Such a system would be cool, but impractical. It would be huge - only the obscenely rich would be able to afford a whole room devoted to VR and a treadmill system. That gives it a very niche appeal. You might see them in some future version of the arcade or laser tag arena, but it's no good for the home games.
Search orders. It's a bit of a legal oddity, yes, because like much of common law it's based as much on precedent as legislation. It's not the same as a search warrant, because it's used in civil matters. It does not authorise the search of property without the defendent's consent: It instead orders the defendant to consent to the search, or else they will be held in contempt of court. This means that they cannot later claim the search was unlawful because they did give their consent at the time. The end result is exactly the same, but the legal path to it is different.
Search orders are not issued lightly. They are usually used in cases where a polite request would give the defendant a chance to destroy evidence. With a search order a team of lawyers and bailiffs (Not police - it's still a civil matter!) turn up without warning to search the property, so there is no chance to delete incriminating files and burn paperwork.
He never intended to kill. He was just an idiot who didn't realist the possibly consequences of his actions. So in his mind, $10 is the cost of ruining someone's evening.
Have you seen his twitter? Only about half of them are attacks or accusations. The rest are links to videos of him giving rally speeches and news stories about how great he is.
Creative use of technology can't ignore the law, but can result in long legal disputes.
There was an old P2P network which I forget the name of that tried to avoid copyright infringement through maths. Rather than transmit copyrighted work, it split the work into two blocks - one of random noise, the other of that noise XORed with the data. Stored separately, so that neither party storing it could have the work in any meaningful way, but a downloader could reassemble it from blocks of random data.
The express intention was to create something of such legal ambiguity that any attempt to prosecute could take years to work out in court.
Firstly, there is always going to be some level of censorship on social networks. Otherwise there are just too many trolls who would think it utterly hilarious to find pages for children's party entertainers and flood with with niche-fetish pornography, plus there are a few types of material which anger people so greatly that there is no option but to ban it - the exact list depending upon country, and usually enforced by law. So the debate is not about if censorship should be permitted, but about the extent and about who gets to decide.
Nor is all censorship equivalent. There are many parties, many ways and many reasons. In the case of social networks, commercial concerns are a big factor - they exist to make money, and some sorts of material are just not profitable. If your posts offend a group of people, insult a religion, contain too much profanity, contain anything relating to sex or advocate criminal acts then advertisers are not going to want their adverts appearing next to it, which means the network is going to want to discourage the production of this material. They may not ban it, but they have other means - they can rank it lower in searches, or demonetise as youtube does.
On the political side, there is what could be seen as a tidy symmetry - left and right both call for censorship, but of different material, and both then accuse the other of supporting censorship. The left might get horrified at hate speech, but they can't beat the right when it comes to sensitivity to 'indecency' - a category that goes far beyond just pornography.
Personally, if I were drafting legislation, I'd focus on accountability. Allow social network operators to censor as they see fit - but every time they decide to pull a post, make sure they have a duty to notify the poster specifying the reason for the action, and a reference number allowing them to review the audit records for the decision. If you have to have censorship, do it right.
I noticed that too. I attributed it to fatigue. There are only so many ways you can say 'these creationists are morons and this is why their ideas are ridiculous' before you realise how little this actually achieves, so to retain interest for both the views and creator the channels eventually have to diversify a bit. That means either finding new and more obscure idiots to mock, or turning to something more political that will inspire viewer excitement.
ThunderF00t holds a PhD in chemistry, which implies both an excellent knowledge of chemistry and a very good knowledge in physics, as you cannot do chemistry without understanding the underlying physics. That automatically gives him credibility when debunking scams which are incompatible with the known laws of physics. It is still fair to criticize him for his commentary on social and political matters though, as he holds no qualification in these subjects.
I do wish he'd stick to his field, though. He's a great debunker, as he knows how to use the laws of physics to utterly destroy a scam product - but when talking about politics, he's really no more of an expert on social issues than any random person grabbed off the street.
Be fair: Anyone who has lived their life in the urban or suburban region of a modern industrialized country is going to be in the same situation, and for most it is the appropriate action to take. They can know with confidence that, while things are looking pretty bad right now, there's a concerted rescue effort underway and help will arrive long before they have to resort to eating the family dog.
They'd just reduce the amount of information in the service manual, and obstrucate it through tricks like referring to common components by internal part numbers. The real service information wouldn't be in the manual, it'd be in a collection of internal memos.
That depends on the area. One thing which really bothers service providers is universal service mandates - they have to maintain cables running across mile after mile after mile of country track to serve the town of Bumfuck, population sixty. There's no prospect of making a profit on that. The federal government addresses this with the Universal Service Fund, which grants service providers handouts to subsidise provision in rural areas. Maintaining the reliability of this service is a very low priority though, as it doesn't actually make any money directly.
Bush was an idiotic, self-serving theocrat... but at least under Bush I could say with confidence he wouldn't start a nuclear war because another national leader insulted him on the internet. I'm no longer confident of that with Trump.
Copper does have some role. For one, as mentioned above, it's a vital service for businesses. It's also very important in a disaster situation where there is a prolonged power outage. Get power to the exchange, and all the landline phones it serves will work. Cell service is only good for as long as people have power, and maybe a day after that before the flat batteries hit.
There's another factor you didn't consider that limits tape usage to very high volume use only. The tape is cheap, but the drives themselves certainly are not - for your LTO8 tape you need a £3000 drive, plus a server with its own RAID storage array to maintain the required transfer rate and an SAS controller. That's why tape completely disappeared from consumer use and almost disappeared from SOHO - you need to be thinking in terms of multiple hundreds of terabytes to justify the initial equipment costs, even if the tapes themselves are affordable.
I am very much aware that I gave a tremendously simplified explanation. I think I made the important point clear: How much rain falls is not as important as where it falls.
Climate change actually means more rain. Warmer seas means more evaporation, and if that water goes into the air it has to come down again too, which means more precipitation. Of more concern that the amount of rain is where it goes - shifting patterns mean certain regions could still get dryer even as global rainfall grows, and if those regions happen to be major agricultural areas, famine is certainly a possibility.
Reactors are more complicated though - they require feedback control. There have been a few small test reactors in space, but not for a long time, and there are no current designs or information on long-term reliability. An RTG is so simple there's practically nothing to go wrong.
True, Republicans can be blamed for this. But had Democrats been in charge, nothing would have played out differently. One reason copyright is never an issue in elections is that both parties hold exactly the same position on it.
Found it: On default settings, Bing's image filtering proves quite ineffective in filtering a query on 'yiff.' My speculation is that their filtering algorithm might be based in part upon image feature extraction, and so less effective on artwork than upon the photos upon which it was trained. It does block a lot of material, but more than enough slips through to make for a rather interesting page of image results.
They did have the foresight to block any query on 'hentai.' I tried that one first, but it must have been too obvious and earned some manual intervention.
I'm not going to test google, because it knows me too well - results wouldn't be representative.
Slashdot Mirror
Such a system would be cool, but impractical. It would be huge - only the obscenely rich would be able to afford a whole room devoted to VR and a treadmill system. That gives it a very niche appeal. You might see them in some future version of the arcade or laser tag arena, but it's no good for the home games.
You assume a uniform cross-sectional area.
Search orders. It's a bit of a legal oddity, yes, because like much of common law it's based as much on precedent as legislation. It's not the same as a search warrant, because it's used in civil matters. It does not authorise the search of property without the defendent's consent: It instead orders the defendant to consent to the search, or else they will be held in contempt of court. This means that they cannot later claim the search was unlawful because they did give their consent at the time. The end result is exactly the same, but the legal path to it is different.
Search orders are not issued lightly. They are usually used in cases where a polite request would give the defendant a chance to destroy evidence. With a search order a team of lawyers and bailiffs (Not police - it's still a civil matter!) turn up without warning to search the property, so there is no chance to delete incriminating files and burn paperwork.
The 31 in PSK31 refers to the bit rate. 31 bits per second. It's not designed for speed, it's designed for extreme noise tolerance.
He never intended to kill. He was just an idiot who didn't realist the possibly consequences of his actions. So in his mind, $10 is the cost of ruining someone's evening.
Have you seen his twitter? Only about half of them are attacks or accusations. The rest are links to videos of him giving rally speeches and news stories about how great he is.
Creative use of technology can't ignore the law, but can result in long legal disputes.
There was an old P2P network which I forget the name of that tried to avoid copyright infringement through maths. Rather than transmit copyrighted work, it split the work into two blocks - one of random noise, the other of that noise XORed with the data. Stored separately, so that neither party storing it could have the work in any meaningful way, but a downloader could reassemble it from blocks of random data.
The express intention was to create something of such legal ambiguity that any attempt to prosecute could take years to work out in court.
The nature of this debate misses the point.
Firstly, there is always going to be some level of censorship on social networks. Otherwise there are just too many trolls who would think it utterly hilarious to find pages for children's party entertainers and flood with with niche-fetish pornography, plus there are a few types of material which anger people so greatly that there is no option but to ban it - the exact list depending upon country, and usually enforced by law. So the debate is not about if censorship should be permitted, but about the extent and about who gets to decide.
Nor is all censorship equivalent. There are many parties, many ways and many reasons. In the case of social networks, commercial concerns are a big factor - they exist to make money, and some sorts of material are just not profitable. If your posts offend a group of people, insult a religion, contain too much profanity, contain anything relating to sex or advocate criminal acts then advertisers are not going to want their adverts appearing next to it, which means the network is going to want to discourage the production of this material. They may not ban it, but they have other means - they can rank it lower in searches, or demonetise as youtube does.
On the political side, there is what could be seen as a tidy symmetry - left and right both call for censorship, but of different material, and both then accuse the other of supporting censorship. The left might get horrified at hate speech, but they can't beat the right when it comes to sensitivity to 'indecency' - a category that goes far beyond just pornography.
Personally, if I were drafting legislation, I'd focus on accountability. Allow social network operators to censor as they see fit - but every time they decide to pull a post, make sure they have a duty to notify the poster specifying the reason for the action, and a reference number allowing them to review the audit records for the decision. If you have to have censorship, do it right.
I noticed that too. I attributed it to fatigue. There are only so many ways you can say 'these creationists are morons and this is why their ideas are ridiculous' before you realise how little this actually achieves, so to retain interest for both the views and creator the channels eventually have to diversify a bit. That means either finding new and more obscure idiots to mock, or turning to something more political that will inspire viewer excitement.
ThunderF00t holds a PhD in chemistry, which implies both an excellent knowledge of chemistry and a very good knowledge in physics, as you cannot do chemistry without understanding the underlying physics. That automatically gives him credibility when debunking scams which are incompatible with the known laws of physics. It is still fair to criticize him for his commentary on social and political matters though, as he holds no qualification in these subjects.
I do wish he'd stick to his field, though. He's a great debunker, as he knows how to use the laws of physics to utterly destroy a scam product - but when talking about politics, he's really no more of an expert on social issues than any random person grabbed off the street.
Be fair: Anyone who has lived their life in the urban or suburban region of a modern industrialized country is going to be in the same situation, and for most it is the appropriate action to take. They can know with confidence that, while things are looking pretty bad right now, there's a concerted rescue effort underway and help will arrive long before they have to resort to eating the family dog.
They'd just reduce the amount of information in the service manual, and obstrucate it through tricks like referring to common components by internal part numbers. The real service information wouldn't be in the manual, it'd be in a collection of internal memos.
That depends on the area. One thing which really bothers service providers is universal service mandates - they have to maintain cables running across mile after mile after mile of country track to serve the town of Bumfuck, population sixty. There's no prospect of making a profit on that. The federal government addresses this with the Universal Service Fund, which grants service providers handouts to subsidise provision in rural areas. Maintaining the reliability of this service is a very low priority though, as it doesn't actually make any money directly.
Bush was an idiotic, self-serving theocrat... but at least under Bush I could say with confidence he wouldn't start a nuclear war because another national leader insulted him on the internet. I'm no longer confident of that with Trump.
Copper does have some role. For one, as mentioned above, it's a vital service for businesses. It's also very important in a disaster situation where there is a prolonged power outage. Get power to the exchange, and all the landline phones it serves will work. Cell service is only good for as long as people have power, and maybe a day after that before the flat batteries hit.
Oh, China aren't the lowest. When you want to pay your workers even less than in China, and with even laxer safety standards, there's Bangladesh.
There's another factor you didn't consider that limits tape usage to very high volume use only. The tape is cheap, but the drives themselves certainly are not - for your LTO8 tape you need a £3000 drive, plus a server with its own RAID storage array to maintain the required transfer rate and an SAS controller. That's why tape completely disappeared from consumer use and almost disappeared from SOHO - you need to be thinking in terms of multiple hundreds of terabytes to justify the initial equipment costs, even if the tapes themselves are affordable.
I am very much aware that I gave a tremendously simplified explanation. I think I made the important point clear: How much rain falls is not as important as where it falls.
Climate change actually means more rain. Warmer seas means more evaporation, and if that water goes into the air it has to come down again too, which means more precipitation. Of more concern that the amount of rain is where it goes - shifting patterns mean certain regions could still get dryer even as global rainfall grows, and if those regions happen to be major agricultural areas, famine is certainly a possibility.
Ability? Pure plutonium isn't just a nuclear material - chemically, it's pyrophoric. The hard part is stopping it from burning.
Reactors are more complicated though - they require feedback control. There have been a few small test reactors in space, but not for a long time, and there are no current designs or information on long-term reliability. An RTG is so simple there's practically nothing to go wrong.
There's an occasional joke about someone who wonders if monosodium glutamate is safe for pets and searches for "E621 dog."
True, Republicans can be blamed for this. But had Democrats been in charge, nothing would have played out differently. One reason copyright is never an issue in elections is that both parties hold exactly the same position on it.
Found it: On default settings, Bing's image filtering proves quite ineffective in filtering a query on 'yiff.' My speculation is that their filtering algorithm might be based in part upon image feature extraction, and so less effective on artwork than upon the photos upon which it was trained. It does block a lot of material, but more than enough slips through to make for a rather interesting page of image results.
They did have the foresight to block any query on 'hentai.' I tried that one first, but it must have been too obvious and earned some manual intervention.
I'm not going to test google, because it knows me too well - results wouldn't be representative.