The fact that he can't sue wikipedia is definitely a problem, and a loophole in the current legal system.
He can't sue Wikipedia for libel, which is normal in my opinion. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia can't be subpoenaed for the offending user's information, nor does it mean that they can't be sued if they don't remove libelous text from their site of their own free will. (Which they did in this case.) Since they seem to be cooperating, what do you think they should be sued for? You might be a little over-litigious...
But, if the police make a habit of accepting evidence in such a manner, then does it not "encourage" people to offer evidence? If you stand there with arms open,is it not a form of 'request' for someone to hug you?
First off, the police are not accepting the evidence, the courts are. And if, at the request of the offended party, law enforcement prosecutes the source of the evidence for B&E or hacking, as they should and often do, then they are, in fact, discouraging this kind of behavior. (Which is good.)
People generally only do this if they're desperate and the police are powerless to help. The guy in this case was an idiot and I hope he gets his hand firmly slapped. He sure won't get hired in the information security industry with that rep. Unethical hacking and disclosure of private information is very badly seen by our customers.
Remember, until now people could get into Canada even having done bad things.
Two arguments: One - No they legally couldn't. The laws were always there, they just had no way of being enforced. You're still not supposed to lie to immigration. Two - They can still get in now, they just have to contact the Canadian embassy ahead of time (like they always should have) and ask for dispensation. If the offense was relatively minor or took place long ago, I'm sure they'll get permission to at least visit the country, if not immigrate here permanently. In your opinion, who's better situated than the federal government to enforce border control, if such control is needed? (Which it is, at least to a minimal degree, if only to keep the USA quiet.)
I live next to a Canadian border. Believe me, U.S. Customs/DHS turns people away.
I'm with you so far. I lived on the Canadian side of the US-Canada border for a long while, and had a job where we had to travel to the states often. People get turned back all the time, even without criminal records.
A friend of mine is a permanent U.S. resident, but is not a U.S. citizen.
So, green card then? Or American-Indian status? Aren't any other PERMANENT visa types that I'm aware of...
He was born in Canada. But, he's not a Canadian citizen either as he was born on a Native American reservation in Canada.
Now that just doesn't make any sense. If he was born in Canada, Indian or not, he's a Canadian citizen. Canadians are even allowed dual citizenship! Plus, if he has Aboriginal status, which requires more than just being born on a reservation, then he has rights to freely cross the US-Canada border in any direction and immigration & customs on either side can't do shit to stop him, as long as he has his Aboriginal ID with him. Otherwise, according to you, he had a green card because of him permanent resident status. So, isn't this just a question of someone trying to cross the border without ID (never a good idea) rather than some ridiculous citizenship issue?
IANAL but most Law and Order eps actually make the point that all evidence gathered on the basis of unlawfully obtained evidence (so even a search warrant based on those things) can be thrown out in a court case.
IAANAL, but from my understanding, those laws only apply to the government and law enforcement agencies. As long as the police can show that they in no way requested or encouraged this private individual to make these searches on their behalf, then the hacker is not an agent of the police and the evidence is admissible. That also means that the hacker is probably still civilly and possibly criminally liable for the illegal "virtual breaking and entering" that he committed. Jurisdictional issues here though...
I think he means that it's impossible for someone to scan your retina without your knowledge, those types of scans are way too "up close and personal" for that. What we're talking about here is iris scanning, which is completely different and harmless. It's basically just a high-res, possibly long-range, photo of your Iris. (Colored portion of your eye.)
The website seemed pretty clear to me. Right under the login section is a line that says "Where do I enter my passcode?" Clicking on it reveals the text:
It seems to me that this text IS lacking in details. If you already know what phishing is, you'll understand the text from the start, but most people don't really understand what phishing is or how it's performed, so I doubt they'll really understand what BofA is trying to accomplish with this system, and therefore disregard it.
So what happens when your primary MX goes down for real, which is when your secondary MX should be receiving mail, because your primary is unavailable?
Even if the server was down, you'd still see the "knock" on the primary server's port through the firewall logs, so the process would keep on working...
No, "near" or "almost" implies that there is still a chance to bring them back. In this case, the gene pool is aparently too small to do that. That's what "functionally extinct" means.
Indeed, I consider the "it's not literal" excuse to be a lame cop-out where Genesis chapter one is concerned: it's tantamount to saying "I'll interpret the text any which way I please without even paying lip service to textual analysis".
Funny, I consider it a good thing. I was raised catholic but am agnostic now and the only time I can abide the multitude of religious people around me is when they start using their own judgement rather than just accepting dogma at face value. I may not agree, but I can live with that!
So, under your definition, George Washington and the American revolutionary army could not qualify as freedom fighters since they did not rely solely on diplomatic measures and took up arms, right? Yet, no one can deny that they were fighting for the freedom of themselves and others. I personally don't think they were terrorists, but I can see how the Brits might have seen them that way...
Is that the point you were trying to make? I think your chosen distinction between the two concepts puts the Taliban and the American revolutionary army in the same boat, and I don't think that's necessarily fair to the Americans.
Autism is not a binary condition. There is a range of disorders called Autism Spectrum Disorders that range from Asperger's Syndrome to the low-functioning Autism that you cover.
Though what you say is absolutely true, it may just indicate how little we understand these syndromes.
The fact is that, like most mental/neurological disorders, we don't much understand the underlying causes of these syndromes. It may be that what we lump together as Autism, or ADD, etc, may in fact be a whole host of distinct disorders. And while TV may affect one, it won't necessarily affect them all. The fact that EXCESSIVE TV watching at a young age may cause or exacerbate social maladjustment seems obvious to me, but calling that maladjustment "Autism" paints the wrong picture in society's mind, because I doubt that they mean Rain-man type Autism, but that's what most of us think when we hear the word.
All long distance runs are single mode, which are too narrow to allow bouncing.
Well,
After reading wikipedia's page on the refractive index , it's clear that the explanation is more complex than the bouncing around that I described. (Though the page doesn't seem to clearly explain what causes the refractive index.)
However, since a run of fibre, single-mode or otherwise, can't possibly be perfectly straight, and given that light doesn't bend except by refraction or by gravity, I don't see how it's possible that the signal in a fibre can follow the bends in that fibre without bouncing around. Do you have a reference for this claim?
In any case, we have at least reached a consensus that the OP's claim that light in an optical fibre travels at c is false. This only happens in a vaccum.
The point was to have been that whatever sentencing they are doing
for murderers seems to be working, if the reoffence rate is 5%.
I don't know about that... To be sure, we'd have to know the reoffense rate of murderers that were never caught or convicted. Might be it's not that much higher, because most people don't encounter occasions that they feel warrants taking a human life more than once in a lifetime.
I don't see anything in there about acronyms. This rule deosn't apply! (Letters from the alphabet clearly means individual letters, otherwise the rule would apply to all words!)
However, light travels down a fiber optic cable at, unsurprisingly, the speed of light. This can be anywhere up to 3x faster than a signal moving down a conductive cable, depending on the properties of the fiber and the cable.
Uhhh, no it does not! Because of the bends in the fibre, and the fact not much can bend light other than a significant gravity well, the light tends to bounce around and be reflected in the fibre. Net result is that light also travels at a fraction of c in such a medium.
I also can't substantiate it now, but I remember a physics prof telling me that it boils down to almost the same speed as electricity through copper, which I seem to remember being roughly 0.66c (fibre was 0.7 I think...)
Atheism is a belief system, not a 'non-belief' system.
Care to back that up? Both Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia state that Atheism CAN be a strong belief that no god exists, but it certainly doesn't have to be, it can simply be non-belief in any deity. Your personnal definition isn't the only correct one so you shouldn't pass it off as such. And those that subscribe to the non-belief aspect certainly don't feel that it amounts to apathy or ignorance...
Why would it be apathy to not force any preconceived beliefs down your child's throat? You can still giude them in choosing their own path. Anyway, everybody thinks that belief in something other than their own personnal belief is ignorance. It's humain nature.
It's their explanation, not mine. Besides, I think they wanted animated key icons to be a selling point, which certainly falls into the "Ooo shiny!" category. Though you have to admit, if it works, it's pretty cool!
Though, they could just be stupid and really mean 'encodes'. Maybe they mean lossless..? I'm sort of dumb and always just think of lossless compression as encoding.
Generally speaking, if you're that self-aware, you can't be that dumb. In this case though, there's no good reason to equate encoding to lossless compression. Encoding just means you scamble the signal. Lossless compression entails, well, "compression": The stream will contain more data than it currently occupies in the medium. There IS such a thing as lossless compression, it's not all necessarily lossy. After all, if you compress a Word file into a.zip and then decompress it, notice it didn't magically lose letters, nor did your grammar degrade in quality.;-)
Actually, in the context of linking multiple graphics cards, I'm pretty sure SLI stands for "Scan-Line Interleave". It's a technology they inherited in the 3Dfx buyout.
Slashdot Mirror
He can't sue Wikipedia for libel, which is normal in my opinion. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia can't be subpoenaed for the offending user's information, nor does it mean that they can't be sued if they don't remove libelous text from their site of their own free will. (Which they did in this case.) Since they seem to be cooperating, what do you think they should be sued for? You might be a little over-litigious...
First off, the police are not accepting the evidence, the courts are. And if, at the request of the offended party, law enforcement prosecutes the source of the evidence for B&E or hacking, as they should and often do, then they are, in fact, discouraging this kind of behavior. (Which is good.)
People generally only do this if they're desperate and the police are powerless to help. The guy in this case was an idiot and I hope he gets his hand firmly slapped. He sure won't get hired in the information security industry with that rep. Unethical hacking and disclosure of private information is very badly seen by our customers.
Two arguments: One - No they legally couldn't. The laws were always there, they just had no way of being enforced. You're still not supposed to lie to immigration. Two - They can still get in now, they just have to contact the Canadian embassy ahead of time (like they always should have) and ask for dispensation. If the offense was relatively minor or took place long ago, I'm sure they'll get permission to at least visit the country, if not immigrate here permanently. In your opinion, who's better situated than the federal government to enforce border control, if such control is needed? (Which it is, at least to a minimal degree, if only to keep the USA quiet.)
I'm with you so far. I lived on the Canadian side of the US-Canada border for a long while, and had a job where we had to travel to the states often. People get turned back all the time, even without criminal records.
So, green card then? Or American-Indian status? Aren't any other PERMANENT visa types that I'm aware of...
Now that just doesn't make any sense. If he was born in Canada, Indian or not, he's a Canadian citizen. Canadians are even allowed dual citizenship! Plus, if he has Aboriginal status, which requires more than just being born on a reservation, then he has rights to freely cross the US-Canada border in any direction and immigration & customs on either side can't do shit to stop him, as long as he has his Aboriginal ID with him. Otherwise, according to you, he had a green card because of him permanent resident status. So, isn't this just a question of someone trying to cross the border without ID (never a good idea) rather than some ridiculous citizenship issue?
IAANAL, but from my understanding, those laws only apply to the government and law enforcement agencies. As long as the police can show that they in no way requested or encouraged this private individual to make these searches on their behalf, then the hacker is not an agent of the police and the evidence is admissible. That also means that the hacker is probably still civilly and possibly criminally liable for the illegal "virtual breaking and entering" that he committed. Jurisdictional issues here though...
I think he means that it's impossible for someone to scan your retina without your knowledge, those types of scans are way too "up close and personal" for that. What we're talking about here is iris scanning, which is completely different and harmless. It's basically just a high-res, possibly long-range, photo of your Iris. (Colored portion of your eye.)
It seems to me that this text IS lacking in details. If you already know what phishing is, you'll understand the text from the start, but most people don't really understand what phishing is or how it's performed, so I doubt they'll really understand what BofA is trying to accomplish with this system, and therefore disregard it.
But where's your source that says that the 30K annually reported gun crimes in the US include suicides?
Obviously! None of them have been plugged in for 20 years! ;-)
No, "near" or "almost" implies that there is still a chance to bring them back. In this case, the gene pool is aparently too small to do that. That's what "functionally extinct" means.
So, under your definition, George Washington and the American revolutionary army could not qualify as freedom fighters since they did not rely solely on diplomatic measures and took up arms, right? Yet, no one can deny that they were fighting for the freedom of themselves and others. I personally don't think they were terrorists, but I can see how the Brits might have seen them that way...
Is that the point you were trying to make? I think your chosen distinction between the two concepts puts the Taliban and the American revolutionary army in the same boat, and I don't think that's necessarily fair to the Americans.
Uh, no! That was the Spanish flu, Influenza A virus strain H1N1. Bird flu is H5N1.
Though what you say is absolutely true, it may just indicate how little we understand these syndromes.
The fact is that, like most mental/neurological disorders, we don't much understand the underlying causes of these syndromes. It may be that what we lump together as Autism, or ADD, etc, may in fact be a whole host of distinct disorders. And while TV may affect one, it won't necessarily affect them all. The fact that EXCESSIVE TV watching at a young age may cause or exacerbate social maladjustment seems obvious to me, but calling that maladjustment "Autism" paints the wrong picture in society's mind, because I doubt that they mean Rain-man type Autism, but that's what most of us think when we hear the word.
Well,
After reading wikipedia's page on the refractive index , it's clear that the explanation is more complex than the bouncing around that I described. (Though the page doesn't seem to clearly explain what causes the refractive index.)
However, since a run of fibre, single-mode or otherwise, can't possibly be perfectly straight, and given that light doesn't bend except by refraction or by gravity, I don't see how it's possible that the signal in a fibre can follow the bends in that fibre without bouncing around. Do you have a reference for this claim?
In any case, we have at least reached a consensus that the OP's claim that light in an optical fibre travels at c is false. This only happens in a vaccum.
I don't know about that... To be sure, we'd have to know the reoffense rate of murderers that were never caught or convicted. Might be it's not that much higher, because most people don't encounter occasions that they feel warrants taking a human life more than once in a lifetime.
I don't see anything in there about acronyms. This rule deosn't apply! (Letters from the alphabet clearly means individual letters, otherwise the rule would apply to all words!)
Uhhh, no it does not! Because of the bends in the fibre, and the fact not much can bend light other than a significant gravity well, the light tends to bounce around and be reflected in the fibre. Net result is that light also travels at a fraction of c in such a medium.
I also can't substantiate it now, but I remember a physics prof telling me that it boils down to almost the same speed as electricity through copper, which I seem to remember being roughly 0.66c (fibre was 0.7 I think...)
Care to back that up? Both Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia state that Atheism CAN be a strong belief that no god exists, but it certainly doesn't have to be, it can simply be non-belief in any deity. Your personnal definition isn't the only correct one so you shouldn't pass it off as such. And those that subscribe to the non-belief aspect certainly don't feel that it amounts to apathy or ignorance...
Why would it be apathy to not force any preconceived beliefs down your child's throat? You can still giude them in choosing their own path. Anyway, everybody thinks that belief in something other than their own personnal belief is ignorance. It's humain nature.
It's their explanation, not mine. Besides, I think they wanted animated key icons to be a selling point, which certainly falls into the "Ooo shiny!" category. Though you have to admit, if it works, it's pretty cool!
If I remember correctly their FAQ states that, rather than color, they chose OLED over e-paper because current e-paper technology is way too slow.
Generally speaking, if you're that self-aware, you can't be that dumb. In this case though, there's no good reason to equate encoding to lossless compression. Encoding just means you scamble the signal. Lossless compression entails, well, "compression": The stream will contain more data than it currently occupies in the medium. There IS such a thing as lossless compression, it's not all necessarily lossy. After all, if you compress a Word file into a .zip and then decompress it, notice it didn't magically lose letters, nor did your grammar degrade in quality. ;-)
My mistake... Man, why couldn't you have posted this before I started composing my post? ;-)
Actually, in the context of linking multiple graphics cards, I'm pretty sure SLI stands for "Scan-Line Interleave". It's a technology they inherited in the 3Dfx buyout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scan-Line_Interleave