Apple is the most keen to come out and say "this is our greatest _____ we've ever built" while touting the longer battery life, faster CPU speed, etc (yes many companies say similar, however Apple is the most explicit I've ever seen).
Apple also has a history of pushing limits and going for the best components they can... so the choice of TSMC over Intel does seem odd.
Bingo! urn:upnp-org:serviceId:AVTransport & urn:upnp-org:serviceId:ContentDirectory already provide this... and have been implemented in quite a few devices & OSes.
The gay gene has been known about since 1993 and, while hotly disputed, has never been disproven.
While I cannot comment on the specifics of the research... the article you cite is pretty weak, even saying that the original study "indicated a link" (ie did not 'prove a link')... and that a later 1999 study could not confirm the original results.
Last I checked, in science... proof is had through repeatability, predictability and being widely accepted/recognized... something I do not see here.
Is there a 'gay gene'? Perhaps... but the evidence does not yet prove that Xq28 is that.
Consumption based taxes on a national level would still be collected by the IRS.
Depends on how the system is implemented, and in the case of the FairTax... the IRS can go away as collecting is moved to the states, to quote them:
No more complicated tax forms, individual audits, or intrusive federal bureaucracy. Retailers will collect the FairTax just as they do now with state sales taxes. All money will be collected and remitted to the U.S. Treasury, and both the retailers and states will be paid a fee for their collection service.
No, the kinect is attached to the xbox one and you can't remove it
No, there is quite clearly a port on the back of the console where you plug in the Kinect... not unlike newer 360s... and while Microsoft says you the new Kinect with the Xbox One... I still look forward to seeing how aggressive the console is with this requirement. For all we know it just pops a warning message that you click "Ignore" on... or it yells at you until you plug it back in. Only time will tell.
At your first point, signing an NDA does NOT void your First Amendment rights, because, of course, you signed the NDA, not the Federal government. I don't think you quite understand how nouns work...
You clearly didn't what I read above (or further above)... because if you had you'd understand that I am arguing that one can wave certain rights.
Just as an employee of a private company can agree not to disclose confidential information... so too can a government employee agree not to disclose classified information. In both cases the agree-or gives up certain rights and risks harsh penalties should they do wrong. This also applies to a private citizen who talks to the police or allows them to search their property without a warrant... as is the case in this case.
your breach would be a civil tort. not a federal offence.
Thanks to incorporation... both the 4th & 5th amendments apply to the several states... so the risk of a federal offense is (mostly) out... but depending on the state laws, as well as what is disclosed then yes... jail time could/would be a real possibility.
While I do not work for government, nor in a national security area (nor for any government)... just as the leaker of the PRISM program... who will be spending some quality time in jail thanks to his exercising of his first amendment rights if he thinks he's safe from jail time for speaking out.
Inalienable (Adj): - Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".
If you convince someone to sell themselves into slavery to you, you can't enforce the contract because they can't "waive" their 13th amendment rights.
Clearly then the NDA I signed on my first day of work is unconstitutional as it violates my first amendment rights as I clearly have the right to go to the local media and spill my guts as to what my employer is building in secret (all legal projects, just not yet publically known).
Ditto for the millions of smokers in this country who have sold themselves into a type of slavery based on their dependence on nicotine!
Silliness aside... if we accepted your view that the 4th & 5th amendment rights were inalienable (or unalienable)... then what of those who 'wave' their Miranda rights and choose to talk to police? Surely too any kind of arrest or detention is illegal as it deprives them of their rights... even if said rights are limited by courts.
Except it wasn't a court proceeding and she wasn't testifying in a trial
As mentioned above... congress does have that authority.. but you are also taking too literal of a reading of the relevant portion of the 5th amendment, which is:
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
No, I'm not claiming that the 5th doesn't apply to her because she is not a he... instead, the origination point for the applicability of the 5th has been pushed back quite a bit.
It's easy to imagine someone on the stand at a trial refusing to testify... similarly so for someone who has been arrested (ie well in advance of a criminal trial)... it also applies to just about every level... most only assume it applies to sitting in a court room per the written amendment... which has been expanded quite a bit by the courts.
You didn't ask for your Fourth Amendment rights so you've also relinquished your rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, not to mention the requirement of a warrant or probable cause. Huzzah!
Better analogy. The police knock at your door asking to take a look around, you allow them in and in the conduct of their permitted search, they find illegal drug paraphernalia on a table. They ask you "Is this yours?" and in response you ask them to leave.
The 4th amendment doesn't apply (as the 5th in this case doesn't)... because said right was waved through the actions of the person involved.
By allowing the police to search your home, you waved 4th amendment rights to the search (such as when/where it can end)... just as the person involved in this case did by opening his mouth in the first place.
The difference... is that the person in this case had the ability to say "I'm done answering questions and choose to remain silent per my 5th amendment rights"... while in the case of your home being searched, criminal activity has been found that can be pinned on you so it's much harder to go back.
Still befuddles me. So you're telling me if you provide any information whatsoever, you're legally obliged to answer every single question, even if it leads to self incrimination? IANAL so does answering some questions automagically count as forgoing your right to silence blanche carte?
Correct... to a point.
Case in point... Lois Lerner invoked the 5th during her appearance before a congressional panel not long ago... while doing so she also answered some questions and proclaimed her innocence... which effectively waved her right to plead the 5th related to those things she spoke about.
If Issa had any real courage, he would have dragged her back the next week, compelled her to answer and if she refused... held her in contempt.
It's probably enough just to run an operating system by and for paranoiacs, e.g. OpenBSD. If you really think someone is out to get you, at least take some precautions.
Then you have already lost!
How did you download that copy of OpenBSD? ISO or sources?
ISO? Did you check the hash against the web page? How do you know neither were modified
Sources? Ok... did you read the entire source tree (and understand it)? Yes? Ok... now don't forget to do the same for your entire compiler tool chain! Who knows what the NSA/FBI/CIA/etc may have slipped in there that you missed. Or are you going to build your compiler from ASM that you wrote by hand?
While there is much anger against things like UEFI's Secure Boot... it has roots in the same place as the SSL system we trust today... assuming that there is a trusted root authority (or 3) that we can defer to in part... and that we can ignore should a user so choose.
How far up/down the chain are you willing to trust? Here is hoping that the manufacturer of your motherboard didn't slip something in as well!
With Linux it should be possible to have a computer which can search the Internet and prepare reports with no open ports for external attack.
So you are going to read code line by line to determine that no such exploits exist?
Anytime you run ANYTHING that you did not build AND control yourself... you run that risk... the best we can do is hope we can trust who we get our OS, router or tank from... and perhaps audit them from time to time (if we have that power) to try to make sure.
I lived through the Nixon era. Calling what is going on in Washington more corrupt than what was happening under Nixon is ridiculous.
You are also looking back through history at the Nixon era and what else has come out.
We've got spying on journalists, enemies lists (only public ones in the case of Obama), using the IRS to target political opponents... the only thing we are missing is a break-in by his subordinates and a subsequent cover-up... granted we've got multiple cover-ups and perjury's ongoing today.
What we've seen over the last month alone is pretty damning... how much more do you think there will be?
The economy remains stagnant, increasing numbers going on disability (rather than working), the impending implosion of the American health care system... the list goes on. In fact while Nixon can be credited with the creation of the EPA, and Reagan (since you mentioned something from his time in office) for ending of the cold war... what major achievement do you think people will look back on the administration of President Obama and hold up?
Go broader... this President has often liked to compare himself to presidents of old... how many Presidents in 50 or 100 years will want to be compared to Obama?
The stuff going on now doesn't even rise to the level of the Iran-Contra affair.
How many Americans were killed due to the direct actions (Fast & Furious) or indirect actions (Benghazi) where the President either opted to go to sleep and/or ignored what his underlings were doing in Iran-Contra?
Oh no... it is hard to imagine a President who could do more to damage this country in the short and long term than what we have today.
Of course this is also the administration who also was caught having visiting with lobbyists at a local Caribou coffee shop (ie secretly) instead of bringing them into the White House where they would show up in the visitor logs.
Most transparent administration evah eh?
Between the IRS targeting conservatives, a few officials being held in contempt of congress (and court), Obama sleeping on the job when his ambassador in Libya was killed, running guns to Mexican drug gangs, HHS seeking protection money from companies they are to regulate (and much much more)... this administration is destined to go down in history as even more corrupt than history has tried to paint Nixon.
So, because the implementation previously has been bad, we should never ever try to improve anything ever.
I wrote quite a bit above and I'm pretty certain that no where did I say anything of the sort. Nor did you suggest any specific improvements that could be made that are not already in place. In fact, I PROVIDED one major improvement that could be made (allowing non FFLs to run background checks without the need of an FFL).
And you proved my point on the nutjobs opposing reasonable "restrictions" (as in this case the restriction isn't a restriction at all).
I'm still waiting to hear a single "reasonable restriction" from you... let alone any 'restriction.' The SINGLE idea you put forward already exists (ie not a restriction). Want to improve upon it? Fine. Why don't you offer specifics as to how it can and should be improved. The fact that you were unaware that the III is used by NICS suggests you may want to spend some time studying the issue.
Of course all of this is moot... the fact you are from the start labeling your opponents as 'nutjobs' and 'gun nuts'... it instead proves how close minded you are and how unwilling you are to have a actual discussion as to how to prevent bad people from getting & using guns, how to reduce gun crime & violence, and not trample on the second amendment rights of all law abiding citizens who wish to own and use firearms.
This is alas to be expected, it is quite clear that you subscribe to the side of the aisle that often spouts single word catch phrases to try to inspire, things like 'hope', 'change', 'reform' and so on... but when it comes to specifics as to how something will be done, there is a distinct lack of specifics of things that will have any effectiveness.
Again, if you want to have a discussion, lets have it, and be specific... however NOTHING you have said here could be taken as any part of it other than that of someone who is a partisan hack who doesn't know the specifics of the topic at hand.
If 4 Supreme Court Justices don't count as another interpretation of the 2nd amendment (one which has a long history I might add). I don't know what does.
There are also those who think the world was created by God in 6 days a few thousand years ago, buried dinosaur bones under the ground to test our faith. Others think the president was born in Kenya or reject anthropogenic climate change.
Here is the difference... only one of the items above actually has a rigorous debate going on (ie 'climate change')... the rest are either settled or the minority opinion is largely irrelevant but instead an interesting historical footnote... as is the minority opinion of SCOTUS which has very little actual impact... same goes for the minority who think that the second amendment protects their right not only to own muskets, semi-automatic 'assault weapons', but also fully armed tanks, jet fighters and nuclear arms.
I always love it when someone reveals themselves as not having a clue as to what they are talking about...
Is it or is it not reasonable to link the 50 states criminal databases to simplify and speed up checks?
Let's break responding down into two parts... is it 'reasonable' to do so... and will doing so 'simplify and speed up checks'.
When it comes to attempting to "simplify and speed up checks"... you clearly haven't purchased many firearms that involved background checks... I have, so speak from experience.
Given I have to fill out the same piece of paper with the same information every time I buy a firearm from an FFL, then wait in line for someone to call the ATF, then wait for the response... little can be done to speed up checks... unless you want to have a pre-cleared status available like the express lanes at some airports, the US/Canada border, or CPLs when bypassing waiting periods on handguns (in some states)... then you might be on to something. Though I suspect you are not thinking that.
When it comes to it being 'reasonable'... you start off from a false premise on two counts, 1) that the current FFL based system is the way to go, and 2) that state information isn't already in the database.
If you cared about making things easier and more reasonable... then you'd call for the NICS system being accessible to non-FFLs and in more ways.
If I wish to sell a firearm to another person in my state and feel the desire to run a background check, why should I have to meet the person at an FFL dealer, pay them $25-$50 to run the check? Far far easier just to hope the buyer isn't a bad guy. Shame as a private seller I am prohibited from running a NICS check on my own, let alone being able to scan the buyers driver's license with my phone and have it auto checked.
For note... I know multiple people who engage in the occasional private sale, and rather than require a trip to an FFL or hope the buyer isn't a bad guy, require the buyer to show a drivers license from the state, as well as a CPL (to show a semi-recent background check). If only we had a national system that replicated what people do already, eh?
Instead what you are asking for... is to do much of what already exists!
NICS is not just a database on to itself, it also queries other databases... like the Interstate Identification Index which contains pointers to state criminal records.
Unlike the no fly list... when a name comes up as questionable and you don't get to fly (unless your name is Ted Kennedy or you get the press involved quickly) with NICS, there is an appeal process.
I fail to see what an explicit linking of existing state criminal databases would do beyond what exists today... other than add complexity and costs. Is that really reasonable?
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is the most keen to come out and say "this is our greatest _____ we've ever built" while touting the longer battery life, faster CPU speed, etc (yes many companies say similar, however Apple is the most explicit I've ever seen).
Apple also has a history of pushing limits and going for the best components they can... so the choice of TSMC over Intel does seem odd.
Note the above is being said by a PC only person.
Bingo! urn:upnp-org:serviceId:AVTransport & urn:upnp-org:serviceId:ContentDirectory already provide this... and have been implemented in quite a few devices & OSes.
While I cannot comment on the specifics of the research... the article you cite is pretty weak, even saying that the original study "indicated a link" (ie did not 'prove a link')... and that a later 1999 study could not confirm the original results.
Last I checked, in science... proof is had through repeatability, predictability and being widely accepted/recognized... something I do not see here.
Is there a 'gay gene'? Perhaps... but the evidence does not yet prove that Xq28 is that.
Ahh revisionist history.
Those of us around early on know where it really started... Seattle, February 2009.
Why let facts get in the way?
Wait? The Tea Party is for free access to guns? Where do I sign up?
Depends on how the system is implemented, and in the case of the FairTax... the IRS can go away as collecting is moved to the states, to quote them:
I'm sure we can find a nut or two at an Open Source Rally with a controversial sign then put them on the front page.
If the OSS folks are really unlucky... the Lyndon LaRouche fans will show up to their rally with a booth and make them look back by proximity.
No, there is quite clearly a port on the back of the console where you plug in the Kinect... not unlike newer 360s... and while Microsoft says you the new Kinect with the Xbox One... I still look forward to seeing how aggressive the console is with this requirement. For all we know it just pops a warning message that you click "Ignore" on... or it yells at you until you plug it back in. Only time will tell.
Care to cite an authoritative source to support that claim?
You clearly didn't what I read above (or further above)... because if you had you'd understand that I am arguing that one can wave certain rights.
Just as an employee of a private company can agree not to disclose confidential information... so too can a government employee agree not to disclose classified information. In both cases the agree-or gives up certain rights and risks harsh penalties should they do wrong. This also applies to a private citizen who talks to the police or allows them to search their property without a warrant... as is the case in this case.
Thanks to incorporation... both the 4th & 5th amendments apply to the several states... so the risk of a federal offense is (mostly) out... but depending on the state laws, as well as what is disclosed then yes... jail time could/would be a real possibility.
While I do not work for government, nor in a national security area (nor for any government)... just as the leaker of the PRISM program... who will be spending some quality time in jail thanks to his exercising of his first amendment rights if he thinks he's safe from jail time for speaking out.
Clearly then the NDA I signed on my first day of work is unconstitutional as it violates my first amendment rights as I clearly have the right to go to the local media and spill my guts as to what my employer is building in secret (all legal projects, just not yet publically known).
Ditto for the millions of smokers in this country who have sold themselves into a type of slavery based on their dependence on nicotine!
Silliness aside... if we accepted your view that the 4th & 5th amendment rights were inalienable (or unalienable)... then what of those who 'wave' their Miranda rights and choose to talk to police? Surely too any kind of arrest or detention is illegal as it deprives them of their rights... even if said rights are limited by courts.
I don't think you quite understand natural law.
As mentioned above... congress does have that authority.. but you are also taking too literal of a reading of the relevant portion of the 5th amendment, which is:
No, I'm not claiming that the 5th doesn't apply to her because she is not a he... instead, the origination point for the applicability of the 5th has been pushed back quite a bit.
It's easy to imagine someone on the stand at a trial refusing to testify... similarly so for someone who has been arrested (ie well in advance of a criminal trial)... it also applies to just about every level... most only assume it applies to sitting in a court room per the written amendment... which has been expanded quite a bit by the courts.
Better analogy. The police knock at your door asking to take a look around, you allow them in and in the conduct of their permitted search, they find illegal drug paraphernalia on a table. They ask you "Is this yours?" and in response you ask them to leave.
The 4th amendment doesn't apply (as the 5th in this case doesn't)... because said right was waved through the actions of the person involved.
By allowing the police to search your home, you waved 4th amendment rights to the search (such as when/where it can end)... just as the person involved in this case did by opening his mouth in the first place.
The difference... is that the person in this case had the ability to say "I'm done answering questions and choose to remain silent per my 5th amendment rights"... while in the case of your home being searched, criminal activity has been found that can be pinned on you so it's much harder to go back.
Correct... to a point.
Case in point... Lois Lerner invoked the 5th during her appearance before a congressional panel not long ago... while doing so she also answered some questions and proclaimed her innocence... which effectively waved her right to plead the 5th related to those things she spoke about.
If Issa had any real courage, he would have dragged her back the next week, compelled her to answer and if she refused... held her in contempt.
You always have your rights... it's just a question of if and how you exercise them.
The difference here is the guy who went to talk to the police on his own (ie voluntarily) vs being arrested (ie unwillingly).
The court ruled that in the prior, you have to make an affirmative statement as to you exercising your 5a rights.
Then you have already lost!
How did you download that copy of OpenBSD? ISO or sources?
ISO? Did you check the hash against the web page? How do you know neither were modified
Sources? Ok... did you read the entire source tree (and understand it)? Yes? Ok... now don't forget to do the same for your entire compiler tool chain! Who knows what the NSA/FBI/CIA/etc may have slipped in there that you missed. Or are you going to build your compiler from ASM that you wrote by hand?
While there is much anger against things like UEFI's Secure Boot... it has roots in the same place as the SSL system we trust today... assuming that there is a trusted root authority (or 3) that we can defer to in part... and that we can ignore should a user so choose.
How far up/down the chain are you willing to trust? Here is hoping that the manufacturer of your motherboard didn't slip something in as well!
So you are going to read code line by line to determine that no such exploits exist?
Anytime you run ANYTHING that you did not build AND control yourself... you run that risk... the best we can do is hope we can trust who we get our OS, router or tank from... and perhaps audit them from time to time (if we have that power) to try to make sure.
Since when is rebooting the same thing as turning off ones computer? ... Let alone require the power button every time.
No doubt you felt the same way back in 2011 when someone took to tweeting WWII in real time: http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2011/09/25/how-an-ex-history-student-is-using-twitter-to-bring-world-war-2-to-life/
Were you calling for a 'counter channel with a play-by-play according to the other sides' back then? perhaps adding: "YAY WAR, YAY ALLIES propaganda"?
You are also looking back through history at the Nixon era and what else has come out.
We've got spying on journalists, enemies lists (only public ones in the case of Obama), using the IRS to target political opponents... the only thing we are missing is a break-in by his subordinates and a subsequent cover-up... granted we've got multiple cover-ups and perjury's ongoing today.
What we've seen over the last month alone is pretty damning... how much more do you think there will be?
The economy remains stagnant, increasing numbers going on disability (rather than working), the impending implosion of the American health care system... the list goes on. In fact while Nixon can be credited with the creation of the EPA, and Reagan (since you mentioned something from his time in office) for ending of the cold war... what major achievement do you think people will look back on the administration of President Obama and hold up?
Go broader... this President has often liked to compare himself to presidents of old... how many Presidents in 50 or 100 years will want to be compared to Obama?
How many Americans were killed due to the direct actions (Fast & Furious) or indirect actions (Benghazi) where the President either opted to go to sleep and/or ignored what his underlings were doing in Iran-Contra?
Oh no... it is hard to imagine a President who could do more to damage this country in the short and long term than what we have today.
An identity that later won internal awards for ethics "scholar of ethical behavior.”
Of course this is also the administration who also was caught having visiting with lobbyists at a local Caribou coffee shop (ie secretly) instead of bringing them into the White House where they would show up in the visitor logs.
Most transparent administration evah eh?
Between the IRS targeting conservatives, a few officials being held in contempt of congress (and court), Obama sleeping on the job when his ambassador in Libya was killed, running guns to Mexican drug gangs, HHS seeking protection money from companies they are to regulate (and much much more)... this administration is destined to go down in history as even more corrupt than history has tried to paint Nixon.
I wrote quite a bit above and I'm pretty certain that no where did I say anything of the sort. Nor did you suggest any specific improvements that could be made that are not already in place. In fact, I PROVIDED one major improvement that could be made (allowing non FFLs to run background checks without the need of an FFL).
I'm still waiting to hear a single "reasonable restriction" from you... let alone any 'restriction.' The SINGLE idea you put forward already exists (ie not a restriction). Want to improve upon it? Fine. Why don't you offer specifics as to how it can and should be improved. The fact that you were unaware that the III is used by NICS suggests you may want to spend some time studying the issue.
Of course all of this is moot... the fact you are from the start labeling your opponents as 'nutjobs' and 'gun nuts'... it instead proves how close minded you are and how unwilling you are to have a actual discussion as to how to prevent bad people from getting & using guns, how to reduce gun crime & violence, and not trample on the second amendment rights of all law abiding citizens who wish to own and use firearms.
This is alas to be expected, it is quite clear that you subscribe to the side of the aisle that often spouts single word catch phrases to try to inspire, things like 'hope', 'change', 'reform' and so on... but when it comes to specifics as to how something will be done, there is a distinct lack of specifics of things that will have any effectiveness.
Again, if you want to have a discussion, lets have it, and be specific... however NOTHING you have said here could be taken as any part of it other than that of someone who is a partisan hack who doesn't know the specifics of the topic at hand.
There are also those who think the world was created by God in 6 days a few thousand years ago, buried dinosaur bones under the ground to test our faith. Others think the president was born in Kenya or reject anthropogenic climate change.
Here is the difference... only one of the items above actually has a rigorous debate going on (ie 'climate change')... the rest are either settled or the minority opinion is largely irrelevant but instead an interesting historical footnote... as is the minority opinion of SCOTUS which has very little actual impact... same goes for the minority who think that the second amendment protects their right not only to own muskets, semi-automatic 'assault weapons', but also fully armed tanks, jet fighters and nuclear arms.
I always love it when someone reveals themselves as not having a clue as to what they are talking about...
Let's break responding down into two parts... is it 'reasonable' to do so... and will doing so 'simplify and speed up checks'.
When it comes to attempting to "simplify and speed up checks"... you clearly haven't purchased many firearms that involved background checks... I have, so speak from experience.
Given I have to fill out the same piece of paper with the same information every time I buy a firearm from an FFL, then wait in line for someone to call the ATF, then wait for the response... little can be done to speed up checks... unless you want to have a pre-cleared status available like the express lanes at some airports, the US/Canada border, or CPLs when bypassing waiting periods on handguns (in some states)... then you might be on to something. Though I suspect you are not thinking that.
When it comes to it being 'reasonable'... you start off from a false premise on two counts, 1) that the current FFL based system is the way to go, and 2) that state information isn't already in the database.
If you cared about making things easier and more reasonable... then you'd call for the NICS system being accessible to non-FFLs and in more ways.
If I wish to sell a firearm to another person in my state and feel the desire to run a background check, why should I have to meet the person at an FFL dealer, pay them $25-$50 to run the check? Far far easier just to hope the buyer isn't a bad guy. Shame as a private seller I am prohibited from running a NICS check on my own, let alone being able to scan the buyers driver's license with my phone and have it auto checked.
For note... I know multiple people who engage in the occasional private sale, and rather than require a trip to an FFL or hope the buyer isn't a bad guy, require the buyer to show a drivers license from the state, as well as a CPL (to show a semi-recent background check). If only we had a national system that replicated what people do already, eh?
Instead what you are asking for... is to do much of what already exists!
NICS is not just a database on to itself, it also queries other databases... like the Interstate Identification Index which contains pointers to state criminal records.
Unlike the no fly list... when a name comes up as questionable and you don't get to fly (unless your name is Ted Kennedy or you get the press involved quickly) with NICS, there is an appeal process.
I fail to see what an explicit linking of existing state criminal databases would do beyond what exists today... other than add complexity and costs. Is that really reasonable?