I'm just saying that if you think this gives them any new powers, you're wrong.
And I'm just saying that if you think this would not give them new powers under law you are wrong. There is a difference between capability and legal powers.
There are technical defenses against technical snooping. There is no defense against law without becoming a criminal. The fact that they can interecept my email is something to consider when sending email and that's all, like sending a postcard. The fact that they are seeking the right to have my email provided to them by a private sector company is an entirely different legal kettle of fish.
They can aim a listening device at the windows of your home, but they don't have the legal right. It's an important distinction.
. ..and if they can't compel your ISP to hand over your email, they can just as easily intercept it BEFORE it gets to your ISP.
Exactly.Your own rebuttal is my rebuttal to your rebuttal. Problem solved without the application of an offensive law that broadens the rights of the government to spy on its citizens.
You're absolutely right, and anyone who thinks their email is a purely private communication is either ignorant and/or an idiot.
That said, there is a huge difference between your ISP being able to read your email if they want to and having them compeled to provide that capability to a government agent.
He is refering to the fact that horsepower has a time componant. It's only in rare conditions that you're interested in the instantaneous force a horse can apply. What you want to know is how much work you can get out of it per day.
A cheetah may be able to sprint to 100 kph, but I'll out distance it in 10 minutes driving my car at only 80 kph.
Human hunters on foot can only run about 15 kph, but can chase down large prey that can run 65 kph, because the human can run at 15 kph all day, day after day, but the prey animal can only run at 65 kph for a very limited time before becoming exhausted and needing to stop.
The amount of time you are expected to perform some function in is a critical parameter.
Running a 4 minute mile is one thing, but there's a word for someone who can run 26 of them back to back:
No, it's not like patenting shoes, or shirt collars for that matter. It's a patent for the allegedly "innovative" combination of a computer inside a shirt collar.
In other words it's like patenting a sandal with an attached upper (in European history the sole and the upper were originally seperate pieces). You can still seperate the uppers and the soles and wear the soles as sandals if you wish.
You may think of the shoe as a single item, but it isn't. It's an assembly of previous technologies. Just about everything is.
The shirt with attached collar is also an assembly of previous technologies.
The obvious response would be to patent a computer integrated into a thong.
Have you heard of L.A.F.F.? That's "Ladies Against Fanny Floss" (although I understand the imagery of that is somewhat different for our Aussie friends). They'll have something to say about your idea.
Exactly! They think they're so smart, but I'm ahead of them. I have the patent on the collar and they'd damned well better call me for a colicensing deal or I'll see their arses in court.
I've got lapels, plackets and cuffs too, so they shouldn't get to thinking they can pull a fast one that way.
I couldn't get shoes though. Nike already had that one. The bastards.
Hopefully, they've chosen that person to be their vice-president.
You mean like the way LBJ chose Humphrey?
No, I'm afraid the the choice of VP is always a purely political decision made in order to strengthen the ticket and the party, with the party bosses playing the dominant role in the decision.
Sometimes done in order to take a strong, viable member of one's own party and knife them in the political back for the "good" of the party.
In fact, let's make this a two parter and also ask who, other than yourself, you would want to be President.
Because of the exigencies of the political process I would expect the answer to the second part to be different from the first, some of the best men for the job being men that can't be considered viable political candidates.
Hey now, is that any way to talk about our beloved president?
Hey now, let's not cast aspersions until after the next election. After all, it will only take 60 million chimps to elect him fair and square this time.
That's because the average girlfriend starts to think of herself as a wife long before the guy catches on.
Men tend to think they do the chosing just because they're the ones that tend to do the pursuing, but, on the whole, it is the women who actually do the chosing.
You'll find evidence of this in the fact that traditionally it is the men that must do the asking.
Cats at least is inherently lyrical. People have been setting poetry to music since the invention of poetry; and started dressing in costumes imitating animals and spirits while dancing and singing them not long after that.
And T.S Elliot's cat poems really are a bit of alright.
Damned if I know. Star Wars is obviously a rip off of the Robin Hood ballads, whereas the The Last Starfighter was obviously a rip off of the Chansons de Geste.
I wonder if having a harem sex-bots will be considered immoral
Yes.
That won't, however, prevent them from also being quite popular and common. People will indulge their "base" instincts, even the people who consider it immoral.
It reminds me of an old Playboy cartoon. It shows a bunch of Puritans going to meeting and all the women (of every age) have large, red As on their backs. One guy is saying to another, "Well, it was a long winter."
The problem, of course, is that the people who consider it immoral, but do it anyway, will try to repress their guilt by running for office and making it a criminal offense.
Personally, I've never really understood male shaving, unless you think you're a woman trapped in a man's body or something.
A clean chinned man is nearly as much of an oddity as a bearded lady (racial characteristics not withstanding). It's one of our more bizarre fashions (and that's all it is, fashion).
It makes about as much sense as men wearing prosthetic breasts or padding their hips.
The tongue is the most sensitive body part (in multiple senses no less). Whether you consider that a risque part or not depends entirely on your predilections.
So when you use false information to avoid SPAM or protect your privacy are you committing fraud?
No. You are "lying" in terms of applying a masquerade, like when you wear a Holloween mask.
There is no crime in wearing a Donald Trump mask, or even in calling yourself Donald Trump while wearing one unless you do so with the actual intent to make people believe you really are Donald Trump in order to get money from them. That is the fraud, not the disguise.
In my state you don't even have to go to court to change your name. Simply start using any alias you want and it defacto becomes your identifier, so long as you don't do so with intent to hide who you are for the purpose of fraud ( such as to evade legitimate debts or court action).
This law is perfectly inline with American legal philosophy, case law and existing code.
It is the crime that is the crime and we don't need any more laws making more crimes where there never were any before to "reduce crime."
Go after the 419 scammers as best you can, but don't make the people hiding themselves from them criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just saying that if you think this gives them any new powers, you're wrong.
And I'm just saying that if you think this would not give them new powers under law you are wrong. There is a difference between capability and legal powers.
There are technical defenses against technical snooping. There is no defense against law without becoming a criminal. The fact that they can interecept my email is something to consider when sending email and that's all, like sending a postcard. The fact that they are seeking the right to have my email provided to them by a private sector company is an entirely different legal kettle of fish.
They can aim a listening device at the windows of your home, but they don't have the legal right. It's an important distinction.
KFG
. . .and if they can't compel your ISP to hand over your email, they can just as easily intercept it BEFORE it gets to your ISP.
Exactly.Your own rebuttal is my rebuttal to your rebuttal. Problem solved without the application of an offensive law that broadens the rights of the government to spy on its citizens.
KFG
You're absolutely right, and anyone who thinks their email is a purely private communication is either ignorant and/or an idiot.
That said, there is a huge difference between your ISP being able to read your email if they want to and having them compeled to provide that capability to a government agent.
KFG
I have no idea of what you mean by sustained.
He is refering to the fact that horsepower has a time componant. It's only in rare conditions that you're interested in the instantaneous force a horse can apply. What you want to know is how much work you can get out of it per day.
A cheetah may be able to sprint to 100 kph, but I'll out distance it in 10 minutes driving my car at only 80 kph.
Human hunters on foot can only run about 15 kph, but can chase down large prey that can run 65 kph, because the human can run at 15 kph all day, day after day, but the prey animal can only run at 65 kph for a very limited time before becoming exhausted and needing to stop.
The amount of time you are expected to perform some function in is a critical parameter.
Running a 4 minute mile is one thing, but there's a word for someone who can run 26 of them back to back:
Loser.
KFG
No, it's not like patenting shoes, or shirt collars for that matter. It's a patent for the allegedly "innovative" combination of a computer inside a shirt collar.
In other words it's like patenting a sandal with an attached upper (in European history the sole and the upper were originally seperate pieces). You can still seperate the uppers and the soles and wear the soles as sandals if you wish.
You may think of the shoe as a single item, but it isn't. It's an assembly of previous technologies. Just about everything is.
The shirt with attached collar is also an assembly of previous technologies.
The obvious response would be to patent a computer integrated into a thong.
Have you heard of L.A.F.F.? That's "Ladies Against Fanny Floss" (although I understand the imagery of that is somewhat different for our Aussie friends). They'll have something to say about your idea.
KFG
. . .thats like trying to patent shoes!
Exactly! They think they're so smart, but I'm ahead of them. I have the patent on the collar and they'd damned well better call me for a colicensing deal or I'll see their arses in court.
I've got lapels, plackets and cuffs too, so they shouldn't get to thinking they can pull a fast one that way.
I couldn't get shoes though. Nike already had that one. The bastards.
KFG
Hopefully, they've chosen that person to be their vice-president.
You mean like the way LBJ chose Humphrey?
No, I'm afraid the the choice of VP is always a purely political decision made in order to strengthen the ticket and the party, with the party bosses playing the dominant role in the decision.
Sometimes done in order to take a strong, viable member of one's own party and knife them in the political back for the "good" of the party.
KFG
who would you support?
In fact, let's make this a two parter and also ask who, other than yourself, you would want to be President.
Because of the exigencies of the political process I would expect the answer to the second part to be different from the first, some of the best men for the job being men that can't be considered viable political candidates.
KFG
Hey now, is that any way to talk about our beloved president?
Hey now, let's not cast aspersions until after the next election. After all, it will only take 60 million chimps to elect him fair and square this time.
KFG
But that wasn't in space. It was on Earth.
Nyeah!
KFG
Bravo, sir! My hat is off my rocker to you.
KFG
You have been paying for Software Protection. . .
Yeah, youse wouldn't want anything to 'happen' to yer software, now would you?
KFG
So either they're rushing, on a swim team, or perverts, right?
Or fashionable.
By the way, I race bicycles.
KFG
And/or?
Hey, ya never know.
KFG
That's because the average girlfriend starts to think of herself as a wife long before the guy catches on.
Men tend to think they do the chosing just because they're the ones that tend to do the pursuing, but, on the whole, it is the women who actually do the chosing.
You'll find evidence of this in the fact that traditionally it is the men that must do the asking.
KFG
Corectt, sir and/or maddam.
KFG
Cats at least is inherently lyrical. People have been setting poetry to music since the invention of poetry; and started dressing in costumes imitating animals and spirits while dancing and singing them not long after that.
And T.S Elliot's cat poems really are a bit of alright.
You've got me on Starlight Express though.
KFG
Damned if I know. Star Wars is obviously a rip off of the Robin Hood ballads, whereas the The Last Starfighter was obviously a rip off of the Chansons de Geste.
KFG
Ah, well. I admit that that problem is not one of mere fasion.
:)
It's vanity.
KFG
Then I guess you also don't understand cutting your hair and nails. . .
Keeping them clean and neatly trimmed I understand perfectly. "Dapper" is one of the words not uncommonly used to describe me.
However, I don't understand removing them.
KFG
I wonder if having a harem sex-bots will be considered immoral
Yes.
That won't, however, prevent them from also being quite popular and common. People will indulge their "base" instincts, even the people who consider it immoral.
It reminds me of an old Playboy cartoon. It shows a bunch of Puritans going to meeting and all the women (of every age) have large, red As on their backs. One guy is saying to another, "Well, it was a long winter."
The problem, of course, is that the people who consider it immoral, but do it anyway, will try to repress their guilt by running for office and making it a criminal offense.
KFG
All hail our new cleanshaven robot masters.
Personally, I've never really understood male shaving, unless you think you're a woman trapped in a man's body or something.
A clean chinned man is nearly as much of an oddity as a bearded lady (racial characteristics not withstanding). It's one of our more bizarre fashions (and that's all it is, fashion).
It makes about as much sense as men wearing prosthetic breasts or padding their hips.
KFG
The tongue is the most sensitive body part (in multiple senses no less). Whether you consider that a risque part or not depends entirely on your predilections.
KFG
how does one overcome the sensor-sensation gap?
In the case of a sex android one does not even bother trying, as it's only the sensations produced in the human componant that matter.
All the android has be able to do is adeptly fake it, making it more of an android wife than an android girlfriend.
KFG
So when you use false information to avoid SPAM or protect your privacy are you committing fraud?
No. You are "lying" in terms of applying a masquerade, like when you wear a Holloween mask.
There is no crime in wearing a Donald Trump mask, or even in calling yourself Donald Trump while wearing one unless you do so with the actual intent to make people believe you really are Donald Trump in order to get money from them. That is the fraud, not the disguise.
In my state you don't even have to go to court to change your name. Simply start using any alias you want and it defacto becomes your identifier, so long as you don't do so with intent to hide who you are for the purpose of fraud ( such as to evade legitimate debts or court action).
This law is perfectly inline with American legal philosophy, case law and existing code.
It is the crime that is the crime and we don't need any more laws making more crimes where there never were any before to "reduce crime."
Go after the 419 scammers as best you can, but don't make the people hiding themselves from them criminals.
KFG