90 days is an extremely long time to hold someone when you have no evidence they've done something and they will often prove to be not guilty. Lots of people are picked up for a day or so then released and might be held for longer because of this.
The encryption problem means you can't really rely on cracking the data. Attempt yes, but you can't fall back onto it as your sole means of gaining evidence. Not only is a single comptuer file not going to do very well in court if it's your only evidence, but you're probably not going to get it.
Far better is to do what the intelligence services always have: When you suspect someone, then follow them. If their innocent you'll see that. If they're guilty, you'll see that, gain evidence and find the other people they're meeting with too.
Exactly. This time was referring to habeas corpus.
Basically when Tony Blair came to power it was 7 days. He raised it to 14, now 28 but he still wants 90 days.
This is the period of time the police are legally allowed to hold you with no evidence whatsoever that you've done anything wrong, just because they suspect you might have. It's a period of time where the police can hold you while look for evidence. Once they find the smallest amount of evidence they can then charge you and then can keep looking for evidence.
This bill's meant to allow the police to break any encryption so that they would now be able to pick people up they suspect of terrorism and detain them until they've broken every encrypted file on their computer on the off chance that they'll find evidence that way when they can't find any other evidence whatsoever.
3 entire wasted months of your life dragged away from your job (which probably won't be there when you return) and your family while they break your PGP encrypted emails to your girlfriend on the off chance the two of you are discussing how to blow up parliament.
As an example: Check this story out. This journalist hadn't actually done anything, and they released him after a day. They did during that time confiscate his computer equipment. If this had been raised to 90 days it's entirely possible he'd have been held for 90 days while they decrypted anything they found on his hard drives.
After the 90 days are up they would still have released him. And they would not even have to explain why he'd been locked up, because he'd never been charged.
The bill has too major flaws.
1) There's nothing really to stop the power being abused by police who don't like the look of someone or have a grudge against them, which is exactly what it is designed to prevent. You do require the judges permission keep them for that long, but it's not too hard to create a case of why you suspect someone.
2) This odd 90 days which the Police told Tony Blair that they can break any encryption in. They can't - it's impossible! - There'll be multiple encrypted files, particularly if they are encrypting their communications (guilty or not guilty). Each one would need 90 days. - They'll not know the encryption algorithm in all cases, so would need to try every one. Each one would need 90 days. - There are HUNDREDS of encryption algorithms that use such large keys that you can't realistically expect to crack the password in 90 years, let alone 90 days. There are a few around that even with all the supercomputers in the world working it won't have tried every key before the universe ends. And it's still possible to take one and write your own with an even longer key. (The details of which would be secret so they couldn't crack it in the first place anyway).
I just accepted the parent poster's claim... I did think it seemed a few orders of magnitude off though.
What I said still stands though. Why not overkill because we may actually find a use for them in the future, rather than use a lower number of bits and find we do need them and have to upgrade everything a *second* time.
The move from IPv4 (v5?) to v6 would be much uglier if we're onto a galactic scale of upgrades.;)
It's certainly possible we'd need them with the ideas that keep going around of giving your fridge, oven, heating, toaster an IP and being able to access them remotely. Every person could need a few dozen IPs in that situation (although I realise NAT would be fine for that situation).
"- Having direct connections to the web for each terminal is more expensive than having them all behind the NAT" They'd all still go through a IPV6 Router replacing the NAT box. So you replace one piece of equipment, but the rest (LAN + computers) is identical.
"- You can't trust your employees to keep a secure environment" Then get one which only admins can configure.
"if we're going to have to find some new way to enlarge the address space, why not do it right?"
"You realize IPv6 has more IP's then there are atoms in the universe, right?"
Surely if we have more IPs than it is possible to need (unless for some reason you want to give them to individual particles, which I doubt) it's been done right as we'll *never* run out, instead of finding in 2100 we have to do this all over again?
Launching the craft. How much fuel would it take to get escape velocity on something this massive? Probably not a small amount.
20 ton spaceship. That's actually smaller than the Space Shuttle.
I can't remember the source now, but the Shuttle can lift about a 30ton payload. The boosters themselves can lift far more but of course have to carry the Shuttle too (which is something like 120tons).
The Saturn V rocket was capable of lifting 118 tonnes (with the 3 stage versions).
All seem plenty to lift a 20ton spaceship if it's the only thing being launched. Even with a Shuttle it should be doable, or we can have another up there waiting to deploy it or use the ISS team.
Since we're able to use existing launchers to get the spaceship into orbit, it shouldn't cost any more to launch than any existing mission. All your left with is the pricetag for building it and giving it enough fuel to reach the asteroid.
The crew. The time the crew would be away from earth would be how long? 10 years? 20 years? Managing and provisioning crews for such a long amount of time is probably among the major challenges facing the extension of our space travel abilities.
Coming home. What happens when a ship this large is re-entering Earth's atmosphere? That sucker will have a lot of force coming down.
Due to the distance it would have to travel a robotic mission remote controlled from Earth would make the most sense. Just in case anything breaks which isn't workaroundable/fixable it would probably make sense to send more than one.
In this case it'd be best to leave it out there - without enough fuel to return it'd be cheaper and without a crew to bring home there's no real reason to.
Shelf life. So we make a ginormous space tractor. Maybe we don't face an asteroid threat for 15,000 years. That's a lot of upkeep.
The launchers are already around, and it wouldn't take long to build a ship which is essentially a remote controlled engine with a lot of metal attached.
Assuming that we'd know of the threat in enough time to send this to the asteroid, as long as we still have the launchers to get it into space in the first place it shouldn't be unreasonable that we can build them as we need them.
If we don't have that kind of timescale then we're probably in trouble even if we could send it straight away. Since the launchers seem capable of lifting more than 20 tonnes though, we could just build a 40 tonne version and half the time we'd need (disclaimer: not linear, i think it'd be more like 3/4?).
I don't know if it's the same in the US, but in the UK BT has a legal requirement to make sure that the phone service continues to work in a blackout so that people can use the emergency services number (999).
To this end all the local exchanges have backup power, batteries, UPS, the works. Landline phones also don't need their own power supply, as this is supplied by the local exchange.
So far as I know the mobile networks don't have any such legal requirement, so they will probably cut some corners to save money.
We've got the basic human right of Freedom of Speech.
That's about it as far as I know (I could be wrong). We don't actually have a constitution as such. What we do have is a large number of acts and laws which have been build up over the centuries. Constitution of the United Kingdom One is the Human Rights Act (see above). I'm not sure if it's also covered in any of the acts though.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Yes, you may be a customer but you're still a customer. Real world example: hotels/b&bs, you're a customer but they still call you a "guest"
Just think of this as the editor's column. His thoughts on a topic, which just about any newspaper and a lot of magazines have.
Plus, it may be a personal rant but it does have wider implications. Online identities are starting to be things of value, and should be perhaps protected a litter better than this suggests. There's no way of complaining about a GM, and it seems some people exploit the rules to get people kicked off so they take over the name. Since it's the way his character is identified by other players and is a character he's built up over time it does have some value though.
Yes, but it'd be in the same way as step 1 - i.e. using "Lots of electricity. Really big amounts of electricity."
You wouldn't be able to do it in the car. It would be possible to send it to a recycling plant. It'd probably be slightly cheaper to recycle as you'd something that was 100% aluminium oxide, not small amounts surrounded by everything else in bauxite.
Proof that our brain's are capable of doing so: Idiot_savant
"Why autistic savants are capable of this sort of astonishing ability is not quite clear. Some savants have obvious neurological abnormalities, but the brains of most such individual savants are anatomically and physiologically normal; at least, there is no abnormality detectable by early 21st century science."
Perfectly normal brains... so it stands to reason that anyone has the ability but just hasn't tapped into it.
Simple. NanoTech for serious uses is still a way off. It won't occur overnight.
We'll get there by getting lots of little pieces of the puzzle. Eventually we'll have all the pieces and be able to use nano technology to do Cool Stuff(tm).
Taking from nature's example in most animals I imagine the best way would be to pump a fluid around containing the required materials. (i.e. like blood)
Slashdot Mirror
You're right... I should have phrased it that way.
They great thing about that argument is that there's no way to prove they won't, even if they're 100% innocent.
Ahhhhh... but in that case you're illegally distributing copies of the original CD. ;o)
Correction: *two major flaws
90 days is an extremely long time to hold someone when you have no evidence they've done something and they will often prove to be not guilty. Lots of people are picked up for a day or so then released and might be held for longer because of this.
The encryption problem means you can't really rely on cracking the data. Attempt yes, but you can't fall back onto it as your sole means of gaining evidence. Not only is a single comptuer file not going to do very well in court if it's your only evidence, but you're probably not going to get it.
Far better is to do what the intelligence services always have:
When you suspect someone, then follow them. If their innocent you'll see that. If they're guilty, you'll see that, gain evidence and find the other people they're meeting with too.
Exactly.
This time was referring to habeas corpus.
Basically when Tony Blair came to power it was 7 days. He raised it to 14, now 28 but he still wants 90 days.
This is the period of time the police are legally allowed to hold you with no evidence whatsoever that you've done anything wrong, just because they suspect you might have. It's a period of time where the police can hold you while look for evidence. Once they find the smallest amount of evidence they can then charge you and then can keep looking for evidence.
This bill's meant to allow the police to break any encryption so that they would now be able to pick people up they suspect of terrorism and detain them until they've broken every encrypted file on their computer on the off chance that they'll find evidence that way when they can't find any other evidence whatsoever.
3 entire wasted months of your life dragged away from your job (which probably won't be there when you return) and your family while they break your PGP encrypted emails to your girlfriend on the off chance the two of you are discussing how to blow up parliament.
As an example: Check this story out. This journalist hadn't actually done anything, and they released him after a day. They did during that time confiscate his computer equipment.
If this had been raised to 90 days it's entirely possible he'd have been held for 90 days while they decrypted anything they found on his hard drives.
After the 90 days are up they would still have released him. And they would not even have to explain why he'd been locked up, because he'd never been charged.
The bill has too major flaws.
1) There's nothing really to stop the power being abused by police who don't like the look of someone or have a grudge against them, which is exactly what it is designed to prevent. You do require the judges permission keep them for that long, but it's not too hard to create a case of why you suspect someone.
2) This odd 90 days which the Police told Tony Blair that they can break any encryption in. They can't - it's impossible!
- There'll be multiple encrypted files, particularly if they are encrypting their communications (guilty or not guilty). Each one would need 90 days.
- They'll not know the encryption algorithm in all cases, so would need to try every one. Each one would need 90 days.
- There are HUNDREDS of encryption algorithms that use such large keys that you can't realistically expect to crack the password in 90 years, let alone 90 days. There are a few around that even with all the supercomputers in the world working it won't have tried every key before the universe ends. And it's still possible to take one and write your own with an even longer key. (The details of which would be secret so they couldn't crack it in the first place anyway).
I just accepted the parent poster's claim... I did think it seemed a few orders of magnitude off though.
;)
What I said still stands though. Why not overkill because we may actually find a use for them in the future, rather than use a lower number of bits and find we do need them and have to upgrade everything a *second* time.
The move from IPv4 (v5?) to v6 would be much uglier if we're onto a galactic scale of upgrades.
It's certainly possible we'd need them with the ideas that keep going around of giving your fridge, oven, heating, toaster an IP and being able to access them remotely. Every person could need a few dozen IPs in that situation (although I realise NAT would be fine for that situation).
"- Having direct connections to the web for each terminal is more expensive than having them all behind the NAT"
They'd all still go through a IPV6 Router replacing the NAT box. So you replace one piece of equipment, but the rest (LAN + computers) is identical.
"- You can't trust your employees to keep a secure environment"
Then get one which only admins can configure.
"if we're going to have to find some new way to enlarge the address space, why not do it right?"
"You realize IPv6 has more IP's then there are atoms in the universe, right?"
Surely if we have more IPs than it is possible to need (unless for some reason you want to give them to individual particles, which I doubt) it's been done right as we'll *never* run out, instead of finding in 2100 we have to do this all over again?
Launching the craft. How much fuel would it take to get escape velocity on something this massive? Probably not a small amount.
20 ton spaceship. That's actually smaller than the Space Shuttle.
I can't remember the source now, but the Shuttle can lift about a 30ton payload. The boosters themselves can lift far more but of course have to carry the Shuttle too (which is something like 120tons).
The Saturn V rocket was capable of lifting 118 tonnes (with the 3 stage versions).
The Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle will have a capacity of 125 tonnes.
All seem plenty to lift a 20ton spaceship if it's the only thing being launched. Even with a Shuttle it should be doable, or we can have another up there waiting to deploy it or use the ISS team.
Since we're able to use existing launchers to get the spaceship into orbit, it shouldn't cost any more to launch than any existing mission. All your left with is the pricetag for building it and giving it enough fuel to reach the asteroid.
The crew. The time the crew would be away from earth would be how long? 10 years? 20 years? Managing and provisioning crews for such a long amount of time is probably among the major challenges facing the extension of our space travel abilities.
Coming home. What happens when a ship this large is re-entering Earth's atmosphere? That sucker will have a lot of force coming down.
Due to the distance it would have to travel a robotic mission remote controlled from Earth would make the most sense. Just in case anything breaks which isn't workaroundable/fixable it would probably make sense to send more than one.
In this case it'd be best to leave it out there - without enough fuel to return it'd be cheaper and without a crew to bring home there's no real reason to.
Shelf life. So we make a ginormous space tractor. Maybe we don't face an asteroid threat for 15,000 years. That's a lot of upkeep.
The launchers are already around, and it wouldn't take long to build a ship which is essentially a remote controlled engine with a lot of metal attached.
Assuming that we'd know of the threat in enough time to send this to the asteroid, as long as we still have the launchers to get it into space in the first place it shouldn't be unreasonable that we can build them as we need them.
If we don't have that kind of timescale then we're probably in trouble even if we could send it straight away. Since the launchers seem capable of lifting more than 20 tonnes though, we could just build a 40 tonne version and half the time we'd need (disclaimer: not linear, i think it'd be more like 3/4?).
The Moon Treaty wasn't signed by any of the space-faring countries though.
Not neccesarily.
It's an easier argument to make in court.
If they're then given the money to do it, then they may (hopefully) move onto the privacy arguments.
The reason being the sugar hits your system in one go, and is then gone. Bananas etc take longer to digest so it's a more gradual release.
Before. The clocks change at 1am.
I don't know if it's the same in the US, but in the UK BT has a legal requirement to make sure that the phone service continues to work in a blackout so that people can use the emergency services number (999).
To this end all the local exchanges have backup power, batteries, UPS, the works. Landline phones also don't need their own power supply, as this is supplied by the local exchange.
So far as I know the mobile networks don't have any such legal requirement, so they will probably cut some corners to save money.
We've got the basic human right of Freedom of Speech.
That's about it as far as I know (I could be wrong). We don't actually have a constitution as such. What we do have is a large number of acts and laws which have been build up over the centuries. Constitution of the United Kingdom One is the Human Rights Act (see above). I'm not sure if it's also covered in any of the acts though.
Buggered the link up:
"Alisa Viejo" dhmo
Better still it a ban on it almost became law in California.
"Alisa Viejo" dhmo
It's also extremely addictive.
Anyone who takes DHMO is 100% guaranteed to keep taking it until they die.
Hmm, must be tired.
2 corrections
"Yes, you may be a customer but you're still a guest."
"...perhaps protected a little better..."
The two are not mutually exclusive. Yes, you may be a customer but you're still a customer.
Real world example: hotels/b&bs, you're a customer but they still call you a "guest"
Just think of this as the editor's column. His thoughts on a topic, which just about any newspaper and a lot of magazines have.
Plus, it may be a personal rant but it does have wider implications. Online identities are starting to be things of value, and should be perhaps protected a litter better than this suggests. There's no way of complaining about a GM, and it seems some people exploit the rules to get people kicked off so they take over the name. Since it's the way his character is identified by other players and is a character he's built up over time it does have some value though.
As with most diseases, Cancer is more frequent the older you are, but still occurs in young people.
So not prevents... reduces the risk of, though.
Yes, but it'd be in the same way as step 1 - i.e. using "Lots of electricity. Really big amounts of electricity."
You wouldn't be able to do it in the car. It would be possible to send it to a recycling plant. It'd probably be slightly cheaper to recycle as you'd something that was 100% aluminium oxide, not small amounts surrounded by everything else in bauxite.
Proof that our brain's are capable of doing so:
Idiot_savant
"Why autistic savants are capable of this sort of astonishing ability is not quite clear. Some savants have obvious neurological abnormalities, but the brains of most such individual savants are anatomically and physiologically normal; at least, there is no abnormality detectable by early 21st century science."
Perfectly normal brains... so it stands to reason that anyone has the ability but just hasn't tapped into it.
Simple. NanoTech for serious uses is still a way off. It won't occur overnight.
We'll get there by getting lots of little pieces of the puzzle. Eventually we'll have all the pieces and be able to use nano technology to do Cool Stuff(tm).
This is just one piece of that puzzle.
Taking from nature's example in most animals I imagine the best way would be to pump a fluid around containing the required materials. (i.e. like blood)
My post was merely to point out that their website's front page says it is for use for calendars. :P