And just like trying to block websites, there will be a wide berth of false positives frustrating thousands of patrons who weren't even trying to look at porn, but a website they wanted is blocked spuriously by the tool.
Meanwhile.... the people who were targeting McDonalds for their porn-watching needs, can just continue to watch porn by popping a DVD in their laptop, or playing the file they pre-downloaded while they were at home.
The 1% of folks who are McDonalds porn aficionados can also still view porn at McDonalds by accessing the sites through your cellular data.
Also, if the restaurant tried to block cellular data or Personal WiFi hotspots, that would actually be illegal, and they could be fined billions of $$$ by the FCC.
How about undetectable modifications, such as a bit of code injected into BIOS firmware designed to target the Windows 10 installer or bootloader and trigger a reboot once detected, or slowdown, so the install process times out or takes longer than 8 hours?
It's not deleted.... it is made unavailable for view by mortals. The author can rest easy knowing that the advertisers will have access to the analysis of the data for decades to come.
I can and am allowed to drive 35MPH when there are pedestrians on a sidewalk. But, I can't predict that one of them will just step out
Hold it right there, there is no legal right to drive a particular speed. Are you allowed? Did you check the law? What tells you that you are allowed? Note that officials approving of an activity or not enforcing 100% of the rules does not make an action legal or safe.
If an action you take (Such as driving 35) might have consequences, then that action was Not really allowed.
Prohibiting you from crashing into pedestrians, means that you are forbidden from taking any series of actions which are likely to have that consequence.
That means you may NOT be allowed to drive 35, even if it is not a specific traffic rule that is directly prohibiting it.
There are things called Actions prohibited through indirect means. You are required to Drive Safely, and this means you are legally prohibited from doing certain things and legally required to do certain other things which are not explicitly spelled out in the text of the law.
So this game is inconveniencing drivers who are no longer allowed to drive 35, I understand that.....
But it's not true that you're "Allowed to drive 35", if there is a likelihood that a pedestrian will go out in front of you too quickly for you to avoid hitting them.
The law certainly does not say you have the right to drive 35MPH when there are pedestrians on the sidewalk. If the sidewalk is close to the road, then you may be legally required to slow down, when you see someone on the sidewalk.
In general: you are allowed to drive the speed limit subject to conditions; conditions include not just the weather, but everything about the environment.
If the sidewalk is so close to the road that somebody can step out quickly, And, someone is there, then
it might not be safe or legal for you to drive that full speed.
Technically it does because from the human jurists point of view. Data goes into magic decryption box and data comes out of magic decryption box and the data is different
Same deal with any lab test or forensic data extraction, even if the data is not encrypted.
You need multiple independent cryptoforensic experts or experts working for both defense and prosecution to Testify under oath that they've used the supplied/available keys to decrypt and/or extract the data, And the process used is sound.
Under penalty of perjury, they will confirm this is the decrypted version following all proper safeguards, using only the standard decryption algorithms,
And they will fully disclose any level of uncertainty in the result of the process.......
I think the answer is no. You ought to be able to challenge them to a Duel or Pokébattle.
In previous Pokemon games, you could challenge other players to a Duel, and loser actually loses
something, But, for some reason, there are no Player vs Player features in the mobile game.
You're right, I should magically know exactly where a person is going to appear out of nowhere with enough time to apply the brakes
People do not materialize out of nowhere for you to possibly hit.
The speed you are to drive is limited by AS CONDITIONS ALLOW.
Conditions do not allow you to drive so fast that you will not be able to stop within the same moment someone "appears out of nowhere"
If visibility to the sides and front of the vehicle are limited, then it may be unsafe for you to be driving more than 5mph,
even if the speed limit on that road is 35.
There's no moving away to safe zone. You tap on the pokemon thats in private property from the public sidewalk.
Maybe. There literally are not many sidewalks around here; You're on the street, or in the ditches, or grass on the other side of the ditches by
the streets. Not very pedestrian-friendly.
I still say there's no such thing as "Trespassing" by someone not paying attention to where they are.
Trespassing requires the property owner to have taken substantial steps to isolate their land from the public land and wilderness.
Including barriers, so it's not possible to "carelessly" wander through it.
Also, even if it's private property and setup to block access, You may be able to defeat barriers And enter in order to Pass Through that land when necessary to reach a destination on the other side, Or in order to retrieve some possession which is yours or that you Claim ownership or right to obtain ownership of (Such as a Pet who wandered over there, or Basketball that unintentionally rolled onto their property), even if that possession you are claiming is a virtual Pokemon in a game.
People have a right to their property, But if you intend to exclude others from it, then you need suitable notice, otherwise, people walking around are just exercising their natural-born right to explore the streets and unimproved areas, and simply pass through.
A sign on its own will no longer suffice, because people staring at their phones will not see it. If they wish to provide fair warning Pokemon players who are not paying attention, then it is now necessary to put up at the minimum a physical barrier such as a door, or a fence.
Also, there must be a warning sign on the fence every 10 feet, because it is standard practice for other enterprising young Poke players to simply jump a fence.....
However, this is no justification for not encrypting.
After all, you can send ENCRYPTED FILE plus FINGERPRINT+MESSAGE DIGEST OF ORIGINAL DECRYPTED FILE digitally signed.
Then you can have your audience copy the message digest And the decrypted file, and satisfy themselves that the decrypted file has the same message digest as the one calculated and sent alongside the original encryption process, and then verify the digital signature.....
No, I don't think there is any reason to hold a second vote at all.
I think they should hold a second vote whose subject is: "Make the outcome from the previous referendum Binding on parliament, and effective immediately Yes/No."
A "YES" vote is to make it binding on the government to immediately leave EU and repudiate/disavow all EU regulations and agreements immediately (List attached), no questions asked, a "NO" vote is to let the exit from the EU in a 'graceful' way over the next few years, as determined and legislated by parliament
Right.... decrypting does NOT compromise Integrity; so long as the decryption key used is correct AND the decryption method used is the exact reverse of the method originally used to encrypt.
# ls myfile.encrypted
# Cat/usr/local/FBI_Files/Other_File_To_Plant > myfile.decrypted
Does not count as proper decryption. If the decryption algorithm is "Insert spurious data here", then in that case, Integrity is compromised.
It is also not entrapment to hand you the tools to commit the crime, and it's also not entrapment to drive you to a location for the crime, hand you the tools, and pay you a lot of money to commit the crime.
Right.... that's not entrapment, that is conspiracy.
If a person offers you to do any of those 3 things after you come to agreement to commit a crime, their action is a furtherance of the crime, then that person is an accessory and conspirator to the crime, and just as guilty as you.....
The bomb was fake, so obviously he didn't attempt to kill Americans.
A fake device is still terrorism, because the fundamental purpose is still to cause people to fear for their life,
in order to chill their behavior or achieve political ends.
Because the scare from a fake threat will still disrupt law and order, and prevent the planned event
going forward.
Also, the motivation can still be the same..... disrupt Americans' culture, way of life, freedoms, by causing security backlash or additional constraints, etc.
So the people's opinion is final, set in stone, cannot ever be changed?
People's opinion can change over time, But a vote is a commitment.
test. Whether the people opinion has infact changed,
After the people have decided; it's NOT Ok to come back less than a month later and attempt to challenge them again, just because you didn't like the outcome of the peoples' decision.
then why are you so afraid of a second vote?
Because some people want another vote since they don't like the outcome, and they want another shot at trying political games, voter fraud, or other tactics to alter the result.
Your vote is a commitment.
Suppose Obama was elected into office in 2008. Do you think it is acceptable to entertain a petition 2 months later, to have a re-vote, incase the public decided they now like McCain better?
Sure there are hundreds of millions of signatures, from the camp supporting the candidate that the majority rejected.
Having an additional referendum is first of all a Fundamental DISREPECT for the voters' democratic choice.
They committed to a vote when they clicked the button in the polls..... and you now want to see if they could be persuaded to go against what they firmly affirmed just recently?
Second of all, this second guessing crap would be a waste of resources.
It's also Anti-Democratic...... What? The outcome of the vote IS final... Unless it disagrees with what I wanted? In that case, we need another vote.....?
Third of all.... there's no such thing as a "Non-binding vote of the public".
That sounds like someone saying "Well, here's a referendum.... I want you to vote this way... hint... hint.... If parliament disagrees with you, we will just ignore you...."
That would also be a blow to Democracy.
What Non-Binding really means, is The voters have spoken; However, the vote itself is not the act or bill, Parliament is now bound to come up with the act or bill and pass it into law to effectuate the results, And they have discretion on the manner to best do that.
So yes the people have spoken, they don't want to remain in the EU as it currently stands, but if suitable reforms were offered then another referendum would make sense - stay in the new reformed EU, or continue leaving.,
No... not "STAY" in the "Newly-reformed EU". Consider joining the newly-reformed EU later, after it can be thoroughly re-evaluated.
It's unlikely that some simple reforms would fix the EU, and what they "reformed" might be superficial, or the reforms might go away except when politically expedient to attempt to keep the UK in.
We might need a "reset", where ASIC is no longer viable, but I'm not sure that would still be possible.
You would need most of the Bitcoin users to agree.
I think you're talking about a hard fork here, because miners with an existing investment in ASICs are not going to support this.
Therefore, you need a new community of miners (with no ASICs), and the rest of the public choosing the new fork and abandoning the fork supported by the current crop of miners.
Slashdot Mirror
McDonald's may choose to start blocking VPNs
And just like trying to block websites, there will be a wide berth of false positives frustrating thousands of patrons who weren't even trying to look at porn, but a website they wanted is blocked spuriously by the tool.
Meanwhile.... the people who were targeting McDonalds for their porn-watching needs, can just continue to watch porn by popping a DVD in their laptop, or playing the file they pre-downloaded while they were at home.
The 1% of folks who are McDonalds porn aficionados can also still view porn at McDonalds by accessing the sites through your cellular data.
Also, if the restaurant tried to block cellular data or Personal WiFi hotspots, that would actually be illegal, and they could be fined billions of $$$ by the FCC.
How about undetectable modifications, such as a bit of code injected into BIOS firmware designed to target the Windows 10 installer or bootloader and trigger a reboot once detected, or slowdown, so the install process times out or takes longer than 8 hours?
It's not deleted.... it is made unavailable for view by mortals. The author can rest easy knowing that the advertisers will have access to the analysis of the data for decades to come.
I can and am allowed to drive 35MPH when there are pedestrians on a sidewalk. But, I can't predict that one of them will just step out
Hold it right there, there is no legal right to drive a particular speed. Are you allowed? Did you check the law? What tells you that you are allowed? Note that officials approving of an activity or not enforcing 100% of the rules does not make an action legal or safe.
If an action you take (Such as driving 35) might have consequences, then that action was Not really allowed.
Prohibiting you from crashing into pedestrians, means that you are forbidden from taking any series of actions which are likely to have that consequence.
That means you may NOT be allowed to drive 35, even if it is not a specific traffic rule that is directly prohibiting it. There are things called Actions prohibited through indirect means. You are required to Drive Safely, and this means you are legally prohibited from doing certain things and legally required to do certain other things which are not explicitly spelled out in the text of the law.
So this game is inconveniencing drivers who are no longer allowed to drive 35, I understand that..... But it's not true that you're "Allowed to drive 35", if there is a likelihood that a pedestrian will go out in front of you too quickly for you to avoid hitting them.
The law certainly does not say you have the right to drive 35MPH when there are pedestrians on the sidewalk. If the sidewalk is close to the road, then you may be legally required to slow down, when you see someone on the sidewalk.
In general: you are allowed to drive the speed limit subject to conditions; conditions include not just the weather, but everything about the environment.
If the sidewalk is so close to the road that somebody can step out quickly, And, someone is there, then it might not be safe or legal for you to drive that full speed.
Roving Radiofrequency Interference source; We need to get a FCC rule limiting such mobile Cell stations to 1.5 Watts PEP transmitter power......
Technically it does because from the human jurists point of view. Data goes into magic decryption box and data comes out of magic decryption box and the data is different
Same deal with any lab test or forensic data extraction, even if the data is not encrypted.
You need multiple independent cryptoforensic experts or experts working for both defense and prosecution to Testify under oath that they've used the supplied/available keys to decrypt and/or extract the data, And the process used is sound.
Under penalty of perjury, they will confirm this is the decrypted version following all proper safeguards, using only the standard decryption algorithms, And they will fully disclose any level of uncertainty in the result of the process.......
I think the answer is no. You ought to be able to challenge them to a Duel or Pokébattle.
In previous Pokemon games, you could challenge other players to a Duel, and loser actually loses something, But, for some reason, there are no Player vs Player features in the mobile game.
You're right, I should magically know exactly where a person is going to appear out of nowhere with enough time to apply the brakes
People do not materialize out of nowhere for you to possibly hit.
The speed you are to drive is limited by AS CONDITIONS ALLOW.
Conditions do not allow you to drive so fast that you will not be able to stop within the same moment someone "appears out of nowhere"
If visibility to the sides and front of the vehicle are limited, then it may be unsafe for you to be driving more than 5mph, even if the speed limit on that road is 35.
There's no moving away to safe zone. You tap on the pokemon thats in private property from the public sidewalk.
Maybe. There literally are not many sidewalks around here; You're on the street, or in the ditches, or grass on the other side of the ditches by the streets. Not very pedestrian-friendly.
I still say there's no such thing as "Trespassing" by someone not paying attention to where they are. Trespassing requires the property owner to have taken substantial steps to isolate their land from the public land and wilderness. Including barriers, so it's not possible to "carelessly" wander through it.
Also, even if it's private property and setup to block access, You may be able to defeat barriers And enter in order to Pass Through that land when necessary to reach a destination on the other side, Or in order to retrieve some possession which is yours or that you Claim ownership or right to obtain ownership of (Such as a Pet who wandered over there, or Basketball that unintentionally rolled onto their property), even if that possession you are claiming is a virtual Pokemon in a game.
It would be best for them to create a capability for some areas to be marked as "No Go zones"
Then give certain members in the local area an ability to mark them.
Also, ideally, the actual Streets and roads should be marked as "No Play" areas
Just make them like 'Lava' that gradually drains HP if you are running the game in a moving vehicle, or while located on a road or street.
People have a right to their property, But if you intend to exclude others from it, then you need suitable notice, otherwise, people walking around are just exercising their natural-born right to explore the streets and unimproved areas, and simply pass through.
A sign on its own will no longer suffice, because people staring at their phones will not see it. If they wish to provide fair warning Pokemon players who are not paying attention, then it is now necessary to put up at the minimum a physical barrier such as a door, or a fence.
Also, there must be a warning sign on the fence every 10 feet, because it is standard practice for other enterprising young Poke players to simply jump a fence.....
However, this is no justification for not encrypting.
After all, you can send ENCRYPTED FILE plus FINGERPRINT+MESSAGE DIGEST OF ORIGINAL DECRYPTED FILE digitally signed.
Then you can have your audience copy the message digest And the decrypted file, and satisfy themselves that the decrypted file has the same message digest as the one calculated and sent alongside the original encryption process, and then verify the digital signature.....
No, I don't think there is any reason to hold a second vote at all.
I think they should hold a second vote whose subject is: "Make the outcome from the previous referendum Binding on parliament, and effective immediately Yes/No."
A "YES" vote is to make it binding on the government to immediately leave EU and repudiate/disavow all EU regulations and agreements immediately (List attached), no questions asked, a "NO" vote is to let the exit from the EU in a 'graceful' way over the next few years, as determined and legislated by parliament
Right.... decrypting does NOT compromise Integrity; so long as the decryption key used is correct AND the decryption method used is the exact reverse of the method originally used to encrypt.
# ls myfile.encrypted /usr/local/FBI_Files/Other_File_To_Plant > myfile.decrypted
# Cat
Does not count as proper decryption. If the decryption algorithm is "Insert spurious data here", then in that case, Integrity is compromised.
Then how much time must there be between votes on the same subject?
There is no specific amount of time, but attempting to call another vote within a week is obviously a charade.
A reasonable amount of time for the government to act upon what was voted on.
That would be somewhere between 3 months and 2 years, depending on what the measure was.
What about the case when the government spends a year getting you into the state of mind where you say "yes"?
That is called brainwashing, and makes the gov't agent(s) partly guilty of the crime.
It is also not entrapment to hand you the tools to commit the crime, and it's also not entrapment to drive you to a location for the crime, hand you the tools, and pay you a lot of money to commit the crime.
Right.... that's not entrapment, that is conspiracy.
If a person offers you to do any of those 3 things after you come to agreement to commit a crime, their action is a furtherance of the crime, then that person is an accessory and conspirator to the crime, and just as guilty as you.....
The bomb was fake, so obviously he didn't attempt to kill Americans.
A fake device is still terrorism, because the fundamental purpose is still to cause people to fear for their life, in order to chill their behavior or achieve political ends. Because the scare from a fake threat will still disrupt law and order, and prevent the planned event going forward.
Also, the motivation can still be the same..... disrupt Americans' culture, way of life, freedoms, by causing security backlash or additional constraints, etc.
It's not going to happen, until companies stop purchasing their product and Enterprises with OracleDB ditch it to save $$$ on the licensing
So then this vote is invalid. The people of the UK already decided to join the UK by vote 30 years ago.
No.... it's OK to have a vote later to change or undo the actions completed due to a previous vote.
Not a week later though. There has not even yet been enough time to implement the decision made by the referendum.
So the people's opinion is final, set in stone, cannot ever be changed?
People's opinion can change over time, But a vote is a commitment.
test. Whether the people opinion has infact changed,
After the people have decided; it's NOT Ok to come back less than a month later and attempt to challenge them again, just because you didn't like the outcome of the peoples' decision.
then why are you so afraid of a second vote?
Because some people want another vote since they don't like the outcome, and they want another shot at trying political games, voter fraud, or other tactics to alter the result.
Your vote is a commitment.
Suppose Obama was elected into office in 2008. Do you think it is acceptable to entertain a petition 2 months later, to have a re-vote, incase the public decided they now like McCain better?
Sure there are hundreds of millions of signatures, from the camp supporting the candidate that the majority rejected.
Having an additional referendum is first of all a Fundamental DISREPECT for the voters' democratic choice. They committed to a vote when they clicked the button in the polls..... and you now want to see if they could be persuaded to go against what they firmly affirmed just recently?
Second of all, this second guessing crap would be a waste of resources.
It's also Anti-Democratic...... What? The outcome of the vote IS final... Unless it disagrees with what I wanted? In that case, we need another vote.....?
Third of all.... there's no such thing as a "Non-binding vote of the public". That sounds like someone saying "Well, here's a referendum.... I want you to vote this way... hint... hint.... If parliament disagrees with you, we will just ignore you...."
That would also be a blow to Democracy. What Non-Binding really means, is The voters have spoken; However, the vote itself is not the act or bill, Parliament is now bound to come up with the act or bill and pass it into law to effectuate the results, And they have discretion on the manner to best do that.
Nonsense.... there are more fraudulent signatures more likely than can ever be identified.
This is the problem with online surveys. Don't trust them. They cannot be relied upon.
Most of the sigs are going to be Bullshit drone signatures, not real people.
Regarding the people's choice for their sovereignty: simple majority is all that is needed, and once you have taken the vote, the matter is concluded.
The voters have had the final say, and there is no challenging a decision made by the voters.
Just because a vocal minority of petitioners would like to challenge the voters' final say, does not mean they should be allowed to do so.
So yes the people have spoken, they don't want to remain in the EU as it currently stands, but if suitable reforms were offered then another referendum would make sense - stay in the new reformed EU, or continue leaving.,
No... not "STAY" in the "Newly-reformed EU". Consider joining the newly-reformed EU later, after it can be thoroughly re-evaluated.
It's unlikely that some simple reforms would fix the EU, and what they "reformed" might be superficial, or the reforms might go away except when politically expedient to attempt to keep the UK in.
We might need a "reset", where ASIC is no longer viable, but I'm not sure that would still be possible.
You would need most of the Bitcoin users to agree.
I think you're talking about a hard fork here, because miners with an existing investment in ASICs are not going to support this.
Therefore, you need a new community of miners (with no ASICs), and the rest of the public choosing the new fork and abandoning the fork supported by the current crop of miners.