They could do that but why cause FB to spend hundreds of dollars to deal with a divorce matter. The simple inexpensive solution is to exchange passwords.
(1) I have a safe in my bedroom, my ex-wife demands that I account for the contents in our civil divorce case (civil not criminal, not civil as in polite). She files a motion to compel me to provide her an itemized list of the contents. If I object, I can take it to the judge who will decide if I must turn it over. If I ignore it or lie, I'm subject to civil contempt.
If there is no way of anyone else being allowed to see the contents of the safe there is no way to verify that the safe owner is lying or telling the truth. There must be some way to compel the owner to open the safe so the contents can be verified.
You missed the point. If FB disabled the account(s) the court could order them to restore those accounts. That court order would be directed at FB and they would comply with it.
He missed a couple of tools that lawyers use for discovery. Search warrants are one of them. For example if a litigant find a safety deposit box that reasonably may contain hidden assets the court may issue a search warrant for that box. The exchange of passwords is in effect a search warrant for the Facebook account.
And the court could issue another order to Facebook to restore the account and keep it up until the case is over. Things do not disappear instantly from the internet; there are always backups.
Actually they are required to follow a court order just like any other business. Deleting an account could be equated to shredding documents. Facebook could be charged with failure to comply with a court order and destruction of evidence.
Sorry but TOS does not trump a court order. If one or both of the accounts were shut down the court could order them restored and made accessible again.
I saw those too but then noticed that they were not on both sides of the table. I bet that they were put there during early development and testing of a single robot. The robot was on the side of the table with the marks and the human serving, who didn't need the marks, was on the other side . When development reached a certain point the marks were no longer needed but they neglected to remove them.
Sorry by in my experience it has been the exact opposite. The basics are the easy part but when you try to deal with the last 20% one finds that there are many exceptions to the basics. When the exceptions interact they spawn more exceptions making things even more difficult. It is the old 80/20 rule. You get 80% of the job done quickly but that last 20% can make the 80% unworkable.
This robot can stand in one place and deal with a ball that crosses 2/3 of the baseline in a restricted altitude. Here are some issue; 1. What if the ball would bounce twice before crossing the baseline (drop shot)? 2. What if the ball can not be reached from the stationary location (say it goes off the side of the table or high over the robot's head). 3. What if the ball comes faster than the robot can move(physical limitations)? 4. The game of ping pong is about strategy and anticipation which in robot terms means AI which is much more difficult than rallying.
So in effect the robots can rally under specific parameters and nothing else. Cool but not really impressive
It would be nice if you actually read the article you are linking. They were also talking about gyroscopic and caster effect and not '"inertial" or "centrifugal effect"'. Here is a quote: "Gyro effects are important contributors to self-steering [and] so are caster effects. It's just that they are not essential."
Guess you should read the information you link. here is a quote from that article.
In April 2011, a study conducted by a former investigator of the EPFL École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne appeared, which stated that active mobile phones placed directly inside a beehive can induce the worker piping signal (in natural conditions, worker piping either announces the swarming process of the bee colony or is a signal of a disturbed bee colony); the author mentioned that "phones are not present in the close vicinity of honeybees in real life" and did not demonstrate what negative effect, if any, worker piping might have within a colony, nor was any link to CCD demonstrated.[110]
All other references to electromagnetic radiation dealt with other types.
According to the article at Paid content; "The actress... says that the credit-card interception is the only way the company could have learned her real age."
Here is a really interesting thing that I found during my search. At this url under blogs I found this as the summary.
"Junie Hoang, born on July 16, 1971 in Saigon, Vietnam, is a Vietnamese actress. Filmography (source: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0387470/ ) 2011 Social Vigilantes (announced) Mika 2011 Gingerdead Man 3-D: Saturday Night Cleaver (filming)... -"
Note the DoB. When I clicked the link the the DoB was July 16, 1978. Why the difference? It looks like at some point the blog stated the DoB was 1971.
It may be possible that all these sites got their data from iMDB but that is doubtful. For example the crystalacids.com, famouswhy.com and watchmy movies.com sits have incomplete listings of her and do not reference iMDB. If any of these sites show the 1978 date, there may be some "data cleanup" going on.
There are alternate ways to get an actor's date of birth.
The only issue with a fibre optic camera is that it needs a hole to look through. It is quite possible that the drilling through the concrete wall could be heard.
Interesting how you neglect to mention the deaths of police and innocent civilians caused by the purveyors of recreational drugs. Some of the deaths of innocent civilians occur when two purveyors of recreational drugs fight over the same territory. There are many documented cases of drug gangs having and carrying automatic weapons and assault rifles. So when the police have to deal with these gangs that do so using heavily armed, highly trained units. If you don't want to get shot when an SRU shows up then don't pull a gun. If you are an "innocent civilian" then don't frequent a drug gang's house that could be raided by an SRU at any time.
I do not see how the use of radar expands the US anti-terrorism powers.
There is a huge difference between an illegal warrantless search, which I was referring to, and a search sanctioned by a warrant. With a warrant the police have a judge's permission to look into a building. Whether it is done by radar, IR or eyeballs makes no difference. So no, the police are not going to be driving down the street scanning random people in their houses.
As a ERT tool this is a good one. It could be used before a search warrant is executed to locate all people in the house and possibly decrease the need to go on hard and fast. This may save lives; both on the police side and the civilian side. When executing a warrant all reasonable tools should be used.
I was talking about the size of the phased array antenna. The multiple antennas need to be separated by a certain distance so they do not interfere with each other and need to be a certain size so they can gather enough radiation. That's the physics of radar and no research is going to change that. Phased array radar is not new technology; it came out on the Ticonderoga class cruiser in 1978. One would think that they would have made the array as small as possible in the first place
So it is good at locating people moving behind a wall. Can you tell if the person is armed?
If you also display stationary objects, is the blob in the corner a person or a filing cabinet?
Look at the size of the thing. I do not see a tactical unit trundling something that big so that they can see 20m through a wall. I am not sure but if you decrease the size of the antennas your power and resolution goes down. Also how much power does the radar and computers use? How long would it last on batteries?
The dent came out just fine but the finish is now changed. In an untouched car all the lines in the brushed finish go in one direction. After the repair some of the lines now go different direction. That can be seen below and to the left of the penny in the first "after" picture. Under certain lighting conditions the difference can be quite obvious.My point was that it is difficult to exactly match a brushed finish after repair.
It doesn't rust but it dents and scratches just fine. Get into a minor fender bender and you need to replace panels. If you fix a dent in brushed stainless steel you will always see it. Add to that the fact that welding stainless isn't easy. What about weight; stainless isn't very light.
Slashdot Mirror
They could do that but why cause FB to spend hundreds of dollars to deal with a divorce matter. The simple inexpensive solution is to exchange passwords.
(1) I have a safe in my bedroom, my ex-wife demands that I account for the contents in our civil divorce case (civil not criminal, not civil as in polite). She files a motion to compel me to provide her an itemized list of the contents. If I object, I can take it to the judge who will decide if I must turn it over. If I ignore it or lie, I'm subject to civil contempt.
If there is no way of anyone else being allowed to see the contents of the safe there is no way to verify that the safe owner is lying or telling the truth. There must be some way to compel the owner to open the safe so the contents can be verified.
You missed the point. If FB disabled the account(s) the court could order them to restore those accounts. That court order would be directed at FB and they would comply with it.
He missed a couple of tools that lawyers use for discovery. Search warrants are one of them. For example if a litigant find a safety deposit box that reasonably may contain hidden assets the court may issue a search warrant for that box. The exchange of passwords is in effect a search warrant for the Facebook account.
And the court could issue another order to Facebook to restore the account and keep it up until the case is over. Things do not disappear instantly from the internet; there are always backups.
Actually they are required to follow a court order just like any other business. Deleting an account could be equated to shredding documents. Facebook could be charged with failure to comply with a court order and destruction of evidence.
Sorry but TOS does not trump a court order. If one or both of the accounts were shut down the court could order them restored and made accessible again.
I saw those too but then noticed that they were not on both sides of the table. I bet that they were put there during early development and testing of a single robot. The robot was on the side of the table with the marks and the human serving, who didn't need the marks, was on the other side . When development reached a certain point the marks were no longer needed but they neglected to remove them.
Sorry by in my experience it has been the exact opposite. The basics are the easy part but when you try to deal with the last 20% one finds that there are many exceptions to the basics. When the exceptions interact they spawn more exceptions making things even more difficult. It is the old 80/20 rule. You get 80% of the job done quickly but that last 20% can make the 80% unworkable.
This robot can stand in one place and deal with a ball that crosses 2/3 of the baseline in a restricted altitude. Here are some issue;
1. What if the ball would bounce twice before crossing the baseline (drop shot)?
2. What if the ball can not be reached from the stationary location (say it goes off the side of the table or high over the robot's head).
3. What if the ball comes faster than the robot can move(physical limitations)?
4. The game of ping pong is about strategy and anticipation which in robot terms means AI which is much more difficult than rallying.
So in effect the robots can rally under specific parameters and nothing else. Cool but not really impressive
All of these issues may cause a false positive but not a false negative. In this case there was no correlation between cell phones and CCD.
It would be nice if you actually read the article you are linking. They were also talking about gyroscopic and caster effect and not '"inertial" or "centrifugal effect"'. Here is a quote:
"Gyro effects are important contributors to self-steering [and] so are caster effects. It's just that they are not essential."
Check out the lower half of the page you linked. There are ways around the Google limit. I didn't see any on the Microsoft description.
Guess you should read the information you link. here is a quote from that article.
In April 2011, a study conducted by a former investigator of the EPFL École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne appeared, which stated that active mobile phones placed directly inside a beehive can induce the worker piping signal (in natural conditions, worker piping either announces the swarming process of the bee colony or is a signal of a disturbed bee colony); the author mentioned that "phones are not present in the close vicinity of honeybees in real life" and did not demonstrate what negative effect, if any, worker piping might have within a colony, nor was any link to CCD demonstrated.[110]
All other references to electromagnetic radiation dealt with other types.
According to the article at Paid content; ... says that the credit-card interception is the only way the company could have learned her real age."
"The actress
If the unknown actress is actually Junie Hoang then that statement may be false. Some web sites state her date of birth 10 July 16, 1978 but here are a list of web sites that set her date of birth at July 16, 1971;
http://watchmymoviesonline.com/?/actors/name/Junie_Hoang/
http://sharetv.org/person/junie_hoang
http://people.famouswhy.com/junie_hoang/
http://www.flixster.com/actor/junie-hoang
http://www.crystalacids.com/database/person/1947/junie-hoang/
Here is a really interesting thing that I found during my search. At this url under blogs I found this as the summary.
"Junie Hoang, born on July 16, 1971 in Saigon, Vietnam, is a Vietnamese actress. Filmography (source: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0387470/ ) 2011 Social Vigilantes (announced) Mika 2011 Gingerdead Man 3-D: Saturday Night Cleaver (filming) ... -"
Note the DoB.
When I clicked the link the the DoB was July 16, 1978. Why the difference? It looks like at some point the blog stated the DoB was 1971.
It may be possible that all these sites got their data from iMDB but that is doubtful. For example the crystalacids.com, famouswhy.com and watchmy movies.com sits have incomplete listings of her and do not reference iMDB. If any of these sites show the 1978 date, there may be some "data cleanup" going on.
There are alternate ways to get an actor's date of birth.
Probably not as this judgment only applies to liable and defamation cases.
Sorry but this ruling only applies to liable and defamation suits.
The only issue with a fibre optic camera is that it needs a hole to look through. It is quite possible that the drilling through the concrete wall could be heard.
Interesting how you neglect to mention the deaths of police and innocent civilians caused by the purveyors of recreational drugs. Some of the deaths of innocent civilians occur when two purveyors of recreational drugs fight over the same territory. There are many documented cases of drug gangs having and carrying automatic weapons and assault rifles. So when the police have to deal with these gangs that do so using heavily armed, highly trained units. If you don't want to get shot when an SRU shows up then don't pull a gun. If you are an "innocent civilian" then don't frequent a drug gang's house that could be raided by an SRU at any time.
I do not see how the use of radar expands the US anti-terrorism powers.
There is a huge difference between an illegal warrantless search, which I was referring to, and a search sanctioned by a warrant. With a warrant the police have a judge's permission to look into a building. Whether it is done by radar, IR or eyeballs makes no difference. So no, the police are not going to be driving down the street scanning random people in their houses.
As a ERT tool this is a good one. It could be used before a search warrant is executed to locate all people in the house and possibly decrease the need to go on hard and fast. This may save lives; both on the police side and the civilian side. When executing a warrant all reasonable tools should be used.
Like IR cameras, it would soon be banned from doing illegal searches.
Sprint is for seeing inside walls not through them in real time.
I was talking about the size of the phased array antenna. The multiple antennas need to be separated by a certain distance so they do not interfere with each other and need to be a certain size so they can gather enough radiation. That's the physics of radar and no research is going to change that. Phased array radar is not new technology; it came out on the Ticonderoga class cruiser in 1978. One would think that they would have made the array as small as possible in the first place
So it is good at locating people moving behind a wall. Can you tell if the person is armed?
If you also display stationary objects, is the blob in the corner a person or a filing cabinet?
Look at the size of the thing. I do not see a tactical unit trundling something that big so that they can see 20m through a wall. I am not sure but if you decrease the size of the antennas your power and resolution goes down. Also how much power does the radar and computers use? How long would it last on batteries?
The dent came out just fine but the finish is now changed. In an untouched car all the lines in the brushed finish go in one direction. After the repair some of the lines now go different direction. That can be seen below and to the left of the penny in the first "after" picture. Under certain lighting conditions the difference can be quite obvious.My point was that it is difficult to exactly match a brushed finish after repair.
It doesn't rust but it dents and scratches just fine. Get into a minor fender bender and you need to replace panels. If you fix a dent in brushed stainless steel you will always see it. Add to that the fact that welding stainless isn't easy. What about weight; stainless isn't very light.