Agreed, but I'd add a point to consider: There are some companies that have such influence they might be considered on a par with governments. The decision of a communications giant can make or break not just a political candidate, but an entire social movement. Should there be a point at which a company becomes so powerful that they should be subject to the same restrictions on their actions as are placed upon government - including a requirement that they treat all speech over their services equally, without discrimination?
But the text fields may also contain quote characters, so those need to be escaped. But they may also contain the escape character... there's a reason there are libraries for parsing that sort of thing.
Three drivers, of equal complexity and thus about the same cost.
90+% of their customers run Windows.
So when 60% of their software development budget time, the sneer is hardly a surprise.
It's worse than that, though. Linux's driver interface moves fast - every couple of kernel releases they need a recompile, and there are many different distros with just enough differences to make testing very time-consuming. OSX is not so bad. But Windows? A major release every couple of years, and then you're good until the next one. It's much more stable. There's one kernel, and it almost never changes aside from bug-fixes and security updates.
It's an air traffic control signal. The point of it is to tell air traffic control 'Aircraft flying over here! Here's my identification, altitude, heading and exact location. Please don't hit me.' Without the ability to decode that information all air traffic control gets is the rough position off of radar. So no, it's not going to be encrypted. It's possible a future version will introduce authentication, but only as a measure to prevent saboteurs jamming up air traffic control by spoofing planes that don't exist or making them appear somewhere other than their real location.
There's a good reason to partner: Hardware, zero cost. You can buy it second-hand on eBay, but even there the price would be high enough that the payback period wouldn't be reasonable. But if you know someone who runs mining at some scale, even as a hobby, they will have a box somewhere full of worthless cast-offs - old hardware which now costs more in power than it makes in coins.
I used to hobby-mine. Not at any scale, I peaked at about 30GH/s, I was just interested in the technology and that was a way to learn. I didn't even make enough to cover the hardware costs before said hardware became worthless, as I purchased it second-hand when it was already well behind the cutting edge.
If I had solar like that, I'd partner up with a bitcoin miner: They'd supply cast-off hardware that's no longer economical due to power cost, I'd supply the power on the condition their miner can only run when I have excess watts to burn and may be shut down at any time, and we'd split the profits between us.
So that's how it works? Makes sense. I was just going to use a high-impedance input on a FET. Sensitive enough to detect the slight charge of a human body making contact. You just need a very weak pull to stop it registering every stray electrostatic field.
If I were designing it to use the rise time method, I might do that on a few old-fashioned gate chips. 4000 series. But a microcontroller would probably be able to do it in a smaller part count.
This does not solve Go. It does make it possible to estimate how feasible solving Go is: Roughly how many universe-lifetimes will it take for your computer to calculate the next move?
Technical limitations. If someone invented a reliable and affordable brain scanner that could detect any sexual thoughts, it would only be a matter of time before the mind probe becomes mandatory for anyone who works near children.
I looked it up. You're right - there is no close-in-age exemption in law, but there is a statement from the Home Office - they have issued open but non-binding guidance not to prosecute in those circumstances. That's what I was thinking of - I just wasn't aware it was only guidance, not law.
The state of Ohio did ban fiction, but it was overturned by a court on first amendment grounds. The case is State v. Dalton - it's a rather convoluted case, as the accused pleaded guilty initially under a plea bargain until the ACLU intervened and there were appeals, but the end result was the Ohio supreme court ruling the law unconstitutional. It is likely any other state would rule likewise. However, artwork and sculptures showing children or fictional children in an obscene manner are still illegal at the federal level, under the PROTECT act of 2003 - after an earlier act was struck down, PROTECT uses a more carefully crafted definition that should more easily be accepted by courts as constitutional. The UK likewise banned possession, distribution, production etc of artwork in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, but has not banned fiction.
Curiously, the UK one was specifically aimed at banning many hentai comics - it even has a clause making it clear that non-human characters who have characteristics of a human child are considered as if they were human children, and a few MPs specifically stated during the debate process that imported Japanese comics were the target.
No. I'm using the characters of a fictional TV show as an example of a real-life viewpoint because, surprisingly enough, writers like to have their characters act in a plausible manner most of the time. Also because these shows may be fictional, but their presence does still affect public perception. Do you propose instead that the management of the NSA one say say down in their darkened secret room and discussed how best to spy on the entire country just for the fun of it, or because they really love the idea of a police state? No, it is more reasonable to compare them to the CSI fictional parallel: People who happily circumvent the law because they believe their mission is of vital importance, and petty things like due process could allow a dangerous person to walk free.
Entrapment or not, these suspects are among the most loathed people in society. You could add war crimes and regicide to the charges and a jury would probably still convict.
Firstly, in many countries even artwork, photoshop fake images, crude comics and fiction are classified as child pornography.
Secondly - if the images already exist, does distributing them hurt the 'victim' any more? Their part is done. They won't even know if another person looks, so how can it possibly harm them? You could argue that it creates demand for more images and so create a financial incentive to create more, but by that logic downloading music should increase demand and increase profits by the labels.
We have something of a similar situation in the UK: Our age of consent is sixteen*, but child pornography is anything below eighteen. I assume people between sixteen and eighteen are supposed to wear a blindfold.
*With a close-in-age-exception, and it becomes eighteen if there exists a relationship that gives one party a position of power over the other.
I like CSI:Cyber for something the writers didn't intend: It shows a realistic example of police abuse of power. The protagonists of the show are not out to be an oppressive, invasive government agency - but they are driven to catch the bad guys. Little things like warrants and due process just get in the way - from the perspective of law enforcement, they are just weasel tricks that the horrible people use to escape justice. The Cyber Squad are constantly intimidating and threatening suspects and routinely carry out acts that are blatantly illegal, or legal only on very NSAish grounds - they outright state at one point that they have a law that grants them the right to hack any computer anywhere so long as they have reasonable suspicion that it contains data important to an investigation, which they use to hack the database from a dating app because it's the quickest way to identify which user is their suspect. The one time a person denies their request for information without a warrant they pull political strings and threaten to have their organisation barred from government contracts if the information isn't handed over 'voluntarily' rather than go to the delay of getting a warrant. But despite this, they maintain the conviction that they are the 'good guys.' The end justifies the means - and when the end is catching murderers, rapists and child molesters*, that enough to justify any means. To themselves, at least.
It's an interesting approach to the program, but the problem is that is leads viewers to the same conclusion: Watch enough super-virtuous cops on TV who routinely break the law to catch a filthy perverted murderer, and the public's attitudes to such things relax in the real world. Where the police are not infallible, and it isn't always clear who the villain is, and sometimes innocent people are accused.
I've noticed Cyber Squad also like to brutalise suspects a bit on arrest, making sure to 'accidentally' slam someone's head against a concrete floor even when they aren't resisting.
*Cyber or not, it's still CSI: Practically every crime has a sex angle. Ratings!
Not always. It's quite possible for a minority to govern an unwilling majority - it just requires they have access to superior weaponry, organisational skills, propaganda tools or secret police. The idea of government by consent of the majority is far from universal. It's really something of a historical fluke.
We are governed by majority consent. Not individual consent. Individual doesn't work, as anyone who wishes to be outside the law would be free to go on a murder-and-pillage spree without state interference.
Buy Your Own Device. It's a means to allow your employer to skimp on the hardware expenditure and get you to unwittingly pay instead, and feel empowered for it. You don't even get to keep your device for personal use, as security requirements demand the employer maintain control over it so long as it is used for business purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Audio jack. That thing is pre-1900. Invented for telephone switchboards.
Agreed, but I'd add a point to consider: There are some companies that have such influence they might be considered on a par with governments. The decision of a communications giant can make or break not just a political candidate, but an entire social movement. Should there be a point at which a company becomes so powerful that they should be subject to the same restrictions on their actions as are placed upon government - including a requirement that they treat all speech over their services equally, without discrimination?
But the text fields may also contain quote characters, so those need to be escaped. But they may also contain the escape character... there's a reason there are libraries for parsing that sort of thing.
Ah, the curse of slashdot!
"So when less than 10% of their users take more than 60% of their software development time budget..."
I used angled brackets before.
Three OSs: Windows, linux, OSX.
Three drivers, of equal complexity and thus about the same cost.
90+% of their customers run Windows.
So when 60% of their software development budget time, the sneer is hardly a surprise.
It's worse than that, though. Linux's driver interface moves fast - every couple of kernel releases they need a recompile, and there are many different distros with just enough differences to make testing very time-consuming. OSX is not so bad. But Windows? A major release every couple of years, and then you're good until the next one. It's much more stable. There's one kernel, and it almost never changes aside from bug-fixes and security updates.
It's an air traffic control signal. The point of it is to tell air traffic control 'Aircraft flying over here! Here's my identification, altitude, heading and exact location. Please don't hit me.' Without the ability to decode that information all air traffic control gets is the rough position off of radar. So no, it's not going to be encrypted. It's possible a future version will introduce authentication, but only as a measure to prevent saboteurs jamming up air traffic control by spoofing planes that don't exist or making them appear somewhere other than their real location.
What's the point of being filthy rich if you still have to mix with the commoners?
There's a good reason to partner: Hardware, zero cost. You can buy it second-hand on eBay, but even there the price would be high enough that the payback period wouldn't be reasonable. But if you know someone who runs mining at some scale, even as a hobby, they will have a box somewhere full of worthless cast-offs - old hardware which now costs more in power than it makes in coins.
I used to hobby-mine. Not at any scale, I peaked at about 30GH/s, I was just interested in the technology and that was a way to learn. I didn't even make enough to cover the hardware costs before said hardware became worthless, as I purchased it second-hand when it was already well behind the cutting edge.
If I had solar like that, I'd partner up with a bitcoin miner: They'd supply cast-off hardware that's no longer economical due to power cost, I'd supply the power on the condition their miner can only run when I have excess watts to burn and may be shut down at any time, and we'd split the profits between us.
If four GPIO pins are not enough, may I introduce you to the 4006? Or whatever its 3.3V counterpart is.
So that's how it works? Makes sense. I was just going to use a high-impedance input on a FET. Sensitive enough to detect the slight charge of a human body making contact. You just need a very weak pull to stop it registering every stray electrostatic field.
If I were designing it to use the rise time method, I might do that on a few old-fashioned gate chips. 4000 series. But a microcontroller would probably be able to do it in a smaller part count.
This does not solve Go. It does make it possible to estimate how feasible solving Go is: Roughly how many universe-lifetimes will it take for your computer to calculate the next move?
" The banana uses a special new circuit board from Makey Makey"
Really? The Pi has GPIO pins, and you can't interface to a banana without a special new circuit board?
You want a BS170 FET and a really high resistance pull-up/down, about 10M should do it. Two components, about 10p worth of parts, and a bit of wire.
Technical limitations. If someone invented a reliable and affordable brain scanner that could detect any sexual thoughts, it would only be a matter of time before the mind probe becomes mandatory for anyone who works near children.
In the UK it could be drawings of fictional kids at the beach and still be CP.
I looked it up. You're right - there is no close-in-age exemption in law, but there is a statement from the Home Office - they have issued open but non-binding guidance not to prosecute in those circumstances. That's what I was thinking of - I just wasn't aware it was only guidance, not law.
Citeation: http://www.fpa.org.uk/factshee...
The state of Ohio did ban fiction, but it was overturned by a court on first amendment grounds. The case is State v. Dalton - it's a rather convoluted case, as the accused pleaded guilty initially under a plea bargain until the ACLU intervened and there were appeals, but the end result was the Ohio supreme court ruling the law unconstitutional. It is likely any other state would rule likewise. However, artwork and sculptures showing children or fictional children in an obscene manner are still illegal at the federal level, under the PROTECT act of 2003 - after an earlier act was struck down, PROTECT uses a more carefully crafted definition that should more easily be accepted by courts as constitutional. The UK likewise banned possession, distribution, production etc of artwork in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, but has not banned fiction.
Curiously, the UK one was specifically aimed at banning many hentai comics - it even has a clause making it clear that non-human characters who have characteristics of a human child are considered as if they were human children, and a few MPs specifically stated during the debate process that imported Japanese comics were the target.
No. I'm using the characters of a fictional TV show as an example of a real-life viewpoint because, surprisingly enough, writers like to have their characters act in a plausible manner most of the time. Also because these shows may be fictional, but their presence does still affect public perception. Do you propose instead that the management of the NSA one say say down in their darkened secret room and discussed how best to spy on the entire country just for the fun of it, or because they really love the idea of a police state? No, it is more reasonable to compare them to the CSI fictional parallel: People who happily circumvent the law because they believe their mission is of vital importance, and petty things like due process could allow a dangerous person to walk free.
Entrapment or not, these suspects are among the most loathed people in society. You could add war crimes and regicide to the charges and a jury would probably still convict.
Don't be so sure about the child porn.
Firstly, in many countries even artwork, photoshop fake images, crude comics and fiction are classified as child pornography.
Secondly - if the images already exist, does distributing them hurt the 'victim' any more? Their part is done. They won't even know if another person looks, so how can it possibly harm them? You could argue that it creates demand for more images and so create a financial incentive to create more, but by that logic downloading music should increase demand and increase profits by the labels.
We have something of a similar situation in the UK: Our age of consent is sixteen*, but child pornography is anything below eighteen. I assume people between sixteen and eighteen are supposed to wear a blindfold.
*With a close-in-age-exception, and it becomes eighteen if there exists a relationship that gives one party a position of power over the other.
I like CSI:Cyber for something the writers didn't intend: It shows a realistic example of police abuse of power. The protagonists of the show are not out to be an oppressive, invasive government agency - but they are driven to catch the bad guys. Little things like warrants and due process just get in the way - from the perspective of law enforcement, they are just weasel tricks that the horrible people use to escape justice. The Cyber Squad are constantly intimidating and threatening suspects and routinely carry out acts that are blatantly illegal, or legal only on very NSAish grounds - they outright state at one point that they have a law that grants them the right to hack any computer anywhere so long as they have reasonable suspicion that it contains data important to an investigation, which they use to hack the database from a dating app because it's the quickest way to identify which user is their suspect. The one time a person denies their request for information without a warrant they pull political strings and threaten to have their organisation barred from government contracts if the information isn't handed over 'voluntarily' rather than go to the delay of getting a warrant. But despite this, they maintain the conviction that they are the 'good guys.' The end justifies the means - and when the end is catching murderers, rapists and child molesters*, that enough to justify any means. To themselves, at least.
It's an interesting approach to the program, but the problem is that is leads viewers to the same conclusion: Watch enough super-virtuous cops on TV who routinely break the law to catch a filthy perverted murderer, and the public's attitudes to such things relax in the real world. Where the police are not infallible, and it isn't always clear who the villain is, and sometimes innocent people are accused.
I've noticed Cyber Squad also like to brutalise suspects a bit on arrest, making sure to 'accidentally' slam someone's head against a concrete floor even when they aren't resisting.
*Cyber or not, it's still CSI: Practically every crime has a sex angle. Ratings!
Not always. It's quite possible for a minority to govern an unwilling majority - it just requires they have access to superior weaponry, organisational skills, propaganda tools or secret police. The idea of government by consent of the majority is far from universal. It's really something of a historical fluke.
We are governed by majority consent. Not individual consent. Individual doesn't work, as anyone who wishes to be outside the law would be free to go on a murder-and-pillage spree without state interference.
Buy Your Own Device. It's a means to allow your employer to skimp on the hardware expenditure and get you to unwittingly pay instead, and feel empowered for it. You don't even get to keep your device for personal use, as security requirements demand the employer maintain control over it so long as it is used for business purposes.