All it does is notify you when police are known to be nearby.
One of the deterrent effects of police is never knowing where they are. They could pop up anywhere. If criminals know where the police are they will just do their crimes elsewhere. Another issue is that there have been a number of police offices murdered while sitting in their cars. Knowing where the police are just makes those attacks easier.
Another issue is that mass storage and scanning of communications does not lead to public disclosure of an individual's location.
You make it sound like the government has thousands of people reading individual emails and tracking all metadata that is produced. That is nowhere near what is happening. Most communications are scanned for key words and phrases. The few that are flagged are gone over by a person and them most of it is discarded. Only when something pops does it get thoroughly investigated.
when it's the police, we should have no restrictions or preventative measures unless someone can document that the police have committed a crime.
I never said anything of the sort. I completely believe in the need for a warrant/probable cause for physical searches.
They should be held to standards at least as high as you're proposing for civilians, and probably higher, given the special powers we invest in them.
So put so much restrictions on them that their special powers can not be used.
It's called "intelligence work", and it requires well-trained people gathering intelligence on these targets.
And how does one find those targets in the first place if they have no connection with known targets? How does one find the group to infiltrate? The point is that there are many new cells that are popping up that have no connection what so ever with known terrorists. How do you find those new cells?
In the information age the speed of communications has increased greatly. What used to take months and many meetings to plan now can be done in weeks. There is not enough time to befriend and infiltrate. By the time the information is gathered the deed is already done.
You would rather the government unlimited power so you can have your perfect safety, all the while you pretend the people in the government are perfect beings.
How did you go from gathering communications to "unlimited power"? They are very different things. There is a continuum between a government with no power and a government with unlimited power. Somewhere on that line is where one is comfortable living. My line is nowhere near "unlimited power". I suspect your line is closer to "no power" than mine.
It's funny how you hardcore authoritarians are always on the opposite side of organizations dedicated to protecting our liberties and privacy.
The issue is that many of these organizations want complete liberty and complete freedom. Sometimes that means freedom from taxes and liberty to what ever they want when ever they want no matter the consequences. The problem is that it is the government who gets blamed for not stopping terrorist attacks when they occur even though those organizations take away the tools needed to stop them. I look for more of a balance between the individual and society.
That should make you feel bad, but you don't care about freedom one bit.
I care about freedom a lot and am fine with sacrificing unnecessary freedom for necessary security.
Bank robbers used dynamite to blow open banks and their safes - by your logic you have no problem with police using dynamite to blow up your house looking for robbers.
False parallel as blowing something up causes physical damage while surveillance does not.
So you'd have no problem with government-sanctioned cameras in your bathroom filming everything
Another false parallel as I am generally alone and doing something very private. Anything that happens in my house is very private. Once it gets out of my house it is a different matter.
you not only risk them finding things you've done which they might not like (either now or in the future), but you give them the opportunity to put things there for them to find.
By that logic search warrants are also flawed because they could plant evidence.
No. Its really not. Its called regular police work. And police have been identifying suspects, building cases against them, culminating in search and arrest warrants for a hundred years now without "mass surveillance".
Of those hundreds of years there has only been thirty where large numbers of people can communucate and plan operations without ever meeting. The criminals are allowed to use modern technology by the police are not?
Why should the EFF apologize for pushing for policies that make us all more free; even if a tiny handful of people die as a result?
Surveillance does not make people less free. Does an audience at a theater make an actor less free? If repressive things happen with the gathered data then that would be a problem but not the surveillance itself.
Should the police be allowed to just randomly stop and frisk you? Maybe give you an anal probe right on the street? Maybe come into your house at night, and search the place for evidence of terrorism? No? You don't think that's ok?
Physically intrusive searches are very different than electronic surveillance.
Will you personally apologize to the families of those killed by attacks that could have been stopped if these searches had been allowed?
I am not sure what you mean by this. You might mean something like "Will you personally apologize to the families of those killed by attacks that occured even though these searched were allowed?" To those families I would say "We did the best we could and used every means possible. I am sorry for your loss." Which is much better than "Your family died because I didn't want a computer scanning my email".
How about the pigs do their fucking jobs and get some good old-fashioned probable cause,
How do you get probable cause when everything up to the actual act is planned and discussed over the internet. People used to have to physically get together to converse between many people. Now it can be done over the internet. The criminals are allowed full use of modern technology to plan attacks but law enforcement is hogtied.
and not just assume every communication is a potential crime?
How do you find the communications that are related to crimes without looking at all communications?
Fuck you, you fascist douchebag.
Nice personal attack. It just shows how little faith you have in your argument that you feel the need to stoop to name calling.
How does someone get a warrant to bug a suspected terrorist without evidence that they might be a terrorist? How does one get that evidence on a new organization without mass surveillance? It is a catch 22; You can't get a warrant without evidence and you can't get evidence without a warrant. Will the EFF be the ones who apologize to the families of those killed by attacks that could have been stopped?
Sorry but a Banana Pi is not a desktop computer. It is a motherboard at best. Most computer users do not have the skills and/or do not want to spend the time to turn a Banana Pi into a functional computer. Most people just want to open a few boxes, plug things together and have it work.
But the components of ULA did. All they did was change the name.
People die and institutional knowledge dies with them.
But a significant amount of institutional knowledge live on.
There are models for this. Given Falcon 9's past launch record it probably has a reliability rate of 90% or more.
When you can chose between 90% and closer to 100% which would you chose when dealing with very expensive payloads.
But it seems their launch manifest is quite full with orders so it seems the insurance companies disagree with your perspective.
You must really be an insider to know the insurances charged for each Space X launch. You have nothing to back up those statements. For all you know these launches have no insurance. Again, it may be an issue of supply and demand. Companies need satellites launched to keep business going. They may take a higher risk option to stay in business.
Can you tell the difference between foreign data and data stored in the US?
The software giant has been battling U.S. prosecutors for data held in its Dublin, Ireland datacenter, which it says cannot be accessed or retrieved by a U.S. search warrant.
If the data is held in the US the Us warrant has jurisdiction and the Microsoft battle does not apply.
Still did not stop the DoD from launching a really expensive satellite on it right on the next flight
There was no other option at the time. It was either a Delta IV Heavy or it didn't get launched.
Fact is Falcon 9 also has an 'impeccable' launch record.
And a much shorter one. Five of those were Falcon 1.0 and nine were Falcon 1.1. The Falcon 9 Heavy has not even launched yet. ULA has been launching for over 50 years; Space X less than 5.
Since the site only has scientific value because it has been sealed away for millennia
The Ross Ice Shelf is open to the sea on one edge. It is possible to access the same site by going deep under the edge of the self and then in. It is not "sealed away".
Under about 30 feet, you should be able to stay close to the middle of the road and avoid them, even if you don't accelerate, assuming a 9 foot wide lane.
Given 1 foot clearance on each side of the vehicle and a vehicle width of 5 feet gives a 3 foot clearance for the pedestrian. It the pedestrian is in the 3 foot area in the middle of the lane there is not enough room to go around. Many accidents are causes when pedestrians panic at seeing the approaching vehicle and stop in the middle of the lane.
At every cross walk, *you* should be looking both ways for pedestrians liable to cross.
You are assuming visibility is perfect at all crosswalks. There are many obstructions such as parked vehicles, telephone poles, other people, etc that obstruct your view of crossing pedestrians. If you add night, rain and/or dark clothing it gets even worse. In one instance I was traveling in the same direction as a pedestrian who was playing with his phone. He turned left into a crosswalk without stopping or even looking. How was I supposed to anticipate that move? Luckily I had time to stop. Had I been ten feet closer we would have hit.
I don't see how you can defend not stopping and looking before entering a crosswalk. Yes, some drivers need to be more attentive but some pedestrians need to be more attentive as well.
if you rotate the blades 10x as fast as you do on Earth, you'll get the same lift.
Sorry you are off by a factor of 10. Ten time faster rotation means ten times the lift not 100 times.
That said, gravity on Mars is 1/3rd as much as Earth, so you only need 1/3rd the lift. So rotating the blades at 6x the rate you'd rotate them on Earth would be sufficient.
The more accurate numbers are 100 *.38 = 38. So the rotors would have to rotate 38 times as fast.
Slashdot Mirror
It is amazing that you equate gathering masses of data where 99.999% of it is never seen by a human with someone following me 24/7.
All it does is notify you when police are known to be nearby.
One of the deterrent effects of police is never knowing where they are. They could pop up anywhere. If criminals know where the police are they will just do their crimes elsewhere. Another issue is that there have been a number of police offices murdered while sitting in their cars. Knowing where the police are just makes those attacks easier.
Another issue is that mass storage and scanning of communications does not lead to public disclosure of an individual's location.
You make it sound like the government has thousands of people reading individual emails and tracking all metadata that is produced. That is nowhere near what is happening. Most communications are scanned for key words and phrases. The few that are flagged are gone over by a person and them most of it is discarded. Only when something pops does it get thoroughly investigated.
when it's the police, we should have no restrictions or preventative measures unless someone can document that the police have committed a crime.
I never said anything of the sort. I completely believe in the need for a warrant/probable cause for physical searches.
They should be held to standards at least as high as you're proposing for civilians, and probably higher, given the special powers we invest in them.
So put so much restrictions on them that their special powers can not be used.
It's called "intelligence work", and it requires well-trained people gathering intelligence on these targets.
And how does one find those targets in the first place if they have no connection with known targets? How does one find the group to infiltrate? The point is that there are many new cells that are popping up that have no connection what so ever with known terrorists. How do you find those new cells?
In the information age the speed of communications has increased greatly. What used to take months and many meetings to plan now can be done in weeks. There is not enough time to befriend and infiltrate. By the time the information is gathered the deed is already done.
You can't separate the two, you insufferable moron.
Learn to debate. I do not converse with people who can not refrain from personal attacks.
You would rather the government unlimited power so you can have your perfect safety, all the while you pretend the people in the government are perfect beings.
How did you go from gathering communications to "unlimited power"? They are very different things. There is a continuum between a government with no power and a government with unlimited power. Somewhere on that line is where one is comfortable living. My line is nowhere near "unlimited power". I suspect your line is closer to "no power" than mine.
It's funny how you hardcore authoritarians are always on the opposite side of organizations dedicated to protecting our liberties and privacy.
The issue is that many of these organizations want complete liberty and complete freedom. Sometimes that means freedom from taxes and liberty to what ever they want when ever they want no matter the consequences. The problem is that it is the government who gets blamed for not stopping terrorist attacks when they occur even though those organizations take away the tools needed to stop them. I look for more of a balance between the individual and society.
That should make you feel bad, but you don't care about freedom one bit.
I care about freedom a lot and am fine with sacrificing unnecessary freedom for necessary security.
You, though, are a coward, and don't belong in any free country.
Nice personal attack which negates anything else you said.
If you are calling trying to stop things like the Charlie Hebdo a Nanny State then I think your definitions are a bit off.
Bank robbers used dynamite to blow open banks and their safes - by your logic you have no problem with police using dynamite to blow up your house looking for robbers.
False parallel as blowing something up causes physical damage while surveillance does not.
So you'd have no problem with government-sanctioned cameras in your bathroom filming everything
Another false parallel as I am generally alone and doing something very private. Anything that happens in my house is very private. Once it gets out of my house it is a different matter.
you not only risk them finding things you've done which they might not like (either now or in the future), but you give them the opportunity to put things there for them to find.
By that logic search warrants are also flawed because they could plant evidence.
No. Its really not. Its called regular police work. And police have been identifying suspects, building cases against them, culminating in search and arrest warrants for a hundred years now without "mass surveillance".
Of those hundreds of years there has only been thirty where large numbers of people can communucate and plan operations without ever meeting. The criminals are allowed to use modern technology by the police are not?
Why should the EFF apologize for pushing for policies that make us all more free; even if a tiny handful of people die as a result?
Surveillance does not make people less free. Does an audience at a theater make an actor less free? If repressive things happen with the gathered data then that would be a problem but not the surveillance itself.
Should the police be allowed to just randomly stop and frisk you? Maybe give you an anal probe right on the street? Maybe come into your house at night, and search the place for evidence of terrorism? No? You don't think that's ok?
Physically intrusive searches are very different than electronic surveillance.
Will you personally apologize to the families of those killed by attacks that could have been stopped if these searches had been allowed?
I am not sure what you mean by this. You might mean something like "Will you personally apologize to the families of those killed by attacks that occured even though these searched were allowed?" To those families I would say "We did the best we could and used every means possible. I am sorry for your loss." Which is much better than "Your family died because I didn't want a computer scanning my email".
How about the pigs do their fucking jobs and get some good old-fashioned probable cause,
How do you get probable cause when everything up to the actual act is planned and discussed over the internet. People used to have to physically get together to converse between many people. Now it can be done over the internet. The criminals are allowed full use of modern technology to plan attacks but law enforcement is hogtied.
and not just assume every communication is a potential crime?
How do you find the communications that are related to crimes without looking at all communications?
Fuck you, you fascist douchebag.
Nice personal attack. It just shows how little faith you have in your argument that you feel the need to stoop to name calling.
How does someone get a warrant to bug a suspected terrorist without evidence that they might be a terrorist? How does one get that evidence on a new organization without mass surveillance? It is a catch 22; You can't get a warrant without evidence and you can't get evidence without a warrant. Will the EFF be the ones who apologize to the families of those killed by attacks that could have been stopped?
Sorry but a Banana Pi is not a desktop computer. It is a motherboard at best. Most computer users do not have the skills and/or do not want to spend the time to turn a Banana Pi into a functional computer. Most people just want to open a few boxes, plug things together and have it work.
ULA didn't even exist 50 years ago.
But the components of ULA did. All they did was change the name.
People die and institutional knowledge dies with them.
But a significant amount of institutional knowledge live on.
There are models for this. Given Falcon 9's past launch record it probably has a reliability rate of 90% or more.
When you can chose between 90% and closer to 100% which would you chose when dealing with very expensive payloads.
But it seems their launch manifest is quite full with orders so it seems the insurance companies disagree with your perspective.
You must really be an insider to know the insurances charged for each Space X launch. You have nothing to back up those statements. For all you know these launches have no insurance. Again, it may be an issue of supply and demand. Companies need satellites launched to keep business going. They may take a higher risk option to stay in business.
The residence of the person is irrelevant. The issue is the location of the data. If the data is stored on US servers then the warrant applies.
Can you tell the difference between foreign data and data stored in the US?
The software giant has been battling U.S. prosecutors for data held in its Dublin, Ireland datacenter, which it says cannot be accessed or retrieved by a U.S. search warrant.
If the data is held in the US the Us warrant has jurisdiction and the Microsoft battle does not apply.
They only sold their rockets to the military/NASA,
There are at least two instances where commercial satellites went up in Atlas vehicles. You also misses all the NOAA launches.
Still did not stop the DoD from launching a really expensive satellite on it right on the next flight
There was no other option at the time. It was either a Delta IV Heavy or it didn't get launched.
Fact is Falcon 9 also has an 'impeccable' launch record.
And a much shorter one. Five of those were Falcon 1.0 and nine were Falcon 1.1. The Falcon 9 Heavy has not even launched yet. ULA has been launching for over 50 years; Space X less than 5.
Thanks for correcting me.
Care to cite any evidence of that?
Since the site only has scientific value because it has been sealed away for millennia
The Ross Ice Shelf is open to the sea on one edge. It is possible to access the same site by going deep under the edge of the self and then in. It is not "sealed away".
Under about 30 feet, you should be able to stay close to the middle of the road and avoid them, even if you don't accelerate, assuming a 9 foot wide lane.
Given 1 foot clearance on each side of the vehicle and a vehicle width of 5 feet gives a 3 foot clearance for the pedestrian. It the pedestrian is in the 3 foot area in the middle of the lane there is not enough room to go around. Many accidents are causes when pedestrians panic at seeing the approaching vehicle and stop in the middle of the lane.
At every cross walk, *you* should be looking both ways for pedestrians liable to cross.
You are assuming visibility is perfect at all crosswalks. There are many obstructions such as parked vehicles, telephone poles, other people, etc that obstruct your view of crossing pedestrians. If you add night, rain and/or dark clothing it gets even worse. In one instance I was traveling in the same direction as a pedestrian who was playing with his phone. He turned left into a crosswalk without stopping or even looking. How was I supposed to anticipate that move? Luckily I had time to stop. Had I been ten feet closer we would have hit.
I don't see how you can defend not stopping and looking before entering a crosswalk. Yes, some drivers need to be more attentive but some pedestrians need to be more attentive as well.
if you rotate the blades 10x as fast as you do on Earth, you'll get the same lift.
Sorry you are off by a factor of 10. Ten time faster rotation means ten times the lift not 100 times.
That said, gravity on Mars is 1/3rd as much as Earth, so you only need 1/3rd the lift. So rotating the blades at 6x the rate you'd rotate them on Earth would be sufficient.
The more accurate numbers are 100 *.38 = 38. So the rotors would have to rotate 38 times as fast.
Even compensating for gravity difference the air density on mars would be similar to flying on earth at over 35,000ft.
Where I live in the north east, people routinely travel 70+ mph with as little as 4-5 feet between them.
Then there are the times when one is following at 2 seconds, someone changes lanes and slows down in front of them.