounds like he was clearly restrained, it was just getting the cuffs on that was a problem. Had the cops warned him repeatedly that he was going to be shot if he did not stop resisting, and then killed him when he refused, I doubt there would be much argument that excessive force was used.
Which was what I was getting at with my original question... is a taser an acceptable use of force when police are having difficulty cuffing someone who has already been subdued and is no longer a threat? It sounds more like a convenience than a necessity. Prior to tasers, would they have just let him go? shot him? or just kept working at it until they had him in cuffs? My guess is the latter.
ONLY after being tasered were they able to handcuff him and lead him out. Can't watch the video since youtube is blocked at work, but were six (theoretically) trained police officers really unable to cuff a single college student? If the student is convicted of resisting arrest, will he be deported back to Krypton?
Yes. You can see six officer struggling with him for several minutes trying to get cuffs on him. After they tasered him, they were finally able to do so, and escort him out. Tasers definitely need to be used more frequently in this kind of situation. I mean, I'm a software developer... when the users get testy, a tase here and there would definitely make my job easier. I'm sure there are many other situations where a tase would make other jobs easier as well!
Isn't it sad that people spend so much time making games to make us scared, shameful, and depressed, instead of using the genre to make us self-confident, satisfied, and happy? it's cathartic.
Do you know how that works? As long as you have the upscaling turned off, the hardware is used, but when upscaling is turned on, software emulation kicks in?
Just ordered one myself for the same reasons - my ps2 recently died, and although there's nothing I really want to play on ps3 at the moment, I still play a lot of ps2, and it seemed worth it to go ahead and grab one while the hardware emulation was in place.
I've been pretty disappointed with the software emulation on the 360. But with what's coming out for that system in the next few months, I don't think you'd regret picking one up later this year.
It actually is a two-button mouse in addition to the side buttons, it's just defaulted by OS X to both left and right click having the same action. Although the entire mouse body physically clicks, there are sensors underneath each side of the little scroll ball that determine a right or left click based on where your fingers are (pictures here, near the bottom of the page). That means that if you have your fingers over both buttons when clicking, it registers as a left click - you need to remove your fingers from the left side of the mouse to perform a right click.
It's annoying, but I love the little scroll ball so much that i've been training myself to lift my fingers from the left side for a right click. Although I hear the scroll ball goes wonky after a while from getting dirty...
Maybe someone knows of a mouse with a similar scroll ball, that has distinct buttons? I had a "horizontal scroll" mouse before that was just awful, had to tilt the mouse wheel to the sides, which due to the degree of force required invariably led to a vertical scroll as well.
Isn't this along the lines of me handing you a 20 for a 10 dollar bill, leaving your place of business only to return with the police proclaiming that you overcharged me?
From the article: The vast majority of the new violations were instances in which telephone companies and Internet providers gave agents phone and e-mail records the agents did not request and were not authorized to collect. The agents retained the information anyway in their files...
So to try to fit your analogy, it's more like you were given $10 extra in change, and knowingly and willfully kept it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that they can't get it through, that's been the case all along. They couldn't even bring it to the floor for a vote. SCHIP didn't have a chance of passing either, but they had the votes to bring it to the floor (and even override the veto in the senate).
Stephen! I didn't know you posted on Slashdot!
It's a little scary that people don't understand that. Especially after all the Republican hubbub about removing filibuster power a couple years back.
I read it as more of a "school spirit" kind of spiritual. Challenging people to learn about it, with the (I believe correct) idea that people will then truly believe what is happening, and will then rally behind the cause in a far more significant way than "maybe we ought to put up some weather stripping this year".
TFA doesn't say much, but it seems like this would end up a lot like Miis... where whatever style they chose for the avatars would only work in certain scenarios. I suppose they could make a more generalized system which would then be translated to whatever format "fits", but it seems like it would end up too generalized to really be useful.
And yes, they would have done the same thing prior to the cameras, but I used to not have a problem being half a second under a red. Safer than getting plowed into.
s/occasion/equation/..... i even did a preview... been a long day.
I don't think the red light cams are an overall bad thing, just that there ought to be some human judgement entering the occasion.
And taking it to court doesn't count... the court fees (Apparently they don't drop the charge now, they just reduce the fine to $0, so you still need to pay court fees) are significantly more than the ticket.
I used to live in Farifax county, drivers there are nuts and the roads aren't well-lit at night, even in dense areas. If you used to live in Fairfax county, you should know how that goes... I don't care if the guy riding five inches from my rear bumper is the one at fault when he smashes into me, it STILL sucks. The drivers are all nuts, all concept of waiting your turn seems to be lost once people get behind the wheel in this area. And certainly nobody knows how to drive in less-than-optimal conditions, as evidenced by the number of people in ditches on the side of the road in less than an inch of snow.
I've been in a lot of squealing-tires, near-accidents to avoid these cameras in situations that, were the enforcement done by a human being who could apply rational judgement, would be ignored (barring cops on a power trip - and most here seem to be good, rational people).
So, that's exactly what scares me... this general migration towards automated law enforcement.
So I read that as "The government is the only entity which is bound by the Constitution". Which perhaps makes sense given the assumption that ordinary laws would address this. In the context of the decision I think all it says is that the evidence retrieved by the DEA agent was admissable because the unreasonable search was not performed by the DEA agent, and the agent had no involvement or knowledge of the search before it had taken place. Something along the lines of the shipping company's crime has no bearing on the DEA agent's actions. The person who had shipped the package would then certainly be allowed to go after the person performing the unreasonable search under any applicable state or federal law. Do you read that the same way?
Not that I agree... especially the way that the Bill of Rights is written, asserting our rights rather than what the government can't do. But I don't think it's quite as heinous as it seemed at first, given that the government agent must have no involvement whatsoever... so it isn't like they can get around the Constitution by recruiting private citizens to run around opening people's mail to find drugs.
Applied to this situation, I believe it would mean that, although you couldn't go after Circuit City on the 4th amendment, you most certainly could go after them for assault and the unreasonable search under federal or state law. At least, I certainly hope there's a law somewhere that says you can't just go up to someone and force them to show you their posessions.
fascinating read, though... thank you for the link!
It honestly looked to me like he had given up resisting at that point... he had managed to turn around and partially sit up, but looked immobile at the time of the tase. Regardless, it's not like I've ever had any experience in the matter, and it sounds like you either are or were an officer and have firsthand knowledge, so I'll take your read over mine.
These types of attitudes are what hamstring the police My attitude towards the police has only come from my personal experience... there seem to be a great many officers in my area that do not act in accordance with the powers they have, which i've personally experienced several times. Not that there aren't good cops as well... after being harassed and prevented from leaving a public park by plainclothes officers that refused to show any form of identification (they claimed they didn't need to because of the patriot act - they turned on the siren of their unmarked car, and claimed that was all the identification they needed), I drove straight to the nearest state police satellite office, where a very kind and understanding state trooper made certain that they were in fact county officers.
So, I may not have been a goody-two-shoes kid, but i certainly wasn't a bad one either. Yet, i've had enough run ins with cops abusing their power that I have a natural distrust, and it seems that when providing and authorizing the kind of force available to police, we'd better be damn sure that this force is used only when appropriate and necessary to the situation. I do truly believe that there are many good officers out there who go to work every morning willing to give their lives to save mine. But their power does unfortunately seem to be abused frequently enough to warrant a scrutinizing eye.
It sounds like he was clearly restrained, it was just getting the cuffs on that was a problem. Had the cops warned him repeatedly that he was going to be shot if he did not stop resisting, and then killed him when he refused, I doubt there would be much argument that excessive force was used.
Which was what I was getting at with my original question... is a taser an acceptable use of force when police are having difficulty cuffing someone who has already been subdued and is no longer a threat? It sounds more like a convenience than a necessity. Prior to tasers, would they have just let him go? shot him? or just kept working at it until they had him in cuffs? My guess is the latter.
:s/Propitiatory/Proprietary/g Looks like propitiatory might work in that context.Do you know how that works? As long as you have the upscaling turned off, the hardware is used, but when upscaling is turned on, software emulation kicks in?
Just ordered one myself for the same reasons - my ps2 recently died, and although there's nothing I really want to play on ps3 at the moment, I still play a lot of ps2, and it seemed worth it to go ahead and grab one while the hardware emulation was in place.
I've been pretty disappointed with the software emulation on the 360. But with what's coming out for that system in the next few months, I don't think you'd regret picking one up later this year.
It actually is a two-button mouse in addition to the side buttons, it's just defaulted by OS X to both left and right click having the same action. Although the entire mouse body physically clicks, there are sensors underneath each side of the little scroll ball that determine a right or left click based on where your fingers are (pictures here, near the bottom of the page). That means that if you have your fingers over both buttons when clicking, it registers as a left click - you need to remove your fingers from the left side of the mouse to perform a right click.
It's annoying, but I love the little scroll ball so much that i've been training myself to lift my fingers from the left side for a right click. Although I hear the scroll ball goes wonky after a while from getting dirty...
Maybe someone knows of a mouse with a similar scroll ball, that has distinct buttons? I had a "horizontal scroll" mouse before that was just awful, had to tilt the mouse wheel to the sides, which due to the degree of force required invariably led to a vertical scroll as well.
Isn't this along the lines of me handing you a 20 for a 10 dollar bill, leaving your place of business only to return with the police proclaiming that you overcharged me?
From the article: The vast majority of the new violations were instances in which telephone companies and Internet providers gave agents phone and e-mail records the agents did not request and were not authorized to collect. The agents retained the information anyway in their files...
So to try to fit your analogy, it's more like you were given $10 extra in change, and knowingly and willfully kept it.
Those things are addictive. Polonium 210 isn't.yeah, I could quit any time!
Super Drunky Ball...
Drunk Drunk Revolution...
and my personal favorite, Beers of War.