I think you just need microscopic sensors spread out over the outside of the cloak that are imperceptible to the human eye and instruments (short of a microscope.
Hm... how about sound at various frequencies (outside the human audible range).. as in sonar?
Kind of hard to have a physical object that doesn't resonate mechanical vibrations.
The problem with Urban Dictionary is it's filled with crappy non-objective/crackpot definitions: opinions about words, not accurate well-written definitions, and contains definitions that reinforce many common misconceptions,
The intense physiological effect of consuming too much sugar or glucose, usually in the form of cakes, cookies and soda; eating excessive amounts of sugar makes the brain release dopamine and endorphins, often inducing a mild sense of euphoria and happiness.
Example #2:
Boogeyman The scary monster man that gets little kids at night, usually found under the bed or in a dark closet..
Little eric got eaten by the boogeyman when he didn't say his prayer last night.
An overblown "Wal-Mart" OS written by programmers who lack the balls and social skills to walk their own dog.
"The calculator froze up again. Oh, that runs on a Linux kernel. "
Example #4: WindowsA piece of glass you can open when it gets too hot outside. Come on people
Person 2: " You think you made a mistake? I BOUGHT WINDOWS!"
...
The fanciest version of Solitaire I've ever played.
However, we know that not to be true. Police commonly question people, and threaten them with obstruction of justice charges, if they do not fully cooperate, answer all questions, and do everything they ask, even in ways that incriminate them.
What's true de jure, may be false in actual fact.
So...
The real question is is it really a legal requirement to call be police?. It would seem to work against you in all possible ways...
Of course, if you have a dead/dying body on your dining room floor, it's probably in your best interest to call the 911.
Your neigbors, their family/etc, might get suspicious about you digging a big hole in your back yard to bury the friend who choked on a dinner roll.
And the police may even manage to find crime where none existed; the friend was dating one of your old acquaintenances of the opposite sex, or something such as that...
There's another possibility... it could be behind-the-scenes action by the RIAA to attempt to make people scared of using P2P networks such as Limewire.
Don't you think it's strange that police suddenly wanted to examine the computer, and the family allowed it without a warrant?
FBI agents showed up at his family's home. The family agreed to let agents examine the computer, and at first, they couldn't find anything.
Investigators later were able to recover the deleted images from deep within the hard drive.
So for some reason the FBI wanted to search the machine the family willingly agreed to allow the FBI to seize and search their computer.
You know... with enough forensic work, any arbitrary sequence of bits (even one with a completely random distribution) can be turned into illegal porn.
It just requires applying the right decoding algorithm (aka transformation mask) to the bits.
And the justification for the "transformation mask" can always be, "this popped up, while applying our highly-specialized scientific algorithm to compensate for disk recording technology bit-fade"
Are you required by law to tell law enforcement when you think a crime might have been committed?
Normally you don't have to...
If I happen to see my neighbor's kid out driving alone past curfew I don't legally have to call the police
If I hear a friend talking about sharing MP3s with BitTorrent, I don't legally have to call the RIAA, or the FBI, to report their file sharing activity, do I?
They might confiscate your computer, this can hurt you.
Also, how can you be sure they won't charge you with a crime over the "accident" ?
I'm pretty sure there's this thing called the 5th ammendment, that assures you don't have to testify against yourself, you don't have to admit that you committed a crime.
Accidentally committing a crime and taking the means available to remedy the situation by negating the error (deleting the file, bringing the dead person you shot back to life via alchemy, anonymously returning your neighbor's car you accidentally stole while drunk, etc....) would seem to be one of the more important situations where this ammendment protects the public.
A fraudulently obtained registration is not a valid copyright, it's just a registration of copyright.
No actual copyright is owned.
You can have a registration (but no legal, valid copyright ownership.)
You can also (nowadays) have a copyright without having registered it.
However, in the 1900s, the law was different.
You couldn't claim copyright to a work that wasn't registered, and didn't have a valid copyright notice.
The earlier publications without copyright notice (in the early 1900s), mean public domain.
Also, the shorter copyright term in effect at that time, means that any copyright registered around 1900 or prior would be long expired by now.
The law in effect at the time the work was published, is what matters, with respect to any exclusive rights that might have existed.
The performance of happy birthday does nothing against them unless: (A) the copyright owner is taking the action.
And (B) the court recognizes the copyright owner's claim to the work -- the Happy Birthday song has been in the public domain for over 100 years, it's unlikely that someone has any valid claim to it...
Yeah, they can have a no-cameras, no flash-photography policy in a privately-owned publicly-accessible place. If they catch you taking pictures, a big guard comes up to you and orders you to leave the premises: then if you stay there, you've committed the crime of trespassing.
They can't exact physical violence against you to prevent you from taking pictures though, and taking your camera, or destroying film, is illegal for them to do (and may result in you suing).
Because people who are involved in shady dealings always admit to any wrongdoing immediately when allegations are made?
Don't understand why anyone would send anonymous letters.. if they have info that someone is involved in shady dealings, they should take it straight to the press without raising provokations.
With anonymous threatening letters, you bet, the court should be investigating the source..
They are not always blocked; primarily only blocked when abused, and there are methods such as exemption through which some people edit through open (or closed) anonymous proxies.
Sometimes they make exceptions and allow people to edit through known open proxies, or so states the site / policy / block message for open proxies, to contact them.
Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked. No restrictions are placed on reading Wikipedia through an open or anonymous proxy....
Chinese contributors who wish to edit Wikipedia, as well as administrators considering blocking Tor proxies, should sign up for free access to Wikipedia-only proxies at Wikipedia:WikiProject on closed proxies or read Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall. Additionally, because of the creation of the IP block exemption flag, editors, like those in China, who have a demonstrated need to use proxies or Tor to edit may be given the ability to edit from blocked IPs. See Wikipedia:IP block exemption for more.
Blocking.cm can be a helpful step, because it blocks a portion of the hostnames that (A) if you visit has a very high probability of infecting you, and (B) that an intentional visit to is unlikely.
So you can block.cm with a notable increase in safety, with a minimal decrease in usefulnes of your internet access.
The same could not be said of blocking the whole net. Blocking the whole net reduces the utility of your network connection, since it means you can no longer navigate to the sites that you do want to, with high probability.
Only if you lied to the police and told them that the person broke in, but you will definitely have to provide more an explanation than that.
Or they refused to leave when you told them to.
The police certainly won't do anything to them unless you actually reported an incident, and made certain representations (which could be true or not, however lying to the police: possibly an even more severe crime than trespass).
They could show the marketing materials, pamphlets, they were carrying, and the police would not arrest them, once it became clear that they were indeed a salesman trying to get your intention, who happened to walk in an open door (due to the implicit invitation).
You might even have a case if you caught them rummaging in your pantry -- as that suggests an intent to convert some of your property (even if just a small snack).
However, simply walking through an open door, is no crime, when there is implicit invitation involved.
In fact, at many homes... there will be a mostly enclosed screen porch, and it's necessary to pass through an open door just to ring the bell.
I think it's gotta be a romulan plot, a ploy to start a war.. and takeover slashdot.. something to do with stealing the infinitely-long-lasting LED technology. The editors we all know and love don't make fixes like that [j/k]
Slashdot Mirror
I think you just need microscopic sensors spread out over the outside of the cloak that are imperceptible to the human eye and instruments (short of a microscope.
To allow operators to see what's outside
Hm... how about sound at various frequencies (outside the human audible range).. as in sonar? Kind of hard to have a physical object that doesn't resonate mechanical vibrations.
The problem with Urban Dictionary is it's filled with crappy non-objective/crackpot definitions: opinions about words, not accurate well-written definitions, and contains definitions that reinforce many common misconceptions,
Example #1: Sugar High
Example #2: Boogeyman The scary monster man that gets little kids at night, usually found under the bed or in a dark closet.. Little eric got eaten by the boogeyman when he didn't say his prayer last night.
Example #3: Linux
Example #4: Windows A piece of glass you can open when it gets too hot outside. Come on people
Then Wikipedia is obviously wrong and POV, in representing someone's fraudulent copyright claim to be valid.
police cannot force you to talk
However, we know that not to be true. Police commonly question people, and threaten them with obstruction of justice charges, if they do not fully cooperate, answer all questions, and do everything they ask, even in ways that incriminate them.
What's true de jure, may be false in actual fact. So...
The real question is is it really a legal requirement to call be police?. It would seem to work against you in all possible ways...
Of course, if you have a dead/dying body on your dining room floor, it's probably in your best interest to call the 911.
Your neigbors, their family/etc, might get suspicious about you digging a big hole in your back yard to bury the friend who choked on a dinner roll.
And the police may even manage to find crime where none existed; the friend was dating one of your old acquaintenances of the opposite sex, or something such as that...
There's another possibility... it could be behind-the-scenes action by the RIAA to attempt to make people scared of using P2P networks such as Limewire.
Don't you think it's strange that police suddenly wanted to examine the computer, and the family allowed it without a warrant?
FBI agents showed up at his family's home. The family agreed to let agents examine the computer, and at first, they couldn't find anything.
Investigators later were able to recover the deleted images from deep within the hard drive.
So for some reason the FBI wanted to search the machine the family willingly agreed to allow the FBI to seize and search their computer.
Why would they do this?
Until your defense informs the jury of their legal rights and that they can ignore the prosecutor/judge's instructions to do otherwise (if they wish)
You know... with enough forensic work, any arbitrary sequence of bits (even one with a completely random distribution) can be turned into illegal porn.
It just requires applying the right decoding algorithm (aka transformation mask) to the bits.
And the justification for the "transformation mask" can always be, "this popped up, while applying our highly-specialized scientific algorithm to compensate for disk recording technology bit-fade"
Are you required by law to tell law enforcement when you think a crime might have been committed? Normally you don't have to...
If I happen to see my neighbor's kid out driving alone past curfew I don't legally have to call the police
If I hear a friend talking about sharing MP3s with BitTorrent, I don't legally have to call the RIAA, or the FBI, to report their file sharing activity, do I?
They might confiscate your computer, this can hurt you.
Also, how can you be sure they won't charge you with a crime over the "accident" ?
I'm pretty sure there's this thing called the 5th ammendment, that assures you don't have to testify against yourself, you don't have to admit that you committed a crime.
Accidentally committing a crime and taking the means available to remedy the situation by negating the error (deleting the file, bringing the dead person you shot back to life via alchemy, anonymously returning your neighbor's car you accidentally stole while drunk, etc....) would seem to be one of the more important situations where this ammendment protects the public.
Exactly...
A fraudulently obtained registration is not a valid copyright, it's just a registration of copyright.
No actual copyright is owned.
You can have a registration (but no legal, valid copyright ownership.)
You can also (nowadays) have a copyright without having registered it.
However, in the 1900s, the law was different. You couldn't claim copyright to a work that wasn't registered, and didn't have a valid copyright notice.
The earlier publications without copyright notice (in the early 1900s), mean public domain.
Also, the shorter copyright term in effect at that time, means that any copyright registered around 1900 or prior would be long expired by now. The law in effect at the time the work was published, is what matters, with respect to any exclusive rights that might have existed.
Says who?
The melody was written in 1893, and the song appeared in print prior to 1912, with no claim of copyright, even then.
Someone might want to claim it, but that doesn't mean their claim has even a remote glimmer of validity.
The performance of happy birthday does nothing against them unless: (A) the copyright owner is taking the action.
And (B) the court recognizes the copyright owner's claim to the work -- the Happy Birthday song has been in the public domain for over 100 years, it's unlikely that someone has any valid claim to it...
Yeah, they can have a no-cameras, no flash-photography policy in a privately-owned publicly-accessible place. If they catch you taking pictures, a big guard comes up to you and orders you to leave the premises: then if you stay there, you've committed the crime of trespassing.
They can't exact physical violence against you to prevent you from taking pictures though, and taking your camera, or destroying film, is illegal for them to do (and may result in you suing).
She denies the wrongdoing, by the way.
Because people who are involved in shady dealings always admit to any wrongdoing immediately when allegations are made?
Don't understand why anyone would send anonymous letters.. if they have info that someone is involved in shady dealings, they should take it straight to the press without raising provokations.
With anonymous threatening letters, you bet, the court should be investigating the source..
They are not always blocked; primarily only blocked when abused, and there are methods such as exemption through which some people edit through open (or closed) anonymous proxies.
Sometimes they make exceptions and allow people to edit through known open proxies, or so states the site / policy / block message for open proxies, to contact them.
More details here, at Wikipedia:Open_Proxies, in particular:
No they don't. One or two exit node(s) have or had a name like that, once upon a time. It's definitely not true that all (or even that most) do.
Blocking .cm can be a helpful step, because it blocks a portion of the hostnames that (A) if you visit has a very high probability of infecting you, and (B) that an intentional visit to is unlikely.
So you can block .cm with a notable increase in safety, with a minimal decrease in usefulnes of your internet access.
The same could not be said of blocking the whole net. Blocking the whole net reduces the utility of your network connection, since it means you can no longer navigate to the sites that you do want to, with high probability.
Failing for the same Vista failed probably.. being rushed into operation before it's time..
Also parts and architecture designed/implemented with assistance by the lowestBidder(TM)
That's what brokers are for. People in Europe will give their brokers some money to be "invested in Somalia"
The broker's job will be to get contacts and have them select the most lucrative investments available.
Plausible deniability across the board.
The investor doesn't know exactly who the broker's contacting.
The broker doesn't know what assets the investments are going to. Only that they are going to a "fund" managed by contacts in Somalia.
The fund managers in Somalia operate privately and have strict secrecy and describe investments in only vague terms.
The obvious solution would be to continue the renovations, and make it as unpleasant as possible for someone to try to live there.
For instance, by not having any utilities installed while the perpetual renovation prevents it.
By fencing off the place, having the driveway blocked, etc.
Slashdot -1, Offtopic moderation to be changed to: -1 Offtopic (disconnect author from internet)
Frankly, Verizon has gotten it wrong though. They should be disconnecting trolls... OTOH.. maybe they are trolls :)
From UUnet.. historical biggest spam haven ever... to 2009 keeping a clean ship, don't even think of posting an off-topic web page...
Any anti-verizon web pages, or postings are by definition off-topic (even if Verizon is the subject of the discussion).
Only if you lied to the police and told them that the person broke in, but you will definitely have to provide more an explanation than that.
Or they refused to leave when you told them to.
The police certainly won't do anything to them unless you actually reported an incident, and made certain representations (which could be true or not, however lying to the police: possibly an even more severe crime than trespass).
They could show the marketing materials, pamphlets, they were carrying, and the police would not arrest them, once it became clear that they were indeed a salesman trying to get your intention, who happened to walk in an open door (due to the implicit invitation).
You might even have a case if you caught them rummaging in your pantry -- as that suggests an intent to convert some of your property (even if just a small snack).
However, simply walking through an open door, is no crime, when there is implicit invitation involved.
In fact, at many homes... there will be a mostly enclosed screen porch, and it's necessary to pass through an open door just to ring the bell.
It's not a complex concept. It's just a factually incorrect one.
I think it's gotta be a romulan plot, a ploy to start a war.. and takeover slashdot.. something to do with stealing the infinitely-long-lasting LED technology. The editors we all know and love don't make fixes like that [j/k]
Surely they meant that LEDs last 2.5 times as long as traditional incandescents. Which is absurd actually... LEDs last a lot longer.
How come no mention of Halogens, I wonder?