Usually people aren't referring to the city itself. Aside from a few landmarks (London Bridge, the Tower of London), most of the places and organisations associated with London are in Greater London.
For certain values of "sensitive"... You can't pick it up unaided. You also probably won't pick it up on a radio (unless you have one that can be tuned to the right frequency). The point is, it's something you actually have to look for. Loud noises you'll detect passively.
Presumably, you have the teenagers, the small time crooks and the foreign government hackers.
The small time crooks will go for smallish targets that have reasonable amounts of cash. They'll get noticed but aren't going to be a law enforcement priority. Even multi-million dollar companies don't have a lot of governmnet influence - you need to be valued in the billions for that.
The teenagers will go for the big corporations or the government because they can and they want to get noticed. Well, surprise surprise, they get noticed. The foreign governments will be noticed as well, but there's not a lot you can do. Other countries aren't going to hand their employees over to the US and the US isn't going to hand its employees over to other governments. So even if you're being DDOSed by teenagers you're not going to catch them. (sorry)
Yes, but universities aren't private institutions. And UK law can be quite specific when it comes to legal status of universities. Not sure whether this affects anything, but you can't draw conclusions based on the legal status of a typical privately owned establishment.
Quite so. You're quite right, but I'd argue that you've illustrated that the situation is at least a little more complicated than the original analogy suggested.
Honestly, It's not so much about the legality of it. It's the negative publicity. These things are illegal because people find them really really irritating. If you're trying to hawk holidays or something then you probably haven't heard of the company in the first place, so even if you go with someone else they haven't lost anything but for a candidate in an election, a vote for the another party is another vote they have to make up for elsewhere.
Yes, but if someone says London without specifying a state or nation, typically we assume that they mean the greater London area around the capital of the UK. It being a major financial centre, a major university town, one of the worlds largest 20 cities (with a population well in excess of every other London added together). The only typical exception being when you are in the general vicinity of another London.
Which part? It is the best selling newspaper in the UK, and has a strong effect on public opinion. I think that qualifies it as a "major" (I'll grant that some people may object to the term "news"-paper here but I don't think that was your point).
It's possible to detect private conversations from a considerable distance away using appropriate equipment. Is it acceptable to use this to listen in on conversations if they're not talking in code?
I'm not sure of your brakes analogy. If they fail to stop your car it isn't through the action of an outside agency. If you fail to lock your car doors, then whose fault is it if someone steals your radio?
It's about reasonable expectations. You can reasonably assume that someone nearby has an ear. Maybe even two. You can also reasonably assume that they will be able to hear you if youtalk at normal volume.
You would not normally be listening with an electronic listening and recording device, or a laser microphone (which simply detects publicly visible vibrations), or climbing a tree in a public area purely in order to see you naked in your back yard.
Likewise, you don't expect people to be arbitrarily scanning for wireless data.
If you're a mutant that can, without any additional equipment, detect wi-fi signals, then you shouldn't be prosecuted, but I'm sure that isn't a requirement for being hired by Google.
Even today it's used. GATSO cameras use radar to trigger but the setting used in the UK, they take two photographs and use road markings at known spacing to prove the car was speeding.
Personally I think this is a much better technique. It's easy to understand exactly how it works, and if you do travel 10m in 0.5 seconds then it's quite simple to demonstrate that you were travelling at approximately 45mph.
The Sun has no veracity. I seriously doubt there's any requirement to say "please". Am I accusing a major national newspaper of outright lying?
Yes.
However, what I do believe is that the overworked lab didn't agree with the doctor that these tests had to be done immediately. All doctors always insist that their tests are urgent (and I don't fault them for this) but the lab has to consider priorities.
Google and Amazon already have thousands of books scanned. All they would need is a photo of any _existing_ book page, do a ballpark OCR on it and fuzzy match the database.
I think this is a great idea! You don't even need a whole page. I did a quick search for the next sentence in the book I was reading, and got a single hit (which was for the book I was reading). Not sure what to do with this data once we have it but it's certainly technically very plausible.
The degree of proof is a lot lower in civil cases though. You just need to show that it's more likely than not that the defendant did infringe. An IP address that was allocated to that person was sharing that particular file, and that person's computer had a copy of the movie on it.
But a lot of the time you don't need that much juice. Any 3D hardware has the power to run something with the complexity of the original GLQuake, for example. Most game developers aren't after staggering graphical performance. They just need hardware that will draw a few textured objects.
Well, it's still a theory. The results could be explained by magic or amazingly improbable events happening. They're just stupidly implausible. Evolution is the best explanation we have and it's a pretty good one but like atomic theory, the theory of gravity, and various other chunks of science, it will always be a theory.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually people aren't referring to the city itself. Aside from a few landmarks (London Bridge, the Tower of London), most of the places and organisations associated with London are in Greater London.
For certain values of "sensitive"... You can't pick it up unaided. You also probably won't pick it up on a radio (unless you have one that can be tuned to the right frequency). The point is, it's something you actually have to look for. Loud noises you'll detect passively.
Presumably, you have the teenagers, the small time crooks and the foreign government hackers.
The small time crooks will go for smallish targets that have reasonable amounts of cash. They'll get noticed but aren't going to be a law enforcement priority. Even multi-million dollar companies don't have a lot of governmnet influence - you need to be valued in the billions for that.
The teenagers will go for the big corporations or the government because they can and they want to get noticed. Well, surprise surprise, they get noticed. The foreign governments will be noticed as well, but there's not a lot you can do. Other countries aren't going to hand their employees over to the US and the US isn't going to hand its employees over to other governments. So even if you're being DDOSed by teenagers you're not going to catch them. (sorry)
But if you need to use sensitive electronic equipment to even hear it, I don't think you'll have much of a basis for a noise complaint.
Yes, but universities aren't private institutions. And UK law can be quite specific when it comes to legal status of universities. Not sure whether this affects anything, but you can't draw conclusions based on the legal status of a typical privately owned establishment.
Quite so. You're quite right, but I'd argue that you've illustrated that the situation is at least a little more complicated than the original analogy suggested.
How stupid is she?
Honestly, It's not so much about the legality of it. It's the negative publicity. These things are illegal because people find them really really irritating. If you're trying to hawk holidays or something then you probably haven't heard of the company in the first place, so even if you go with someone else they haven't lost anything but for a candidate in an election, a vote for the another party is another vote they have to make up for elsewhere.
Yes, but if someone says London without specifying a state or nation, typically we assume that they mean the greater London area around the capital of the UK. It being a major financial centre, a major university town, one of the worlds largest 20 cities (with a population well in excess of every other London added together). The only typical exception being when you are in the general vicinity of another London.
Which part? It is the best selling newspaper in the UK, and has a strong effect on public opinion. I think that qualifies it as a "major" (I'll grant that some people may object to the term "news"-paper here but I don't think that was your point).
As for veracity, here's a website abut the sun's dishonesty.
It's possible to detect private conversations from a considerable distance away using appropriate equipment. Is it acceptable to use this to listen in on conversations if they're not talking in code?
I'm not sure of your brakes analogy. If they fail to stop your car it isn't through the action of an outside agency. If you fail to lock your car doors, then whose fault is it if someone steals your radio?
Well, I'd say it sounds more like a cross between twitter and a creepy stalker organisation, but maybe I'm over-sensitive.
It's about reasonable expectations. You can reasonably assume that someone nearby has an ear. Maybe even two. You can also reasonably assume that they will be able to hear you if youtalk at normal volume.
You would not normally be listening with an electronic listening and recording device, or a laser microphone (which simply detects publicly visible vibrations), or climbing a tree in a public area purely in order to see you naked in your back yard.
Likewise, you don't expect people to be arbitrarily scanning for wireless data.
If you're a mutant that can, without any additional equipment, detect wi-fi signals, then you shouldn't be prosecuted, but I'm sure that isn't a requirement for being hired by Google.
People got speeding tickets before radar guns, ya know.
Yes. They used stopwatches and known distances.
Even today it's used. GATSO cameras use radar to trigger but the setting used in the UK, they take two photographs and use road markings at known spacing to prove the car was speeding.
Personally I think this is a much better technique. It's easy to understand exactly how it works, and if you do travel 10m in 0.5 seconds then it's quite simple to demonstrate that you were travelling at approximately 45mph.
True, but Moore's law predicts a doubling every 18 months so his final result is correct even if his calculations are wrong.
So why did they do nothing to verify the story, whereas it took geekosystem - a relatively obscure site - actually did some basic investigation?
Doctors have no idea how busy lab staff can be, and they're short staffed on the weekends as well.
And I simply don't believe the bit about having to say "please". It's not true. The Sun lied (again).
The Sun has no veracity. I seriously doubt there's any requirement to say "please". Am I accusing a major national newspaper of outright lying?
Yes.
However, what I do believe is that the overworked lab didn't agree with the doctor that these tests had to be done immediately. All doctors always insist that their tests are urgent (and I don't fault them for this) but the lab has to consider priorities.
Google and Amazon already have thousands of books scanned. All they would need is a photo of any _existing_ book page, do a ballpark OCR on it and fuzzy match the database.
I think this is a great idea! You don't even need a whole page. I did a quick search for the next sentence in the book I was reading, and got a single hit (which was for the book I was reading). Not sure what to do with this data once we have it but it's certainly technically very plausible.
The degree of proof is a lot lower in civil cases though. You just need to show that it's more likely than not that the defendant did infringe. An IP address that was allocated to that person was sharing that particular file, and that person's computer had a copy of the movie on it.
Yes, but the offer is removed from the table as soon as you go public.
One factor is that most of the accused have actually committed copyright infringement. So even if they did defend themselves, they'd lose.
But a lot of the time you don't need that much juice. Any 3D hardware has the power to run something with the complexity of the original GLQuake, for example. Most game developers aren't after staggering graphical performance. They just need hardware that will draw a few textured objects.
Well, it's still a theory. The results could be explained by magic or amazingly improbable events happening. They're just stupidly implausible. Evolution is the best explanation we have and it's a pretty good one but like atomic theory, the theory of gravity, and various other chunks of science, it will always be a theory.
Don't know about the safety rating, but the SR8 is street legal.