They've done several episodes on various TV shows about subjecting convicted criminals to mental torture (reliving their alleged crime), too. SG-1 (Mitchell), Voyager (Paris?), and FarScape (?) (Crichton?) come to mind.
Well, from the sounds of it she doesn't want them to "come out of it" (prison) at all. They spent the rest of their life times whatever dilation scalar sitting in their cell.
I don't know about the NSA, but if *I* was designing a system to be used to prevent terrorist bombings and such, I would keep copies of all the audio intercepts. I wouldn't trust voice-to-text to reliably translate 100.000% of intercepts. And besides, vocal patterns count for a lot, too.
Well it's not a hard drive solution if you're using online backup, now, is it? Without enough local hard disk to store it all at once, it's just a storage solution.
This is Slashdot. Standard means in the U.S. Slashdot is a U.S. site run by a U.S. company, with servers presumably located in the U.S., aimed at a U.S. audience.
So you aren't running a modern OS like Windows 8? A fresh install is currently under 20GB,
Heh. I can do a fresh install of a full desktop distro of Linux in like 6 gigs or less. And that includes an office suite. What is your Windows box up to with that?
Although residents feared water contamination, early tests of water six miles (10 km) upstream of the ash flow showed that the public water supply met drinking water standards.
The fuck? How does testing the water upstream prove anything whatsoever?
To be fair, that article pointed out that they claimed to have the capability to do so. A reasonable person would think that that capability wouldn't be used habitually unless the country was engaging in aggressive posturing or actively supporting terrorism or something. (The key is that chunks of our government *aren't* reasonable.)
I stand by my original point. Until they enter U.S. airspace (and I would hope the entire border has radar or other means of detection for unauthorized entries...if we're already talking paranoid "TRACK EVARYTHING!!1" it seems like a reasonable assumption to make), I don't see why we should care about all other flights. Next you're going to suggest we start tracking all vehicles worldwide because they could drive over a trans-Atlantic pontoon bridge to the U.S.
Now instead of knowing where all planes are right at this moment, we're talking about keeping a history of all planes in the air, tracing back...how long?
- cause they "cannot" from a technical standpoint ? (c'mon... seriously ?)
7 billion people on Earth. Say 10% are on the phone at any given time. Say 1/8 MB/min with whatever cell phone codec? 128kbps mp3 is around a meg a minute, right? And cell phone codecs are compressed all to hell.
Are we really supposed to believe that 13 years after 9/11 that the US doesn't know the location of every airborne plane in the world?
Yes. I think we're rather flying headlong into the perfect governmental competency fallacy in this article.
If an aircraft turns off all its identification gear, how do you locate it? Send a few recon planes up to locate it physically? Task a satellite to look? Why should we give a flying fuck about every single flight in the world that doesn't intersect the U.S.? A commercial airliner taking off in e.g. Kazahkstan and headed for Pakistan is never going to have remotely enough fuel to get anywhere near the U.S. even if they wanted to.
According to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, irregular forces are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. If they do not do meet all of these, they may be considered francs-tireurs (in the original sense of "illegal combatant") and punished as criminals in a military jurisdiction, which may include summary execution.
Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he must be treated as a prisoner of war.[2] After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".
It doesn't recommend summary execution, it just says they're not protected via POW status and thus it is acceptable to do so. Although I'm not quite sure why the GCs are specifically against mercenaries (mercenaries and undercover/special forces being separate cases).
I guess the idea of depending on a legislature to not go crazy and pass foolish legislation in the heat of the moment vs. trusting one guy to make a reasonable decision depends heavily on who the one guy is. Historically speaking, I know there are a number of instances of nationalistic fervor where Congress declared war on e.g. Mexico, too.
Slashdot Mirror
They've done several episodes on various TV shows about subjecting convicted criminals to mental torture (reliving their alleged crime), too. SG-1 (Mitchell), Voyager (Paris?), and FarScape (?) (Crichton?) come to mind.
Cool. Now I can shun her for espousing *two* idiotic ideas.
Thank you. I was waiting to see how long it took somebody to point out this obvious fact...and it ended up being an Anonymous Coward :)
How do you deter without punishing? Can you really "positively reinforce" not-murdering people?
Well, from the sounds of it she doesn't want them to "come out of it" (prison) at all. They spent the rest of their life times whatever dilation scalar sitting in their cell.
I don't know about the NSA, but if *I* was designing a system to be used to prevent terrorist bombings and such, I would keep copies of all the audio intercepts. I wouldn't trust voice-to-text to reliably translate 100.000% of intercepts. And besides, vocal patterns count for a lot, too.
Well it's not a hard drive solution if you're using online backup, now, is it? Without enough local hard disk to store it all at once, it's just a storage solution.
Twenty-four hour return policy activated, and good riddance
Well there's their mistake right there. It should have taken longer than 24 hours to install :)
This is Slashdot. Standard means in the U.S. Slashdot is a U.S. site run by a U.S. company, with servers presumably located in the U.S., aimed at a U.S. audience.
So you aren't running a modern OS like Windows 8? A fresh install is currently under 20GB,
Heh. I can do a fresh install of a full desktop distro of Linux in like 6 gigs or less. And that includes an office suite. What is your Windows box up to with that?
You have 128GB of RAM?!?
Games akin to Quake 3 Arena, presumably.
Although residents feared water contamination, early tests of water six miles (10 km) upstream of the ash flow showed that the public water supply met drinking water standards.
The fuck? How does testing the water upstream prove anything whatsoever?
Kingston Fossil Plant coal slurry spill
To be fair, that article pointed out that they claimed to have the capability to do so. A reasonable person would think that that capability wouldn't be used habitually unless the country was engaging in aggressive posturing or actively supporting terrorism or something. (The key is that chunks of our government *aren't* reasonable.)
I stand by my original point. Until they enter U.S. airspace (and I would hope the entire border has radar or other means of detection for unauthorized entries...if we're already talking paranoid "TRACK EVARYTHING!!1" it seems like a reasonable assumption to make), I don't see why we should care about all other flights. Next you're going to suggest we start tracking all vehicles worldwide because they could drive over a trans-Atlantic pontoon bridge to the U.S.
Now instead of knowing where all planes are right at this moment, we're talking about keeping a history of all planes in the air, tracing back...how long?
A petabyte of storage is going to run you anywhere from about $15,000 for tape to $150,000 for a cheap hard drive solution
For your average PC user, maybe. Vendors make everything like 100x more expensive.
Who the fuck is averaging 2.4 hours per day on the phone?
Drivers.
No need to get all rude and cuss me out, dude. It was a very rough estimate. I don't see you stepping up.
+1 Actually Using Time Travel Relevantly In A Serious Discussion
Cue discussion about Minority Report and Pre-Crime. Hey, both are (supposed to be) deterministic...
- cause they "cannot" from a technical standpoint ? (c'mon... seriously ?)
7 billion people on Earth. Say 10% are on the phone at any given time.
Say 1/8 MB/min with whatever cell phone codec? 128kbps mp3 is around a meg a minute, right? And cell phone codecs are compressed all to hell.
7 billion * 10% * 1/8 * 60 min * 24 hours * 30 days = 3.78 trillion megabytes = 3,520 petabytes.
And that's just storage to keep on hand. Not to mention the bandwidth required to stream 117 petabytes/day to the servers.
"Sir, if we could just have you look at this little blue light right here, we'll explain everything..."
Are we really supposed to believe that 13 years after 9/11 that the US doesn't know the location of every airborne plane in the world?
Yes. I think we're rather flying headlong into the perfect governmental competency fallacy in this article.
If an aircraft turns off all its identification gear, how do you locate it? Send a few recon planes up to locate it physically? Task a satellite to look? Why should we give a flying fuck about every single flight in the world that doesn't intersect the U.S.? A commercial airliner taking off in e.g. Kazahkstan and headed for Pakistan is never going to have remotely enough fuel to get anywhere near the U.S. even if they wanted to.
mostly regurgitating the same lies from warmongers and profiteers like McCain and Cheney.
Which Slashdot have *you* been reading? o_O
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
According to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, irregular forces are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. If they do not do meet all of these, they may be considered francs-tireurs (in the original sense of "illegal combatant") and punished as criminals in a military jurisdiction, which may include summary execution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he must be treated as a prisoner of war.[2] After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".
It doesn't recommend summary execution, it just says they're not protected via POW status and thus it is acceptable to do so. Although I'm not quite sure why the GCs are specifically against mercenaries (mercenaries and undercover/special forces being separate cases).
I guess the idea of depending on a legislature to not go crazy and pass foolish legislation in the heat of the moment vs. trusting one guy to make a reasonable decision depends heavily on who the one guy is. Historically speaking, I know there are a number of instances of nationalistic fervor where Congress declared war on e.g. Mexico, too.
Government is hard :P