Just because there's a situation where it doesn't work doesn't make it useless.
And I don't know about you, but none of my friends know all of my friends.
They don't care too much about that. They'll lose a potential cash cow. They've had to abandon that anyway. It's not like they're going to have any loyalty to the media cartels.
It looks like ACS:Law may well be considered to be behaving unethically. This seems to actually be a serious matter in English law.
Pictures of those have been available for years. So perhaps they used the images as a starting point. Would save plenty of development time since they now know roughly what a stealth plane should look like. Getting hold of Lockheed publicity material hardly counts as espionage.
But even if it doesn't, you could simply use a non-encrypted proxy site and assume that most users won't care that ther's apparently no secure connection.
Inform the user that their password is very likely compromised. Leave it up to the user to change it. They could even deliberately force the user to change their password via an email link.
AICN is a rumour site. It gets a lot of news pretty early but it's not about accuracy.
It may be completely made up. If it's not, all we have is a script. If they do decide they want to make this film, Keanu needs to be available. Even then, thousands of things could happen to prevent the film from being made.
It could happen but don't hold your breath over a rumour of an initial concept for a movie.
Technically, that may be true, but the police (and, for that matter, most people employed in the public sector) in the UK have developed a remarkable way of avoiding criminal liability for these things.
Agreed.
But while this does indicate that the law should be changed, I think the suggestion presented would be a very wrong change and possibly even a turn for the worse. Certainly encouraging criminal behaviour should be a crime. I have no problem with a police officer going along with preparation for a crime for sufficient time as to acquire evidence to both prevent the crime and charge those responsible for conspiracy to commit a crime. I'm sure there are more complex situations (for example committing a minor crime in the process of planning a major crime, or just enabling the crime) that a simple rule like this couldn't posibly cover.
Well, a lot of organiations don't have a problem with police infiltrators. Their politics may be extreme but many of them stay well within the law. A police informant has a lot more time to spend helping with the campaigning because he doesn't have the inconvenience of needing to find a job to supprt himself. They have a full-timer paid for by the police.
What sort of guarentee can you offer that it will be adequately destroyed?
This is the problem. They want to be absolutely sure that nobody can get hold of the disk drives and extract the data. At least that's what I'm guessing.
Really they could just shoove the computers in some dark area of Whitehall and nobody will touch them.
Not everyone reads every twitter or is friends with the guy on facebook. Not everyone will see the youTube clip (which can be taken down quickly anyway). Even if they do it's not going to stop them from watching the show.
Once you show a show to 400 people, the cat's out of the bag. Any one of them might know or even be a TV journalist.
They're at about 1000km altitude, so straight-up distance adds about 3.3ms. Geostationary gives about 120ms (up to about 240ms apparently, of you're further around the planet). If you're right below a satelite and next door to a ground station, that will be 6.6ms delay. Except you won't be. The satelite typically cover 7 million square miles. Assuming a circle, that's a radius of 1500 miles or so. Pythagoras gives us a travelling distance of 1600 miles or 2600km, which gives 8.5ms. We need to get back to the ground station, so worst case is probably the same. Worst case total delay 17ms plus whatever latency there is on the rest of the connection.
So I make it between 6.6ms and 17ms latency for LEO compared with 250ms for Geostationary. This is quite naive but probably the right ballpark.
I mean work for JPL rather than another company. Someone with the smarts to work at JPL shouldn't have a lot of trouble getting a job at another tech company, most likely for more pay.
And you'd be (sort of) right. In 2009 more singles were sold in the UK than albums (source), although this does still represent more income from albums.
Still, the single is making a comeback, most probably due to singles being convenient for download, but impractical for a CD. Vinyl could be stacked. mp3s can be sorted in all sorts of ways. CD singles need to keep being changed.
Lets see - the Police are able to search your phone. There's absolutely no guarentee that the government is going to respect that right. You have some data you want to keep away from the governmnet for whatever reason.
Your options are: Rely on the "right" that you allegedly have but the government doesn't respect.
Prevent the government from getting hold of it in the first place.
I'm going to do the second of these. You can try the first, and complain self righteously when your rights are violated, but I'll be the one who hasn't had his rights violated.
Who has the most to lose from this right being violated? Who has the most to gain? Who do you trust most to preserve this right? In practice, whose responsibility is it to preserve this right?
Slashdot Mirror
Just because there's a situation where it doesn't work doesn't make it useless. And I don't know about you, but none of my friends know all of my friends.
Why is this a bad thing? Their readers just want the stories. They don't care about how they got them as long as they stories are true.
Not as easy to get hold of bullets in Britain though.
They don't care too much about that. They'll lose a potential cash cow. They've had to abandon that anyway. It's not like they're going to have any loyalty to the media cartels.
It looks like ACS:Law may well be considered to be behaving unethically. This seems to actually be a serious matter in English law.
Pictures of those have been available for years. So perhaps they used the images as a starting point. Would save plenty of development time since they now know roughly what a stealth plane should look like. Getting hold of Lockheed publicity material hardly counts as espionage.
You won't get locked up in China for leaking US Embassy memos either, so it's not really a fair comparison.
Well, I'm sure he considered those to be essential attributes for an emperor. Possibly slightly less so for his generals.
The new Chinese J20 fighter reported recently is based on features found on much later US and Russian designs,
Like what, and how do we know? Surely all we know right now is what it looks like.
He may have used some old equipment that had a different radar freq, but he also got lucky that Political stupidity played a major role
Rumour has it that Napoleon considered "luck" to be a very useful personal attribute:)
But even if it doesn't, you could simply use a non-encrypted proxy site and assume that most users won't care that ther's apparently no secure connection.
Inform the user that their password is very likely compromised. Leave it up to the user to change it. They could even deliberately force the user to change their password via an email link.
AICN is a rumour site. It gets a lot of news pretty early but it's not about accuracy.
It may be completely made up. If it's not, all we have is a script. If they do decide they want to make this film, Keanu needs to be available. Even then, thousands of things could happen to prevent the film from being made.
It could happen but don't hold your breath over a rumour of an initial concept for a movie.
Technically, that may be true, but the police (and, for that matter, most people employed in the public sector) in the UK have developed a remarkable way of avoiding criminal liability for these things.
Agreed.
But while this does indicate that the law should be changed, I think the suggestion presented would be a very wrong change and possibly even a turn for the worse. Certainly encouraging criminal behaviour should be a crime. I have no problem with a police officer going along with preparation for a crime for sufficient time as to acquire evidence to both prevent the crime and charge those responsible for conspiracy to commit a crime. I'm sure there are more complex situations (for example committing a minor crime in the process of planning a major crime, or just enabling the crime) that a simple rule like this couldn't posibly cover.
Well, a lot of organiations don't have a problem with police infiltrators. Their politics may be extreme but many of them stay well within the law. A police informant has a lot more time to spend helping with the campaigning because he doesn't have the inconvenience of needing to find a job to supprt himself. They have a full-timer paid for by the police.
:)
I will admit that I was thinking about that episode when I wrote that comment.
What sort of guarentee can you offer that it will be adequately destroyed?
This is the problem. They want to be absolutely sure that nobody can get hold of the disk drives and extract the data. At least that's what I'm guessing.
Really they could just shoove the computers in some dark area of Whitehall and nobody will touch them.
WWF has quite a wide demographic. Once you realise it's improvisational theatre and not sport, it suddenly becomes a lot more entertaining.
Not everyone reads every twitter or is friends with the guy on facebook. Not everyone will see the youTube clip (which can be taken down quickly anyway). Even if they do it's not going to stop them from watching the show.
Once you show a show to 400 people, the cat's out of the bag. Any one of them might know or even be a TV journalist.
They're at about 1000km altitude, so straight-up distance adds about 3.3ms. Geostationary gives about 120ms (up to about 240ms apparently, of you're further around the planet). If you're right below a satelite and next door to a ground station, that will be 6.6ms delay. Except you won't be. The satelite typically cover 7 million square miles. Assuming a circle, that's a radius of 1500 miles or so. Pythagoras gives us a travelling distance of 1600 miles or 2600km, which gives 8.5ms. We need to get back to the ground station, so worst case is probably the same. Worst case total delay 17ms plus whatever latency there is on the rest of the connection.
So I make it between 6.6ms and 17ms latency for LEO compared with 250ms for Geostationary. This is quite naive but probably the right ballpark.
I mean work for JPL rather than another company. Someone with the smarts to work at JPL shouldn't have a lot of trouble getting a job at another tech company, most likely for more pay.
They're smart guys. They don't have to work for JPL. They do so because the really like to.
I'm sure COMAC would be delighted to hire any one of these guys for blue sky research.
And you'd be (sort of) right. In 2009 more singles were sold in the UK than albums (source), although this does still represent more income from albums.
Still, the single is making a comeback, most probably due to singles being convenient for download, but impractical for a CD. Vinyl could be stacked. mp3s can be sorted in all sorts of ways. CD singles need to keep being changed.
Ah right. I should probably pay more attention to the start of a conversation:)
Lets see - the Police are able to search your phone. There's absolutely no guarentee that the government is going to respect that right. You have some data you want to keep away from the governmnet for whatever reason.
Your options are:
Rely on the "right" that you allegedly have but the government doesn't respect.
Prevent the government from getting hold of it in the first place.
I'm going to do the second of these. You can try the first, and complain self righteously when your rights are violated, but I'll be the one who hasn't had his rights violated.
Who has the most to lose from this right being violated? Who has the most to gain? Who do you trust most to preserve this right? In practice, whose responsibility is it to preserve this right?
I didn't mention crime.
Your privacy is your responsibility. Whether it should be or not, the fact is it's up to you to preserve it.