Sadly, not everything in the universe can be explained by direct analogy with computer hardware or software.
But burring encyclopedias is better? I haven't opened one of those for nearly 4 decades.
I was just using a similar analogy to Hawking's, adjusted for Slashdot's audience and modern sensibilities... if it doesn't fully convey the theory, who's fault is that? Personally, I think mine is better, given that Hawking is ignoring that a fire does actually loose "information" in a physics sense, in that there is heat, smoke and a number of gasses that are produced when you burn a book...
Of course this is getting more expensive... GoGo needs to make money and the flying public is willing to pay for network access.
Truth be told, the actual *cost* of what GoGo provides is going up too as they expand into higher bandwidth and international coverage. That kind of system development is *expensive* and as long as GoGo can keep upping the price and turning a profit, you can bet they will.
Ok, then he didn't "solve" anything, he just produced another theory which from the outside looks EXACTLY like other theories and always will if you apply his theory. He hasn't suggested anything novel or unique that advances the thought experiment in any appreciable way and has really just replaced one intractable problem for another. It's like he flipped the dime over and claimed it was a different coin because he could see a different design on it. Same coin, same problem, nothing has changed.
I feel sorry for him because it seems to me that he knows that he's about to die from his illness and in his quest to find immortality by putting his mark on astrophysics has reached new heights. He's acting desperate and has put his stamp on two largely useless things in as many months. The reason why I feel for him is that he has already put an indelible mark on a number of scientific areas and this kind of non advancing theory will only serve to tarnish his accomplishments. Yet the mortal, seek immortality ever more desperately as the end draws ever closer.
My point is that if the "information is there" but we cannot retrieve it, it's the *same* as information being destroyed. The paradox now becomes how you can have information existing in theory that you cannot obtain though any amount of effort. This makes this little thought experiment useless, as it cannot be proven by it's very definition. This kind of thing is not helpful scientific thinking.
Hawking in all his brilliance has produced a new paradox trying to solve another? How's that help anything? This is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
So now we have information that's "useless" because we won't be able to unscramble it, but no information is lost? It's like saying that the information on my degaussed and melted down backup disk drive is *still* there, if I just knew how to reassemble it properly. That backup disk is just a pile of slag, the information it contained is gone. I'm sorry, that sure looks like we lost information to me... The net effect is the same as the information being lost, so I don't see how this stroke of genius helps the problem beyond moving the paradox to having the information preserved but unrecoverable by any possible means.
IMHO, it's not a language problem. Their intent was perfectly clear, searching for evidence among your personal effects and papers requires a warrant. So, if they go collect data, and search though it, that clearly requires a warrant.
What's not so clear though is that simply collection data is prohibited. I can see a legal argument that says the collection and storage of data is not prohibited because it's not a search and yields no evidence, but searching the data requires a warrant if you intend to use the results as evidence.
People need to remember that the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments are about the rights of those suspected and accused of crimes. They are about how evidence can and cannot be obtained and how trials must take place. So the 4th amendment is about criminal investigations and how they must proceed.
You act like the NY Post has any pull with voters who are on the fence about him. If they denounce Jeb, they will be preaching to the Choir... It won't make any difference...
No, data collection is collecting data. It does not need to be interpreted as a search until somebody or something inspects the data looking for something.
"Essentially the same" is not "exactly the same" and there in lies the open legal ground. One can argue that making copies of data is not a search if the data is not actually inspected. Clearly if the data is inspected we have a search that requires a warrant by the 4th amendment, but it's not so clear that just collecting it legally constitutes a search.
Now, it may not be a good idea for the data to be collected in that it may lead to illegal searches, but that's a totally different argument than what most people try to make on this topic.
However, U.S. federal and State laws have been eroding this constitutional right for decades
There once was a constitutional right to own slaves, are you making the argument that the constitution is not to be changed?
There was no constitutional right to own slaves prior to the 13th amendment. The 13th amendment simply made it unconstitutional to own slaves. There is a difference.
After the revelation and prior to the civil war the topic of slavery was often debated and occupied a major place in much of the public debate. CLEARLY slavery flew in the face of the Declaration of Independence and it's clear "All Men are created equal" statement, yet it persisted with the united states well into the 1860's. It was the primary issue that brought this country to the Civil War where over a million men from both sides died, paying in blood for slavery. But there was NO constitutional right to owning a slave, there never was. So, the 13th amendment was not changing the constitution on slavery, removing a previously held right, but further clarifying that slavery was unconstitutional, that "all men" included the ones who had previously been treated as slaves.
Ok.. As long as you are committed to *legal* means of fixing this AND you intend to exercise your right to vote, do what you want...
IMHO, I would urge you to consider what might be the shortest path to your goal though. Third party/Independent candidates are not going to be viable at the national level no matter how much you wish it to happen. It is this practicality that has driven the TEA party to attempt to work within the republican party, an attempt that may actually succeed in reigning in the abuses without having to spend decades trying to build a party, splitting the vote and guaranteeing the wrong kind of people are in power.
THEN... Go advocate for the people you like... But I'll warn you, just thumbing your nose at the whole system is a good part of the problem we have today.. Too many have just accepted that corruption and politics go hand in hand. This needn't be true, and wouldn't be if the average person actually cared enough to hold their elected representatives to account.
I'm not arguing for unfettered data collections, just for a bit of understanding that there ARE legal arguments for how it doesn't violate the constitution.
Lawyers will argue that anything is anything.
Do you really, honestly, believe that the people who wrote the Constitution believed the US government should be able to spy on everyone, all the time?
I'm not a lawyer.. But I play one on TV and I stayed at a holiday inn express last night...
The argument here is easy.. You have to prove that the 4th amendment prohibits the *collection* of these electronic records in all cases, including when the records are never looked at. Does it always violate the 4th amendment? I'm not so sure it does, specifically when the records are NOT searched.
So the question becomes can the collected data legally be searched and If so, under what conditions? I think the 4th amendment makes that clear, you need a specific warrant to search for anything, and running a search on this data requires the same.
So, IMHO warrantless searches of the data are forbidden by the 4th amendment, but the collection of the data does not seem to be forbidden if it's not searched.
If you don't vote, you cannot complain when those elected don't reflect your views.
BTW... I believe that it is this exact attitude that has Trump on top of the polls... He's seen as the "outsider" anti-PC brash talking guy and there is some appeal in that. That should scare everybody...
Cannot disagree with you... But I also hate to say that what you describe is likely to happen.
Although, there are a number of interesting "happenings" that give me hope that we won't end up with either Trump or Jeb!.... Cruz's sudden alliance with Trump has me baffled, but it could turn into a master stroke if Trump does the crash and burn late in the fall. Cruz could easily suck up the disillusioned Trump voters when the wheels come off the train because he's positioned with generally the same views.
But... Jeb is better positioned here, if he can keep his mouth shut...
We can only hope.... Unless he takes a hard right turn after the Hill's exit, the general election will be a land slide, just not in his direction.
However, unless they arrest Hillary or she kicks the bucket between now and the convention, Sanders has a snowballs chance of beating the Clinton election machine once they start spending their money this winter..
With 17 serious potential candidates on the Republican side and 3 on the democratic side you still say that? 20 isn't enough choice for you? Dang man, what DO you want here?
The 4th amendment still applies regardless of your stance on privacy.
Yes, it does.. However the key term here is "search" because electronic data collection is not a seizure where something is taken from you. Here's the text of the amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
One could argue that data collection that is not searched is still allowed under the constitution. One could then argue that as long as the government has a warrant based on probable cause that outlines the kinds of data to be searched that they do not violate the 4th amendment.
I'm not arguing for unfettered data collections, just for a bit of understanding that there ARE legal arguments for how it doesn't violate the constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
What possible reason could there be to not let anyone who wants to look at the audit trail of election votes?
Perhaps it is unlawful to release these records Kansas? Oh wait, that's what the secretary of state is claiming....
The secretary is covering up a fraud.
Or, attempting to follow the law as the secretary claims is the case.
Closed source, insecure, bug ridden, computer systems. If I can't get that, I'll find something with a carberator, thanks.
You are not getting a new car with a carburetor... There hasn't been a new car sold with one of those for about 2 decades, at least in this country.
Sadly, not everything in the universe can be explained by direct analogy with computer hardware or software.
But burring encyclopedias is better? I haven't opened one of those for nearly 4 decades.
I was just using a similar analogy to Hawking's, adjusted for Slashdot's audience and modern sensibilities... if it doesn't fully convey the theory, who's fault is that? Personally, I think mine is better, given that Hawking is ignoring that a fire does actually loose "information" in a physics sense, in that there is heat, smoke and a number of gasses that are produced when you burn a book...
Of course this is getting more expensive... GoGo needs to make money and the flying public is willing to pay for network access.
Truth be told, the actual *cost* of what GoGo provides is going up too as they expand into higher bandwidth and international coverage. That kind of system development is *expensive* and as long as GoGo can keep upping the price and turning a profit, you can bet they will.
Ok, then he didn't "solve" anything, he just produced another theory which from the outside looks EXACTLY like other theories and always will if you apply his theory. He hasn't suggested anything novel or unique that advances the thought experiment in any appreciable way and has really just replaced one intractable problem for another. It's like he flipped the dime over and claimed it was a different coin because he could see a different design on it. Same coin, same problem, nothing has changed.
I feel sorry for him because it seems to me that he knows that he's about to die from his illness and in his quest to find immortality by putting his mark on astrophysics has reached new heights. He's acting desperate and has put his stamp on two largely useless things in as many months. The reason why I feel for him is that he has already put an indelible mark on a number of scientific areas and this kind of non advancing theory will only serve to tarnish his accomplishments. Yet the mortal, seek immortality ever more desperately as the end draws ever closer.
My point is that if the "information is there" but we cannot retrieve it, it's the *same* as information being destroyed. The paradox now becomes how you can have information existing in theory that you cannot obtain though any amount of effort. This makes this little thought experiment useless, as it cannot be proven by it's very definition. This kind of thing is not helpful scientific thinking.
Hawking in all his brilliance has produced a new paradox trying to solve another? How's that help anything? This is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
So now we have information that's "useless" because we won't be able to unscramble it, but no information is lost? It's like saying that the information on my degaussed and melted down backup disk drive is *still* there, if I just knew how to reassemble it properly. That backup disk is just a pile of slag, the information it contained is gone. I'm sorry, that sure looks like we lost information to me... The net effect is the same as the information being lost, so I don't see how this stroke of genius helps the problem beyond moving the paradox to having the information preserved but unrecoverable by any possible means.
Try again sir... You didn't solve anything here.
From bloviating about this all the time. The reduction in "hot air" output will make things cooler and keep us safer in the long run..
Too bad a "do nothing" congress doesn't seem to mean they stop talking too..
IMHO, it's not a language problem. Their intent was perfectly clear, searching for evidence among your personal effects and papers requires a warrant. So, if they go collect data, and search though it, that clearly requires a warrant.
What's not so clear though is that simply collection data is prohibited. I can see a legal argument that says the collection and storage of data is not prohibited because it's not a search and yields no evidence, but searching the data requires a warrant if you intend to use the results as evidence.
People need to remember that the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments are about the rights of those suspected and accused of crimes. They are about how evidence can and cannot be obtained and how trials must take place. So the 4th amendment is about criminal investigations and how they must proceed.
You act like the NY Post has any pull with voters who are on the fence about him. If they denounce Jeb, they will be preaching to the Choir... It won't make any difference...
No, data collection is collecting data. It does not need to be interpreted as a search until somebody or something inspects the data looking for something.
"Essentially the same" is not "exactly the same" and there in lies the open legal ground. One can argue that making copies of data is not a search if the data is not actually inspected. Clearly if the data is inspected we have a search that requires a warrant by the 4th amendment, but it's not so clear that just collecting it legally constitutes a search.
Now, it may not be a good idea for the data to be collected in that it may lead to illegal searches, but that's a totally different argument than what most people try to make on this topic.
However, U.S. federal and State laws have been eroding this constitutional right for decades
There once was a constitutional right to own slaves, are you making the argument that the constitution is not to be changed?
There was no constitutional right to own slaves prior to the 13th amendment. The 13th amendment simply made it unconstitutional to own slaves. There is a difference.
After the revelation and prior to the civil war the topic of slavery was often debated and occupied a major place in much of the public debate. CLEARLY slavery flew in the face of the Declaration of Independence and it's clear "All Men are created equal" statement, yet it persisted with the united states well into the 1860's. It was the primary issue that brought this country to the Civil War where over a million men from both sides died, paying in blood for slavery. But there was NO constitutional right to owning a slave, there never was. So, the 13th amendment was not changing the constitution on slavery, removing a previously held right, but further clarifying that slavery was unconstitutional, that "all men" included the ones who had previously been treated as slaves.
Is that a broadsword concealed in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?
Neither... It's my AR-14, and you better hope I'm not unhappy to see you....
Ok.. As long as you are committed to *legal* means of fixing this AND you intend to exercise your right to vote, do what you want...
IMHO, I would urge you to consider what might be the shortest path to your goal though. Third party/Independent candidates are not going to be viable at the national level no matter how much you wish it to happen. It is this practicality that has driven the TEA party to attempt to work within the republican party, an attempt that may actually succeed in reigning in the abuses without having to spend decades trying to build a party, splitting the vote and guaranteeing the wrong kind of people are in power.
THEN... Go advocate for the people you like... But I'll warn you, just thumbing your nose at the whole system is a good part of the problem we have today.. Too many have just accepted that corruption and politics go hand in hand. This needn't be true, and wouldn't be if the average person actually cared enough to hold their elected representatives to account.
I'm not arguing for unfettered data collections, just for a bit of understanding that there ARE legal arguments for how it doesn't violate the constitution.
Lawyers will argue that anything is anything.
Do you really, honestly, believe that the people who wrote the Constitution believed the US government should be able to spy on everyone, all the time?
I'm not a lawyer.. But I play one on TV and I stayed at a holiday inn express last night...
The argument here is easy.. You have to prove that the 4th amendment prohibits the *collection* of these electronic records in all cases, including when the records are never looked at. Does it always violate the 4th amendment? I'm not so sure it does, specifically when the records are NOT searched.
So the question becomes can the collected data legally be searched and If so, under what conditions? I think the 4th amendment makes that clear, you need a specific warrant to search for anything, and running a search on this data requires the same.
So, IMHO warrantless searches of the data are forbidden by the 4th amendment, but the collection of the data does not seem to be forbidden if it's not searched.
Your choice, but consider this...
If you don't vote, you cannot complain when those elected don't reflect your views.
BTW... I believe that it is this exact attitude that has Trump on top of the polls... He's seen as the "outsider" anti-PC brash talking guy and there is some appeal in that. That should scare everybody...
Cannot disagree with you... But I also hate to say that what you describe is likely to happen.
Although, there are a number of interesting "happenings" that give me hope that we won't end up with either Trump or Jeb!.... Cruz's sudden alliance with Trump has me baffled, but it could turn into a master stroke if Trump does the crash and burn late in the fall. Cruz could easily suck up the disillusioned Trump voters when the wheels come off the train because he's positioned with generally the same views.
But... Jeb is better positioned here, if he can keep his mouth shut...
Why can politicians not shut up about things they do not understand? Obsessive-compulsion disorder?
No it's not OCD, it's called being a narcissist, which is a common problem with politicians..
SANDERS 2016!!
We can only hope.... Unless he takes a hard right turn after the Hill's exit, the general election will be a land slide, just not in his direction.
However, unless they arrest Hillary or she kicks the bucket between now and the convention, Sanders has a snowballs chance of beating the Clinton election machine once they start spending their money this winter..
With 17 serious potential candidates on the Republican side and 3 on the democratic side you still say that? 20 isn't enough choice for you? Dang man, what DO you want here?
The 4th amendment still applies regardless of your stance on privacy.
Yes, it does.. However the key term here is "search" because electronic data collection is not a seizure where something is taken from you. Here's the text of the amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
One could argue that data collection that is not searched is still allowed under the constitution. One could then argue that as long as the government has a warrant based on probable cause that outlines the kinds of data to be searched that they do not violate the 4th amendment.
I'm not arguing for unfettered data collections, just for a bit of understanding that there ARE legal arguments for how it doesn't violate the constitution.
I'd vote for Jared Fogle first.
Daz Nutz... Oh wait.. Wrong party..
You're fighting the wrong battle. Adding amendments isn't going to help, the government doesn't obey the ones that we already have.
How true... We are ignoring a number of "inconvenient" amendments now..