The techniques are common knowledge. What is unknown is the specifics of who and when. It is already known that they can get a warrant/subpeona anywhere within US jurisdiction where there is probable cause.
The key word there being eventually. However, it's important that the information be kept secret no longer than what is absolutely necessary for an operation. Perhaps there is a weak argument for advantages in keeping some of these orders secret longer, but given the extremely low threat that terrorism poses, it's incredibly difficult to justify.
You can have orders that remain a secret for a set amount of time in a regular court. You know, like when a police department gets a warrant for a wiretap on a particular phone line.
Most likely, it was a a vulnerabiilty in something higher up in the system, PHP or the forum software they were using. This would have happened regardless of OS if they didn't engage in the practice of updating their software every time there is a known vulnerability.
No need to pay off the national debt, he would owe the IRS over 36 quadrillion dollars. Even if he only pays Google's tax rate of 2.4%, that's still 2.2 quadrillion dollars.
I seem to recall a lot of the security mechanisms assuming you are using Adobe. I want to say that passworded files will often just ignore the password prompt and display normally, and if a PDF can be read, it can be printed.
If you use anything but Adobe, it probably won't support javascript because it's fucking stupid to have javascript in a PDF. Just avoid Adobe, because they are allergic to security.
'IP law' is not an inalienable right. It is in the Constitution, but it is explicitly alienated at some point because it is for 'limited times' and is tied to a specific purpose. There are more stipulations on IP than a declaration of war. The founders had a healthy degree of skepticism towards the system, which makes sense given that it was quite new at the time. Given the limited data available to them, they didn't want to close the door completely, but wanted to keep this potentially dangerous tool in check.
And the only difference between China, the USSR, and the US is the patent system? There's no enormous gap on individual liberties or free communication or anything like that. They didn't act different in allocation of physical resources or labor or anything else like that.
The capitalist system does work. However, patents and copyright are not capitalist. They are legal monopolies, creating scarcity where it doesn't naturally exist. Capitalists is a free as in freedom market that is often cutthroat, and doesn't feel the need to treat inventors like special snowflakes that need a specific kind of protection just for them.
Except copyright and patent holders do tend to try to screw themselves quite often. They wanted to stop the VCR despite the gold mine it turned out to be, as well as many other technological processes. Allegedly, P.L. Robertson screwed himself out of the US market despite having a superior product because he refused to license his screw technology due to a bad business deal in England, and thus lost out to the inferior Phillips head.
Land is inherently scarce. We can't create land (outside of a VERY expensive process that is still very much limited). An idea in the abstract is the antithesis of scarce.
No, telecommunications is responsible for the explosions of innovation, as well as existing technology to build on. Countries without patents and copyright did just fine compared to otherwise similar nations. Countries that shunned trade fell into to decay, and the ability to spread ideas faster and further greatly accelerated that growth in countries which the printing press was widely available and not greatly restricted. With patents, the giants are tripping you instead of letting you stand on their shoulders. Competition provides more than enough reason to innovate. Also, many innovations are the result of scratching an itch, so there is no need at all for an external incentive, and they may actually prove a distraction in some cases. Necessity is the mother of invention and all that.
You are operating under the assumption that the choices of priests are the result of their sexuality, not practicality. It's easier to convince children to keep quiet on the matter by virtue of being an authority (especially since going through puberty is often awkward and confusing), and males can't get pregnant, which tends to be significant evidence of wrongdoing.
From a technical standpoint, that is likely true. I'm not sure that stands out from a practical standpoint, though. Drones reduce risk and costs, so they are applied to missions that we wouldn't send humans on. These changes may be responsible for the differences. If they were used strictly as a replacement for manned aircraft, I have no doubt that it would be quite different.
Either way, the perception seems to be that drones result in more civilian casualities. Whether that is true or not doesn't matter in regards to hearts and minds.
I think there's a hierarchy. I think you progress from militant to insurgent to terrorist. See, we've made progress by eliminating them at an earlier stage.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, the techniques are publicly available knowledge. Happy now?
The techniques are common knowledge. What is unknown is the specifics of who and when. It is already known that they can get a warrant/subpeona anywhere within US jurisdiction where there is probable cause.
The key word there being eventually. However, it's important that the information be kept secret no longer than what is absolutely necessary for an operation. Perhaps there is a weak argument for advantages in keeping some of these orders secret longer, but given the extremely low threat that terrorism poses, it's incredibly difficult to justify.
You can have orders that remain a secret for a set amount of time in a regular court. You know, like when a police department gets a warrant for a wiretap on a particular phone line.
Most likely, it was a a vulnerabiilty in something higher up in the system, PHP or the forum software they were using. This would have happened regardless of OS if they didn't engage in the practice of updating their software every time there is a known vulnerability.
No need to pay off the national debt, he would owe the IRS over 36 quadrillion dollars. Even if he only pays Google's tax rate of 2.4%, that's still 2.2 quadrillion dollars.
The first step is to use the money to buy Switzerland. Then you have all of the Swiss banks accounts you'll ever need.
perhaps you could sanitize their systems by preventing them from running Adobe products.
I seem to recall a lot of the security mechanisms assuming you are using Adobe. I want to say that passworded files will often just ignore the password prompt and display normally, and if a PDF can be read, it can be printed.
If you use anything but Adobe, it probably won't support javascript because it's fucking stupid to have javascript in a PDF. Just avoid Adobe, because they are allergic to security.
Aren't the signed PDFs usually just signed in Adobe, but read just fine in lmost any other reader?
also, just to clarify, the Constitution ALLOWS Congress to pass patent and copyright laws, but it in no way REQUIRES it.
'IP law' is not an inalienable right. It is in the Constitution, but it is explicitly alienated at some point because it is for 'limited times' and is tied to a specific purpose. There are more stipulations on IP than a declaration of war. The founders had a healthy degree of skepticism towards the system, which makes sense given that it was quite new at the time. Given the limited data available to them, they didn't want to close the door completely, but wanted to keep this potentially dangerous tool in check.
And the only difference between China, the USSR, and the US is the patent system? There's no enormous gap on individual liberties or free communication or anything like that. They didn't act different in allocation of physical resources or labor or anything else like that.
The capitalist system does work. However, patents and copyright are not capitalist. They are legal monopolies, creating scarcity where it doesn't naturally exist. Capitalists is a free as in freedom market that is often cutthroat, and doesn't feel the need to treat inventors like special snowflakes that need a specific kind of protection just for them.
it wouldn't be confiscation, per se. They could just opt to not give you that particular handout in the first place.
We play out our naughty fantasies on a holodeck
One of the more interesting theories was the switch from beer to coffee.
Yes, but they also produced as much or more new inventions and works as the countries with patents and copyright.
Except copyright and patent holders do tend to try to screw themselves quite often. They wanted to stop the VCR despite the gold mine it turned out to be, as well as many other technological processes. Allegedly, P.L. Robertson screwed himself out of the US market despite having a superior product because he refused to license his screw technology due to a bad business deal in England, and thus lost out to the inferior Phillips head.
Land is inherently scarce. We can't create land (outside of a VERY expensive process that is still very much limited). An idea in the abstract is the antithesis of scarce.
No, telecommunications is responsible for the explosions of innovation, as well as existing technology to build on. Countries without patents and copyright did just fine compared to otherwise similar nations. Countries that shunned trade fell into to decay, and the ability to spread ideas faster and further greatly accelerated that growth in countries which the printing press was widely available and not greatly restricted. With patents, the giants are tripping you instead of letting you stand on their shoulders. Competition provides more than enough reason to innovate. Also, many innovations are the result of scratching an itch, so there is no need at all for an external incentive, and they may actually prove a distraction in some cases. Necessity is the mother of invention and all that.
My guess is it's coming up in the queue of Snowden leaked docs or something similar.
You are operating under the assumption that the choices of priests are the result of their sexuality, not practicality. It's easier to convince children to keep quiet on the matter by virtue of being an authority (especially since going through puberty is often awkward and confusing), and males can't get pregnant, which tends to be significant evidence of wrongdoing.
From a technical standpoint, that is likely true. I'm not sure that stands out from a practical standpoint, though. Drones reduce risk and costs, so they are applied to missions that we wouldn't send humans on. These changes may be responsible for the differences. If they were used strictly as a replacement for manned aircraft, I have no doubt that it would be quite different.
Either way, the perception seems to be that drones result in more civilian casualities. Whether that is true or not doesn't matter in regards to hearts and minds.
I think there's a hierarchy. I think you progress from militant to insurgent to terrorist. See, we've made progress by eliminating them at an earlier stage.