But what about the real world of data centers where configurations are constantly changing and new data connections are being made. Seems like the applications are pretty limited.
FYI, DDO is still offering a "VIP" monthly subscription of $15. It gets you access to all the content, some nice bonuses (shared bank space, etc.) and 500 "Turbine Points" a month.
Not to mention, there are no "top player" rankings in DDO. Some players just suck, others don't.:)
"A new study by scientists at the Carnegie Mellon University shows that interference caused by mobile phones may create more interference to aircraft navigation systems than previously thought.
If true, the findings -- which also reveal that many passengers are flouting current in-flight cell phone bans -- could call into question airline plans to wire jets to accommodate mobile networks.
The Carnegie study, carried out with support from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, showed that phones and other portable electronic devices such as laptops or games consoles can interfere with critical aircraft electronics."
To the extent this theory is correct (and it does correctly account for several observed events - while conventional "Global Warming" theory does not) it will be a real inconvenient truth for many who have invested in the current consensus.
Maybe the lesson is not to treat a scientific theory like religion.
So its agreed the bill as drafted would have infringed free speech.
But regardless, how do you "rework" it to prohibit (?) "astroturf campaigners" (which I assume means those you don't agree with - but certainly not the "true" "grassroots" groups who do the same thing) without infringing on free speech?
The whole point of the 1st Amendments "free speech" clauses is that people have a right to attempt to influence the political process. That's what "petition the government for a redress of grievances" means. So short of bribery, leave the process alone.
Being/. it's claiming that it was a good provision because it was not really about targeting free speech, but rather about targeting a "tarnished" "backroom" "conservative." That being the goal, anything goes.
I'm confused. You accept that mail can/should be opened if it is reasonably believed to contain a weapon that can create imminent harm. That is exigent circumstances. That is the only basis (other than the statutory provisions relating to foreign intelligence situations) on which mail would be opened without a warrant.
And you apparently don't disagree that the ability to conduct such a warrantless search existed under prior law. Or if you do disagree with that you've failed to state why.
But you nonetheless believe that this signing statement "is just an excuse" to "extend Presidential power." Even though the executive branch had this power before? All that the signing statement did was set forth the fact that the new statute didn't change existing law permitting exigent circustances searches.
As I said, this is nothing more than another excuse to baselessly bash Bush.:shrug:
This is a well established exception to the warrant requirement in a broad range of contexts. That includes searches not just of a letter or USPS package but even things like your house.
(2) Foreign mail. Once again, it is well accepted that letters and other packages may be read without a warrant as part of a foreign intelligence operation. For a well publicized (but conveniently forgotten example), do a search for information on the Feds reading all telegrams and other wire traffic sent abroad from the West Coast during WW2.
But hey, don't let reality intrude on a good Bush bashing.
Don't confuse people with facts. Let them continue to assume the only risk is from the government(s). That makes them feel better - since at some level they know that the government isn't really 1984 come to life.
The purported expert quoted in the article appears unaware that CAPPS and SecureFlight applied to domestic US flights. Those programs are accordingly more restricted - and subject to things like the "Section 514" mentioned. This program relates only to International Flights and thus has a whole different set of rules (unless I missed the imposition of Customs checks on domestic flights).
Once again ignorance is no bar to blanket assertions of illegal acts.
This was not a "property-seizure" case in any fair sense of the word. It was a terror funding investigation. And the information illegally passed to these reporters was then given to the targets of that investigation.
They would piss off their customers. They may provide premium content - such as streaming video - from privileged 'partner' sites. And non-partner sites offering similar high bandwidth content may become less popular because the quality won't be as good.
But no ISP is going to stop providing access to any content. And certainly not low bandwidth stuff like news and opinion sites.
"Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help."
Yeah, very insighful, because as we all know, the human check-in agents at all of our airports have memorized the face of every known terrorist. So of course, since the face recognition savants we employ as check-in agents missed these guys, it follows that face recognition computer systems will also fail.
Moron...
Re:Anyone seen pianos catapulted?
on
Fling-A-Keg
·
· Score: 1
There actually was a very recent show on Discovery or TLC. I forget what it was called (Amazing Stories?), but it had a series of stories. Along with things like video of a guy and girl rollor skating on a small platform 7 stories up, it also had a story on a very rich (and obviously bored) English aristocrat. He built a huge trebuchet and launched a small car and two pianos, one of which was flaming.
Very funny. He said he was going to build an even bigger one out of steel.
Canivore is only used with a court issued search warrant. The same procedure and protections as if the FBI was going to put a wire tap on your (voice) phone.
It seems kinda dumb to say that they can listen to a (suspected) criminal's phone calls, but can't read his email.
It seems to me that the main impediment to more widespread (and legal as opposed to Napster/stealing) online music distribution is the fear of illegal copying and then mass ditribution.
One solution is copy protection. But it seems obvious that such protection will be broken quickly and easily. And it also has the drawback of possibly preventing users from legitimate copying (e.g. copying to CD to play in the car or onto a portable MP3 player).
But fingerprinting seems to address at least the second problem. And I see no technical reason why it can not be as secure as copy protection. As long as the fingerprint is intact, the copyright holder (i.e. big bad evil music company) can at least track widespread illegal copies back to the source.
I for one would accept such a system as a reasonable alternative to burdensome copy protection schemes and/or limited legal distribution of online music.
Seriously, this is different than ReplayTV or TiVo, where you have already paid them for the service they are rendering. You've basically entered a contract with them by exchanging money for goods.
Not really, since you are actually paying TiVo and Replay for the monthly services. Each month you enter a new contract with them. If you don't like the new "features" don't pay them. Granted, you lose you initial investment, but unless you actually do have a contract guaranteeing a specific set of features for a set period, you're shit out of luck. Remember though, if the new features piss off people, the companies lose money because they lose the monthly fees. That serves to naturally limit how badly they will screw with people.
The crucial distinction missing from the article is that the consumer does not simply buy a stand alone piece of harwdware that has set features.
The deal is the hardware is cheap(er than it would be otherwise) and you have to pay for an ongoing service. You can cancel that service and they can change the terms of the service.
So legally (as opposed to ethically) they have the right to modify what is provided (e.g. add ads, or even make the service more functional by adding features but upping the monthly fee), unless you have a written contract setting forth the exact terms and how long they will be available. Short of that, if you don't like it, cancel the service.
It's sort of like the moron Everquest players suing Verant/Sony because they don't like the way the game is evolving. They too bought a product (the game) and pay for monthly service.
Slashdot Mirror
But what about the real world of data centers where configurations are constantly changing and new data connections are being made. Seems like the applications are pretty limited.
FYI, DDO is still offering a "VIP" monthly subscription of $15. It gets you access to all the content, some nice bonuses (shared bank space, etc.) and 500 "Turbine Points" a month.
Not to mention, there are no "top player" rankings in DDO. Some players just suck, others don't. :)
The guy can't even get the most basic facts right.
. html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/03/02/phones/index
"A new study by scientists at the Carnegie Mellon University shows that interference caused by mobile phones may create more interference to aircraft navigation systems than previously thought.
If true, the findings -- which also reveal that many passengers are flouting current in-flight cell phone bans -- could call into question airline plans to wire jets to accommodate mobile networks.
The Carnegie study, carried out with support from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, showed that phones and other portable electronic devices such as laptops or games consoles can interfere with critical aircraft electronics."
To the extent this theory is correct (and it does correctly account for several observed events - while conventional "Global Warming" theory does not) it will be a real inconvenient truth for many who have invested in the current consensus.
Maybe the lesson is not to treat a scientific theory like religion.
So its agreed the bill as drafted would have infringed free speech.
But regardless, how do you "rework" it to prohibit (?) "astroturf campaigners" (which I assume means those you don't agree with - but certainly not the "true" "grassroots" groups who do the same thing) without infringing on free speech?
The whole point of the 1st Amendments "free speech" clauses is that people have a right to attempt to influence the political process. That's what "petition the government for a redress of grievances" means. So short of bribery, leave the process alone.
Being /. it's claiming that it was a good provision because it was not really about targeting free speech, but rather about targeting a "tarnished" "backroom" "conservative." That being the goal, anything goes.
I'm confused. You accept that mail can/should be opened if it is reasonably believed to contain a weapon that can create imminent harm. That is exigent circumstances. That is the only basis (other than the statutory provisions relating to foreign intelligence situations) on which mail would be opened without a warrant.
:shrug:
And you apparently don't disagree that the ability to conduct such a warrantless search existed under prior law. Or if you do disagree with that you've failed to state why.
But you nonetheless believe that this signing statement "is just an excuse" to "extend Presidential power." Even though the executive branch had this power before? All that the signing statement did was set forth the fact that the new statute didn't change existing law permitting exigent circustances searches.
As I said, this is nothing more than another excuse to baselessly bash Bush.
Why not?
The Anthrax letters would suggest otherwise.
There are two circumstances he claims that Federal law enforcement can open the mail:
(1) Exigent circumstances - ie, where there is an immediate risk of serious harm. See the basic Wikipedia review of the concept here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance
This is a well established exception to the warrant requirement in a broad range of contexts. That includes searches not just of a letter or USPS package but even things like your house.
(2) Foreign mail. Once again, it is well accepted that letters and other packages may be read without a warrant as part of a foreign intelligence operation. For a well publicized (but conveniently forgotten example), do a search for information on the Feds reading all telegrams and other wire traffic sent abroad from the West Coast during WW2.
But hey, don't let reality intrude on a good Bush bashing.
Don't confuse people with facts. Let them continue to assume the only risk is from the government(s). That makes them feel better - since at some level they know that the government isn't really 1984 come to life.
Not sure if 'safety' would be a top priority.
stupidity. Jeez folks, how bout we find a moderator that at least understands what CIVIL case means.
The purported expert quoted in the article appears unaware that CAPPS and SecureFlight applied to domestic US flights. Those programs are accordingly more restricted - and subject to things like the "Section 514" mentioned. This program relates only to International Flights and thus has a whole different set of rules (unless I missed the imposition of Customs checks on domestic flights).
Once again ignorance is no bar to blanket assertions of illegal acts.
otherwise fully willing to render his purported expert opinion on the legality of something he admits he was unaware of.
Not that such ignorance prevented the reporter from quoting him, or prevented Slashdot from posting this.
if you lived in a third world hell hole and someone gave you $100 - What would you spend it on?
Anyone with more than half a brain think the answer would be a laptop?
Of course not.
When the bill doesn't actually use the term in its enactments?
;)
Should it also define the term non-sequitor?
I know it makes a good sound bite to bash the bill, but please get a clue.
This was not a "property-seizure" case in any fair sense of the word. It was a terror funding investigation. And the information illegally passed to these reporters was then given to the targets of that investigation.
They would piss off their customers. They may provide premium content - such as streaming video - from privileged 'partner' sites. And non-partner sites offering similar high bandwidth content may become less popular because the quality won't be as good.
But no ISP is going to stop providing access to any content. And certainly not low bandwidth stuff like news and opinion sites.
He says:
"Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help."
Yeah, very insighful, because as we all know, the human check-in agents at all of our airports have memorized the face of every known terrorist. So of course, since the face recognition savants we employ as check-in agents missed these guys, it follows that face recognition computer systems will also fail.
Moron...
There actually was a very recent show on Discovery or TLC. I forget what it was called (Amazing Stories?), but it had a series of stories. Along with things like video of a guy and girl rollor skating on a small platform 7 stories up, it also had a story on a very rich (and obviously bored) English aristocrat. He built a huge trebuchet and launched a small car and two pianos, one of which was flaming.
Very funny. He said he was going to build an even bigger one out of steel.
Actually the 9/10 is "possession." It's the 1/10 about stolen property that matters here.
Canivore is only used with a court issued search warrant. The same procedure and protections as if the FBI was going to put a wire tap on your (voice) phone. It seems kinda dumb to say that they can listen to a (suspected) criminal's phone calls, but can't read his email.
It seems to me that the main impediment to more widespread (and legal as opposed to Napster/stealing) online music distribution is the fear of illegal copying and then mass ditribution. One solution is copy protection. But it seems obvious that such protection will be broken quickly and easily. And it also has the drawback of possibly preventing users from legitimate copying (e.g. copying to CD to play in the car or onto a portable MP3 player). But fingerprinting seems to address at least the second problem. And I see no technical reason why it can not be as secure as copy protection. As long as the fingerprint is intact, the copyright holder (i.e. big bad evil music company) can at least track widespread illegal copies back to the source. I for one would accept such a system as a reasonable alternative to burdensome copy protection schemes and/or limited legal distribution of online music.
Seriously, this is different than ReplayTV or TiVo, where you have already paid them for the service they are rendering. You've basically entered a contract with them by exchanging money for goods. Not really, since you are actually paying TiVo and Replay for the monthly services. Each month you enter a new contract with them. If you don't like the new "features" don't pay them. Granted, you lose you initial investment, but unless you actually do have a contract guaranteeing a specific set of features for a set period, you're shit out of luck. Remember though, if the new features piss off people, the companies lose money because they lose the monthly fees. That serves to naturally limit how badly they will screw with people.
The crucial distinction missing from the article is that the consumer does not simply buy a stand alone piece of harwdware that has set features. The deal is the hardware is cheap(er than it would be otherwise) and you have to pay for an ongoing service. You can cancel that service and they can change the terms of the service. So legally (as opposed to ethically) they have the right to modify what is provided (e.g. add ads, or even make the service more functional by adding features but upping the monthly fee), unless you have a written contract setting forth the exact terms and how long they will be available. Short of that, if you don't like it, cancel the service. It's sort of like the moron Everquest players suing Verant/Sony because they don't like the way the game is evolving. They too bought a product (the game) and pay for monthly service.