You have to remember that of all the player manufactorers, Sony also has the largest CONTENT distribution. It's almost like they're selling players to sell DVD's, some of which are likely to be from a Sony distributer.
Thus, the content people pressure the hardware people to not have hacks available.
I have to agree with you, but it's a puzzler for me. It gets into very ugly territory.
If the person doesn't explicitly advocate violence, how do you judge that? How do you seperate hyperbole from an actual threat or exhortion to violence?
I mean, a guy got into trouble with the hate speech laws over posting a correction over what military munition(specifically: Cruise missile) would be used against a scientology enclave. The previous poster had a 'poor choice'. From what I read the guy was railroaded as the judge, prosecution wouldn't let his defense put the remark into context. He ended up winning political asylum in Canada, which tends to make me believe his story.
Which is why I think that judges should be forced to explain the concept of "jury nullification" to juries. This is where if the jury believes the law to be unjust or unconstitutional, they can find the guy not guilty no matter how obvious it was that he violated it.
Of course, as a libertarian, I feel that it should be difficult to convict people anyways.
A: The Paedophile problem is vastly overrated. Something like 99% of the incidents come from people known to the parents. Family is over half. The internet isn't the problem.
B: Aren't most homes listed for sale empty? Or are they after the 'just sold homes' with still packed boxes for easy pickup?;)
C: This is true. Before the internet they often hired private detectives, or stalked family to find them. But yes, the $20 internet report has lots of information.
As for harrasment, most of the bloggers I've seen that post contact information do it to public figures that they're pissed off at. It's like having a write-in for your advocacy group listed in their newsletter for the representative of choice.
Yes, it can get out of hand, but my point is: Aren't there already laws on the books to deal with this, do we really need another one?
I agree. I've read the studies that say that replacing the hubble would be about the same price as servicing it.
It makes sense when you figure that the hubble was launched from the shuttle. You launch it from a rocket this time, and you don't have all the expenses of taking the shuttle up.
Sure, it's slightly less cool, but it's cheaper, and you can be observing from both telescopes for as long as hubble 1 lasts. Then, as hubble 2 starts nearing the end of it's service life, you launch hubble 3, with all the bug fixes put into place since hubble 2 was launched.
The only benefit for an orbiting telescope now is to observe at wavelengths that the atmosphere naturally filters out.
And this isn't enough of a benefit to have an orbital telescope? Sure, let the land based get the wavelengths they can get, so develop Hubble II to concentrate on the wavelengths they can't get.
Of course, there's a limit to what even adaptive optics can do, so a new space telescope also using newer technology (or just a bigger mirror) might place it on the top again.
Actually, you'd get marked as 'pro', as a taser is considered a gun in some municipalities.;)
As a pro-gunner, I'm personally amazed as what gets shoved into the 'assault weapon' category on the news. Per the expired AWB, an SKS* is not an assault weapon, but I've seen it called such on the news. I've also seen a ruger 10/22* called such. And what's the heck with listing a bolt action or single shot rifle weighing 15 pounds without the scope, that has to be fired from support an 'assault weapon'? At least 'assault rifle' is a well defined category.
*SKS: Yes, it's a former military firearm from just after WWII, predecessor of the AK47, and features an internal 10 round magazine fed from stripper clips. But as it doesn't take removable magazines, it wasn't covered by the AWB. *Ruger 10/11: A small, light semi-automatic rifle that is chambered for the small, cheap.22LR round. It's a plinker/squirrel shooter.
I have a pretty strict 'interpretation' of the first amendment.
Thus, I support Nazis, Skinheads, KKK, Anti-Abortionists, Abortionists, Greens, Communists, and etc all being able to say what they want, believe, etc without fear of governmental reprisal. It's when their conduct crosses the line from words to action that I'd come down on them like a ton of bricks.
Blogs are not so much journalism as they are opinion/editorial pages.
So, yes, I support the ability of Bloggers to post whatever they want. If they do post something libelous, then they can be sued, just like journalists. On the other hand, most of them are not 'professional', thus don't fall under the same standards as professional journalism.
"Enough" rescue vehicles would be 1, given enough fuel (and it doesn't even need to be a huge amount).
It would have to be a vehicle, capable of changing orbits, not just procedeeding to break orbit and return to earth.
It is a good idea. Personally, I'd like to see moving the ISS into a better orbit, actually getting the speced rescue vessel and a 'work bug' type ship, designed to move around and do stuff in the orbitals. Maybe something like a star trek sized shuttle, with manipulator arms.
It's not like you have to get it back down without repair. You can refuel it as part of the repair process. You just have to get it high enough to give you time.
Of course, I'd support the loss(without loss of life) of all the shuttles just because I believe it's far past time for us to step back and move to another system.
Small, high-reliability 'shuttle' for personel(something like the soyez?), cargo is launched by rocket. Don't bring back any mass that you put up there so expensivly that you don't have to. Put a station in a higher more usable orbit, and leave extra mass there for recycling.
If I had my way, I'd rig up a ballistic re-entry vehicle ala soyez or apallo, and launch it on a generic rocket, with extra supplies & space suits in it. The suits could probably be of the sci-fi 'skin-suit' type with limited air & heat protection, but enough to protect from vacuum in an otherwise shielded vehicle. We should be able to rig something up within a week (IE blank check time).
We can also launch supplies even easier than rescue missions. Keeping them fed&alive wouldn't be too difficult. And the reason that only 3 live on the ISS is that that's all the rescue vehicle always docked can handle, and it takes just about 3 people just to keep up on the maintenance. The shuttle people should be able to help keep the station running, and might even get science done.
I also think that, given the test pilot/scientist/military types in the astronaught program (or wanting to enter), that even if it was a guarenteed one way you're dead in a year mission, that if the benefits are enough (and merely being remembered would be enough for some) that many would still volunteer.
As for the plan being a problem, it's just a plan. It'll merely be a template for usage when a problem occurs. There are all sorts of problems that would leave the shuttle able to dock, but unable to survive re-entry. There might be accidents that limit a shuttle's maneuverability, but given the freedom of space, the shuttle could still limp to the station. It all depends.
Bingo. When you get the 'test pilot' mentality, especially reinforced with military training, some of these guys (and some gals) would quite literally take suicide missions if offered.
But they don't necessarily need access to that data anymore, so you have to make sure it's not on their computer.
HIPAA standards are a PITA, especially when you combine it with some of the military Rules of War.
IE By geneva convention, you have to transmit medical information in the clear (no encryption equipment allowed in medical centers). But by HIPAA, you have to transmit personal medical information securely...
And yes, I know that computers can be used as encryption systems, but realize just how old lots of the rules of warfare are...
I know dell has one. My work has it. Dell will take us on our word that the HD is bad, and will send us a new one, without requesting the old one, which we destroy rather than give back.
1. Sure, all traffic is encrypted. But how much? Any governmental hacking attempt will record the waves for later decoding, using the big computer banks. True security will be difficult. 2. Sure, you won't be able to just replay a bit of traffic to duplicate results. But my concern is that this kind of system is going to be designed to be so easy to set up that all sorts of holes.
I agree, this system is most likely going to be unsecure.
Normal range is going to be up to 10 meters (just short of 11 yards).
Sure, that's for the normal, tiny antenna. But as the parent posted about a TEMPEST van, these guys could actually receive, amplify, and display a computer screen from across the block, just from the EM radiation.
So the FBI guy ends up with an antenna filling his trunk, an antenna that looks like a auxillery cell or cb antenna. Still easier than trying to tap a 100Mbit or 1Gbit land line.
Standardization, customization of ECC to the media requirements, and allowing more abstracted access to the unit by the OS. If you force the OS to do the ECC, things like DVD players get alot more complicated. Also, the OS(or at least the driver) needs to be aware of the architechture of the device.
And given how much room nutrition information and ingredient lists already taken up, if we start listing more stuff and warnings, how long before they can't sell snickers bars because the nutrition information takes up the whole wrapper? Or we start needing a microfilm reader for it?
Remember when margarine was better for you, then you went back to butter being better(though still bad)?
In what sense is it hidden? That they don't break it down, listing non-trans fat, and other types of fat? Does transfat encourage weight gain, more than the 9 cal/gram of any fat?
It's not like they can include the transfat, and not list it as fat.
I want to be cautious about suing any foodstuff company, unless their product is outright tainted, because we've found in the last 5 years that some accepted dietary "truths" aren't so true. After all, it's our choice to eat the stuff.
I hate cases of "loosing on procedural grounds". The judge should have the power to "fix things". Heck, it should indicate that the system is too complex.
In some states, at least, they have anti-SLAPP laws that give profiles for counter-suits or even criminal penalties for trying to use the courts to shut up free speech.
It might cost $100 to file a SLAPP lawsuit, but when you're suddenly looking at a $100,000 fine for doing so, or a few years in prison, you have to be alot more carefull.
What lawyer costs? You just take them to small claims court, which doesn't require a lawyer.
The trick is, are you aware of the law, can you track down the business that sent you the fax, and do they have any assets? Can you even collect from them? Places that still send out junk faxes are mostly fly by night companies.
And there's a few rich SOB's out there that will park in handicapped spots and just have their accoutant pay any fines.
$200 fine, 10% chance of getting a ticket, average cost for parking there, $20. I know airport parking places that charge less. And I think that 10% is high.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to remember that of all the player manufactorers, Sony also has the largest CONTENT distribution. It's almost like they're selling players to sell DVD's, some of which are likely to be from a Sony distributer.
Thus, the content people pressure the hardware people to not have hacks available.
I have to agree with you, but it's a puzzler for me. It gets into very ugly territory.
If the person doesn't explicitly advocate violence, how do you judge that? How do you seperate hyperbole from an actual threat or exhortion to violence?
I mean, a guy got into trouble with the hate speech laws over posting a correction over what military munition(specifically: Cruise missile) would be used against a scientology enclave. The previous poster had a 'poor choice'. From what I read the guy was railroaded as the judge, prosecution wouldn't let his defense put the remark into context. He ended up winning political asylum in Canada, which tends to make me believe his story.
Which is why I think that judges should be forced to explain the concept of "jury nullification" to juries. This is where if the jury believes the law to be unjust or unconstitutional, they can find the guy not guilty no matter how obvious it was that he violated it.
Of course, as a libertarian, I feel that it should be difficult to convict people anyways.
A: The Paedophile problem is vastly overrated. Something like 99% of the incidents come from people known to the parents. Family is over half. The internet isn't the problem.
;)
B: Aren't most homes listed for sale empty? Or are they after the 'just sold homes' with still packed boxes for easy pickup?
C: This is true. Before the internet they often hired private detectives, or stalked family to find them. But yes, the $20 internet report has lots of information.
As for harrasment, most of the bloggers I've seen that post contact information do it to public figures that they're pissed off at. It's like having a write-in for your advocacy group listed in their newsletter for the representative of choice.
Yes, it can get out of hand, but my point is: Aren't there already laws on the books to deal with this, do we really need another one?
I agree. I've read the studies that say that replacing the hubble would be about the same price as servicing it.
It makes sense when you figure that the hubble was launched from the shuttle. You launch it from a rocket this time, and you don't have all the expenses of taking the shuttle up.
Sure, it's slightly less cool, but it's cheaper, and you can be observing from both telescopes for as long as hubble 1 lasts. Then, as hubble 2 starts nearing the end of it's service life, you launch hubble 3, with all the bug fixes put into place since hubble 2 was launched.
The only benefit for an orbiting telescope now is to observe at wavelengths that the atmosphere naturally filters out.
And this isn't enough of a benefit to have an orbital telescope? Sure, let the land based get the wavelengths they can get, so develop Hubble II to concentrate on the wavelengths they can't get.
Of course, there's a limit to what even adaptive optics can do, so a new space telescope also using newer technology (or just a bigger mirror) might place it on the top again.
Actually, you'd get marked as 'pro', as a taser is considered a gun in some municipalities. ;)
.22LR round. It's a plinker/squirrel shooter.
As a pro-gunner, I'm personally amazed as what gets shoved into the 'assault weapon' category on the news. Per the expired AWB, an SKS* is not an assault weapon, but I've seen it called such on the news. I've also seen a ruger 10/22* called such. And what's the heck with listing a bolt action or single shot rifle weighing 15 pounds without the scope, that has to be fired from support an 'assault weapon'? At least 'assault rifle' is a well defined category.
*SKS: Yes, it's a former military firearm from just after WWII, predecessor of the AK47, and features an internal 10 round magazine fed from stripper clips. But as it doesn't take removable magazines, it wasn't covered by the AWB.
*Ruger 10/11: A small, light semi-automatic rifle that is chambered for the small, cheap
I have a pretty strict 'interpretation' of the first amendment.
Thus, I support Nazis, Skinheads, KKK, Anti-Abortionists, Abortionists, Greens, Communists, and etc all being able to say what they want, believe, etc without fear of governmental reprisal. It's when their conduct crosses the line from words to action that I'd come down on them like a ton of bricks.
Blogs are not so much journalism as they are opinion/editorial pages.
So, yes, I support the ability of Bloggers to post whatever they want. If they do post something libelous, then they can be sued, just like journalists. On the other hand, most of them are not 'professional', thus don't fall under the same standards as professional journalism.
"Enough" rescue vehicles would be 1, given enough fuel (and it doesn't even need to be a huge amount).
It would have to be a vehicle, capable of changing orbits, not just procedeeding to break orbit and return to earth.
It is a good idea. Personally, I'd like to see moving the ISS into a better orbit, actually getting the speced rescue vessel and a 'work bug' type ship, designed to move around and do stuff in the orbitals. Maybe something like a star trek sized shuttle, with manipulator arms.
It's not like you have to get it back down without repair. You can refuel it as part of the repair process. You just have to get it high enough to give you time.
Of course, I'd support the loss(without loss of life) of all the shuttles just because I believe it's far past time for us to step back and move to another system.
Small, high-reliability 'shuttle' for personel(something like the soyez?), cargo is launched by rocket. Don't bring back any mass that you put up there so expensivly that you don't have to. Put a station in a higher more usable orbit, and leave extra mass there for recycling.
Now, now, it's not that bad.
If I had my way, I'd rig up a ballistic re-entry vehicle ala soyez or apallo, and launch it on a generic rocket, with extra supplies & space suits in it. The suits could probably be of the sci-fi 'skin-suit' type with limited air & heat protection, but enough to protect from vacuum in an otherwise shielded vehicle. We should be able to rig something up within a week (IE blank check time).
We can also launch supplies even easier than rescue missions. Keeping them fed&alive wouldn't be too difficult. And the reason that only 3 live on the ISS is that that's all the rescue vehicle always docked can handle, and it takes just about 3 people just to keep up on the maintenance. The shuttle people should be able to help keep the station running, and might even get science done.
I also think that, given the test pilot/scientist/military types in the astronaught program (or wanting to enter), that even if it was a guarenteed one way you're dead in a year mission, that if the benefits are enough (and merely being remembered would be enough for some) that many would still volunteer.
As for the plan being a problem, it's just a plan. It'll merely be a template for usage when a problem occurs. There are all sorts of problems that would leave the shuttle able to dock, but unable to survive re-entry. There might be accidents that limit a shuttle's maneuverability, but given the freedom of space, the shuttle could still limp to the station. It all depends.
Bingo. When you get the 'test pilot' mentality, especially reinforced with military training, some of these guys (and some gals) would quite literally take suicide missions if offered.
Pretty much, I've heard that you end up with some pretty interesting forms of 'non-encryption'.
It's not the first time that the military has conflicting rules/laws.
But they don't necessarily need access to that data anymore, so you have to make sure it's not on their computer.
HIPAA standards are a PITA, especially when you combine it with some of the military Rules of War.
IE By geneva convention, you have to transmit medical information in the clear (no encryption equipment allowed in medical centers). But by HIPAA, you have to transmit personal medical information securely...
And yes, I know that computers can be used as encryption systems, but realize just how old lots of the rules of warfare are...
I know dell has one. My work has it. Dell will take us on our word that the HD is bad, and will send us a new one, without requesting the old one, which we destroy rather than give back.
1. Sure, all traffic is encrypted. But how much? Any governmental hacking attempt will record the waves for later decoding, using the big computer banks. True security will be difficult.
2. Sure, you won't be able to just replay a bit of traffic to duplicate results. But my concern is that this kind of system is going to be designed to be so easy to set up that all sorts of holes.
I agree, this system is most likely going to be unsecure.
Normal range is going to be up to 10 meters (just short of 11 yards).
Sure, that's for the normal, tiny antenna. But as the parent posted about a TEMPEST van, these guys could actually receive, amplify, and display a computer screen from across the block, just from the EM radiation.
So the FBI guy ends up with an antenna filling his trunk, an antenna that looks like a auxillery cell or cb antenna. Still easier than trying to tap a 100Mbit or 1Gbit land line.
Standardization, customization of ECC to the media requirements, and allowing more abstracted access to the unit by the OS. If you force the OS to do the ECC, things like DVD players get alot more complicated. Also, the OS(or at least the driver) needs to be aware of the architechture of the device.
The problem is that spammers, living in basements like they do, are rarely seen. ;)
And given how much room nutrition information and ingredient lists already taken up, if we start listing more stuff and warnings, how long before they can't sell snickers bars because the nutrition information takes up the whole wrapper? Or we start needing a microfilm reader for it?
Remember when margarine was better for you, then you went back to butter being better(though still bad)?
In what sense is it hidden? That they don't break it down, listing non-trans fat, and other types of fat?
Does transfat encourage weight gain, more than the 9 cal/gram of any fat?
It's not like they can include the transfat, and not list it as fat.
I want to be cautious about suing any foodstuff company, unless their product is outright tainted, because we've found in the last 5 years that some accepted dietary "truths" aren't so true. After all, it's our choice to eat the stuff.
I hate cases of "loosing on procedural grounds". The judge should have the power to "fix things". Heck, it should indicate that the system is too complex.
In some states, at least, they have anti-SLAPP laws that give profiles for counter-suits or even criminal penalties for trying to use the courts to shut up free speech.
It might cost $100 to file a SLAPP lawsuit, but when you're suddenly looking at a $100,000 fine for doing so, or a few years in prison, you have to be alot more carefull.
What lawyer costs? You just take them to small claims court, which doesn't require a lawyer.
The trick is, are you aware of the law, can you track down the business that sent you the fax, and do they have any assets? Can you even collect from them? Places that still send out junk faxes are mostly fly by night companies.
Violation of several rules of war:
"Please hold"
-Alternate hold button leading to tape loop of "Goldfish Warning".
Guaranteed insanity in 30 seconds or less or your money back.
And there's a few rich SOB's out there that will park in handicapped spots and just have their accoutant pay any fines.
$200 fine, 10% chance of getting a ticket, average cost for parking there, $20. I know airport parking places that charge less. And I think that 10% is high.