In all seriousness, I imagine the bitcoins are currently in a state of limbo - if the government were to spend them it could legitimise the new currency, something that would make a lot of officials uncomfortable. Most likely the wallet will be retained until the case is done and whatever legally mantained retention of evidence is passed, then just deleted, effectively removing the coins from circulation forever.
The stand-alone device brings another problem. Social conventions say it is very rude and offensive to fail to recognise someone - if you have to look down at your face-database device, it's going to lead to people getting very upset. The glass approach has the advantage of complete transparency. You look, it tells you all you need to know, and from the perspective of everyone else you just remembered unaided.
Power constraints would make it impractical to send every face seen back to google. Radios use a low of power, and there are usually quotas on mobile connections too.
Actually, google glass wouldn't help here. They'd be forbidden instantly: We also don't permit any photographs be taken of students, nor do we allow even the use of cameras on site except for those students on photography courses, on the grounds that taking a photo of a child could be seen as preparing for sexual abuse.
Yes, I live in the UK. The country where everyone is a pedophile until proven otherwise.
Try working in a school. I long ago stopped trying to track the number of times I catch some student destroying school property. There's nothing I can do: I can't identify them, they know well enough to lie if asked for a name, they all refuse to wear their name badges*, and if confronted they run away. Staff are forbidden from ever making any sort of physical contact with a student (As this could result in the student making a claim of assault and suing the school), so they can get away with just about anything so long as they aren't in sight of a teacher who can recognise them. There are two thousand-odd students, I can't memorise every face!
*The girls in particular have some strange phobia about letting anyone see their photograph, as they all consider it hideous.
I'd imagine the local pigs are looking rather worried. The US has a few issues with police getting carried away with their authority. The use of cellphones made it a little bit harder for them to abuse their power and intimidate people, but only a little - few people pull out their phones to record traffic stops, and if you try it there's a good chance the cop will make up something to arrest you for on the spot just out of annoyance. Add Glass though - potentially a device where recording everything is as easy as a couple of winks - and getting away with things becomes a lot harder. It may help the NSA out, but it'll also provide something of a deterrant against the local cops trying to imtimidate you into confessing to a crime you didn't commit to boost their stats.
So if they want to target someone, they might actually have to convince a judge and get a warrant. That seems reasonable. Right now they just seem to collect everything they can from everyone they can in case it comes in handy some day.
It's possible to overcome this. It requires limited trust models and padding or delaying to prevent analysis, but it can be done. Look at Freenet for an example - it's designed to make it near-impossible for an attacker to work out what you are doing, even if they can intercept all communication, and even harder to prove. Such measures come with a nasty overhead though: Freenet may be secure, but using it feels much like the normal web would were you on a 28.8 modem.
There are certain semi-agreed 'debate issues' in US politics. Things that the parties have informally (Or possible, conspiratorially) decided are going to get a lot of attention, be a subject of intence R-v-D warfare and generally decide elections. A lot of these are things that won't actually have a great impact on most of society, like abortion or gay marriage.
There are also certain semi-agreed 'off the table' issues, where both sides have decided that drawing attention to them would be a bad thing for both sides. This includes defence spending and civil rights, along with such issues as corn subsidies and copyright reform. Rarely do you find a politician daring to even acknowledge these as issues, and any that do risk a backlash from their own party.
This is one of the 'off the table' issues. If Snowden's leaking hadn't forced it to public attention, it would never have been allowed to come up, and right now both parties are just hopeing it goes away again.
On its own, it doesn't. Though it can make their job a little harder. But when you've got many people communicating via encrypted channels to a single server, like a web forum or mailing list, it gets much harder to figure out who is talking to who.
The double-down works because it's focused on denying anything was done wrong in the first place. To apologize means admitting guilt. To continue but more so is an active statement that no law was broken.
It's not the only genre where it happens. FPS game pros and enthusiasts don't upgrade to ridiculous setups for the frame rate - they do it so they can sustain that rate at high resolutions. High resolutions let them more easily spot tiny but essential details, like which of those dots on the far side of the map is carrying the flag, or that there is a sniper's head visible in a distant window.
There's one RTS game, Warzone 2100, where playing with two screens turns one of them into a giant version of the minimap with a lot more detail. It makes a real difference to gameplay having both a tactical view for commanding units and a strategic view to see where everything is at once.
That depends upon what you are using it for. Some applications benefit from showing a lot more on a screen. RTS games come to mind: Some games can use the higher resolution to display a greater area of the battlefield without all the units turning into vague blobs. Very handy for commanding those epic battles, which can take up a sizeable area of the level when you're dealing with things like two-pronged attacks.
Sounds a lot like the ACPI situation. Windows ignores half the configuration values, so a lot of mainboards (especially laptops, as they tend to have more heavily customised power management) either have them full of zeros or specifying incorrect/suboptimal values. As the manufacturers are only concerned with running Windows they don't bother to even test properly on any other OS.
I've been trying to figure out ACPI on my flip-top laptablet for a week. It's nice hardware, really, aside from the ACPI quirks under linux. Things like the 'screen rotate' button returning one ACPI event when the lid is up, but either another event or none at all when the lid is folded into tablet. Which is very annoying, as I want to use that button for right-click functionality. The volume control operates in a similar manner: It can produce different ACPI events depending, as best I can tell, on some sort of astrological alignment.
I'm waiting for the first time it is brought up in a child custody case. "My ex disabled the child safety filters, clearly demonstrating a reckless disregard for the wellbeing of our child."
They screwed up there. By putting 'file sharing' on the list, they demonstrated that they have the capability to block it. Soon the BPI is going to start threatening to take legal action against ISPs if they don't make blocking of that category manditory.
Easy enough to justify: Pirates generally consider pornography just another class of media to share. They don't segregate it.
It's one of the standard school reading list books used in english literature classes. At secondary school though, not primary.
To a child, it's basically a cute book about talking animals with a few dark turns. Once they get a bit older they can start to see the political allegory.
Something like that. There are a few strongly pro-filter ISPs - the campaign was started by Claire Perry, and really took off once Cameron himself threw his weight behind it. They probably have the influence to pass a law mandating filtering if they really tried, but it would take months of debating and cost political capital when they could instead work on other things. So instead they used that possibility to pressure ISPs, effectively presenting a simple choice: If every major ISP imposes voluntary filtering, Perry and Cameron will leave the issue alone. If not, they will pass a law mandating it. The law would likely end up an awkward mess full of expensive reporting requirements and impossible targets, so the ISPs are in general sensible enough to know that voluntary compliance is in their best interests.
The rules of humor state that simply linking to a porn site is too plain and crass, but variations can be acceptable: - Linking to something that looks like a porn site from the address, but is actually not. Eg, penisland.net - Linking to something that is porn, but not in the sense most would expect. Eg, fchan.us, https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wetriffs&tbm=isch
Slashdot Mirror
Give them all to me!
In all seriousness, I imagine the bitcoins are currently in a state of limbo - if the government were to spend them it could legitimise the new currency, something that would make a lot of officials uncomfortable. Most likely the wallet will be retained until the case is done and whatever legally mantained retention of evidence is passed, then just deleted, effectively removing the coins from circulation forever.
The stand-alone device brings another problem. Social conventions say it is very rude and offensive to fail to recognise someone - if you have to look down at your face-database device, it's going to lead to people getting very upset. The glass approach has the advantage of complete transparency. You look, it tells you all you need to know, and from the perspective of everyone else you just remembered unaided.
Power constraints would make it impractical to send every face seen back to google. Radios use a low of power, and there are usually quotas on mobile connections too.
Actually, google glass wouldn't help here. They'd be forbidden instantly: We also don't permit any photographs be taken of students, nor do we allow even the use of cameras on site except for those students on photography courses, on the grounds that taking a photo of a child could be seen as preparing for sexual abuse.
Yes, I live in the UK. The country where everyone is a pedophile until proven otherwise.
Try working in a school. I long ago stopped trying to track the number of times I catch some student destroying school property. There's nothing I can do: I can't identify them, they know well enough to lie if asked for a name, they all refuse to wear their name badges*, and if confronted they run away. Staff are forbidden from ever making any sort of physical contact with a student (As this could result in the student making a claim of assault and suing the school), so they can get away with just about anything so long as they aren't in sight of a teacher who can recognise them. There are two thousand-odd students, I can't memorise every face!
*The girls in particular have some strange phobia about letting anyone see their photograph, as they all consider it hideous.
I'd imagine the local pigs are looking rather worried. The US has a few issues with police getting carried away with their authority. The use of cellphones made it a little bit harder for them to abuse their power and intimidate people, but only a little - few people pull out their phones to record traffic stops, and if you try it there's a good chance the cop will make up something to arrest you for on the spot just out of annoyance. Add Glass though - potentially a device where recording everything is as easy as a couple of winks - and getting away with things becomes a lot harder. It may help the NSA out, but it'll also provide something of a deterrant against the local cops trying to imtimidate you into confessing to a crime you didn't commit to boost their stats.
How can you know such a statistic? It must be almost impossible to measure.
So if they want to target someone, they might actually have to convince a judge and get a warrant. That seems reasonable. Right now they just seem to collect everything they can from everyone they can in case it comes in handy some day.
It's possible to overcome this. It requires limited trust models and padding or delaying to prevent analysis, but it can be done. Look at Freenet for an example - it's designed to make it near-impossible for an attacker to work out what you are doing, even if they can intercept all communication, and even harder to prove. Such measures come with a nasty overhead though: Freenet may be secure, but using it feels much like the normal web would were you on a 28.8 modem.
I managed even more spelling errors in that post than I usually do.
Not quite.
There are certain semi-agreed 'debate issues' in US politics. Things that the parties have informally (Or possible, conspiratorially) decided are going to get a lot of attention, be a subject of intence R-v-D warfare and generally decide elections. A lot of these are things that won't actually have a great impact on most of society, like abortion or gay marriage.
There are also certain semi-agreed 'off the table' issues, where both sides have decided that drawing attention to them would be a bad thing for both sides. This includes defence spending and civil rights, along with such issues as corn subsidies and copyright reform. Rarely do you find a politician daring to even acknowledge these as issues, and any that do risk a backlash from their own party.
This is one of the 'off the table' issues. If Snowden's leaking hadn't forced it to public attention, it would never have been allowed to come up, and right now both parties are just hopeing it goes away again.
On its own, it doesn't. Though it can make their job a little harder. But when you've got many people communicating via encrypted channels to a single server, like a web forum or mailing list, it gets much harder to figure out who is talking to who.
The double-down works because it's focused on denying anything was done wrong in the first place. To apologize means admitting guilt. To continue but more so is an active statement that no law was broken.
It's not the only genre where it happens. FPS game pros and enthusiasts don't upgrade to ridiculous setups for the frame rate - they do it so they can sustain that rate at high resolutions. High resolutions let them more easily spot tiny but essential details, like which of those dots on the far side of the map is carrying the flag, or that there is a sniper's head visible in a distant window.
There's one RTS game, Warzone 2100, where playing with two screens turns one of them into a giant version of the minimap with a lot more detail. It makes a real difference to gameplay having both a tactical view for commanding units and a strategic view to see where everything is at once.
That depends upon what you are using it for. Some applications benefit from showing a lot more on a screen. RTS games come to mind: Some games can use the higher resolution to display a greater area of the battlefield without all the units turning into vague blobs. Very handy for commanding those epic battles, which can take up a sizeable area of the level when you're dealing with things like two-pronged attacks.
Sounds a lot like the ACPI situation. Windows ignores half the configuration values, so a lot of mainboards (especially laptops, as they tend to have more heavily customised power management) either have them full of zeros or specifying incorrect/suboptimal values. As the manufacturers are only concerned with running Windows they don't bother to even test properly on any other OS.
I've been trying to figure out ACPI on my flip-top laptablet for a week. It's nice hardware, really, aside from the ACPI quirks under linux. Things like the 'screen rotate' button returning one ACPI event when the lid is up, but either another event or none at all when the lid is folded into tablet. Which is very annoying, as I want to use that button for right-click functionality. The volume control operates in a similar manner: It can produce different ACPI events depending, as best I can tell, on some sort of astrological alignment.
I'm waiting for the first time it is brought up in a child custody case. "My ex disabled the child safety filters, clearly demonstrating a reckless disregard for the wellbeing of our child."
He was using them in representing the manner in which hysterical people thing. Perfectly common writing device.
They screwed up there. By putting 'file sharing' on the list, they demonstrated that they have the capability to block it. Soon the BPI is going to start threatening to take legal action against ISPs if they don't make blocking of that category manditory.
Easy enough to justify: Pirates generally consider pornography just another class of media to share. They don't segregate it.
Different filters. The filter the page checks against is the strictest setting, not the moderately-strict default.
It's one of the standard school reading list books used in english literature classes. At secondary school though, not primary.
To a child, it's basically a cute book about talking animals with a few dark turns. Once they get a bit older they can start to see the political allegory.
Something like that. There are a few strongly pro-filter ISPs - the campaign was started by Claire Perry, and really took off once Cameron himself threw his weight behind it. They probably have the influence to pass a law mandating filtering if they really tried, but it would take months of debating and cost political capital when they could instead work on other things. So instead they used that possibility to pressure ISPs, effectively presenting a simple choice: If every major ISP imposes voluntary filtering, Perry and Cameron will leave the issue alone. If not, they will pass a law mandating it. The law would likely end up an awkward mess full of expensive reporting requirements and impossible targets, so the ISPs are in general sensible enough to know that voluntary compliance is in their best interests.
The rules of humor state that simply linking to a porn site is too plain and crass, but variations can be acceptable:
- Linking to something that looks like a porn site from the address, but is actually not. Eg, penisland.net
- Linking to something that is porn, but not in the sense most would expect. Eg, fchan.us, https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wetriffs&tbm=isch
Public schools generally don't try to cover things up by moving the offender to a new school.
Every ISP runs their own filter, so the rules aren't consistant. You're probably behind one operated by your government building IT department.
Maybe the cameras were part of one of the three alarm systems that was turned off.