In other words, someone who knows a lot about the relevant fields of interest has to read or at least examine each document, understand it, figure out its place in the scheme of things, then reach down into his own brain (so to speak) and pull out all the deep linkages so he can annotate the document.
Yes. If A uses B's "CC#, SSN and bank PIN" without authorization by B, then A has stolen money from B and defrauded the bank as well (having obtained services from the bank under false pretenses, and making them liable for B's loss). He's also defrauded the merchant. A is in a whole lotta trouble, if caught.
At least, that's the way I see it -- if you want a legal opinion, buy one from a lawyer.
This brings up an interesting point. We actually do have long experience, in law, with the taking of "virtual property". Forging a check, for example, gives the forger possession of money which rightly belongs to someone else, even though the money may never have existed as physical coin or currency. Much of the money circulating today never existed in the physical world. This blows another hole in the argument that taking someone's information is fundamentally different from taking his silver candlesticks.
"Using my toaster is cooking; using my identity is... burglary?"
Fraud. See how much easier it is to talk about these things when we call them by familiar names? Inserting a computer doesn't make it something totally new, any more than the invention of firearms turned murder into something new.
The only part that's still sticky is taking information, because nobody ever broke into anyone's house to make and carry away a copy of his toaster. Wait...espionage?
I recall a story...some fellow had jiggered a computer to embezzle a big stack of money. On conviction, the authorities jiggered his *brain* so that he couldn't look at a computer without getting headaches and dizziness, couldn't touch one without minor pain. The fellow couldn't even feed himself, because all the restaurants and stores were computerized -- he had to beg strangers to use his credit card for him. The authorities saw to it that he could always buy what he needed, but he was incapable of making the transaction with his own hands.
Hmmm, first I want to hear what Mr. Straczynski thinks Star Trek should be like. I have liked ST less and less as it developed, since it kept creeping further away from the idealism evident in TOS. The Federation in DS9 was no better than society is now; it just had cooler toys. One of the things I found attractive about TOS was the idea that we really can be "white hats" if we care enough to make it so. In later series physical courage was still upheld but moral courage seemed to be bleeding out of Federation society.
I'd like to think that JMS had enough of corrupt, decayed, or self-serving organizations in B5 (which was really good at that, BTW) and would like to tackle something completely different. If I want "gritty realism" I can open the newspaper and find enough to choke on. I'd like my entertainment to call me toward being better.
That's an awfully vague term. We've got an Ethernet hub with a corner knocked off its case, so theoretically you could say it's "broken", but it still works as well as it ever did. A lot of cryptologic results are like that: we know more than we did before about X, but X is not suddenly rendered useless or even worrisomely less strong. Whereas, in the movies, "we broke their code" generally means, "we have the key and can read their secret messages as quickly and easily as they can."
Water has nonzero viscosity, so some of that energy never reaches the beach. Is it a negligible amount? That would be great. How do we know that?
I'm on the side of responsible use of technology here -- I think there's just about too many of us unless we begin to actively manage our planet, so one of the answers to "how can we survive" means more tech, not less. I don't want to spend the next thousand years analyzing and never doing (or analyzing in order to *delay* the doing) but I want a system that we understand well enough to plan for the next century or five. I don't want my grandkids wondering how I could be so stupid as to permit the building of X without considering the consequences.
And I'm also perverse enough to wonder if anything bad happens if we slow the erosion of coastlines.
I wasn't just talking about the beaches. If we're taking energy out of the system, how does that distort the operation of the system? Remember Le Chatelier's Principle? How will the system push back?
For example, will the fishing grounds move to somewhere we can't predict and won't like, because the fish don't get enough oxygen where they are now, because smaller waves don't mix in enough air?
Will currents shift or just die out? How will the atmosphere respond to that?
Pulling gigawatts out of the ocean is going to change the ocean. What are *all* the significant changes we should expect, which need mitigation, and what are we going to do about them? When I say "design", I'm not talking about individual installations; I'm talking about the active management of energy and material resources of a continent, as a whole. We haven't done that, and now we need to fix up what we've done, so let's do the complete job this time and try to avoid making something else that will need fixing.
So, what are the long term effects of sapping 50% of wave energy? How does that affect mixing of the upper waters and the movement of nutrients? Will the fish be scared away to their doom? Will goop pile up at the mouths of rivers? Will warm and cold spots get warmer resp. colder?
I really would like to believe that the answers to these questions are good. But let's not screw up again, please. Design, *then* build. We may only have a few monumental mistakes left in our account.
Securing these data is good, and NSA might be able to help. Harmonizing accessibility and authorization sounds needful, but NSA is a strange choice for that role, I'm thinking.
But it seems to me that the greatest needs are for someone to go round applying the boot to appropriate posteriors in order to actually dislodge jealously hoarded information, and for Congress to wake up long enough to tune laws regarding appropriate disclosure to be a little more subtle than the current don't-give-anyone-anything-ever approach.
Oh, and of course to sharpen our tools for removing and punishing any of our hired help in DC when they misbehave. The balance of power must remain balanced.
*sigh* Remove the support, of course. Vote the rascals out. Convince your fellow citizens that the current law causes more problems than it solves, and that a different one would do what we want and not do what we don't want.
Citizen: [standing there] Bad Cop: Go to jail. Citizen: Why? Judge: Yes, why? Bad Cop: I don't like his face. Judge: Bad Cop, go to jail. Citizen, you are free. Citizen: Thank you, Your Honor.
But it won't happen in that order. The states will first have to ensure that they can live without the federal money, *then* they will be able to demand the cessation of federal programs and lowering of then-unnecessarily-high taxes, because the federal purse strings will be unable to strangle the initiative.
It won't happen at all, of course. Some states generate less wealth per capita than others, and there are not-unreasonable arguments that throwing poorer states upon their own resources is un-neighborly. It's the same kind of insoluble dilemma that led to the different formulas for representation in the two houses of Congress.
I have a birth certificate to prove my legitimacy.:-)
Please demonstrate how the creation of a national ID *automatically* causes people to abuse it because they don't like my face. If people shouldn't do that, we should pass useful laws punishing such behavior, and use them. The card is not the problem; disparity of power (if there actually is any) is the problem.
And the difference between linked and unlinked driver's licenses is zero if I'm standing in my home state.
Please explain again why a National ID card is so obviously a calamity. In particular, why is it any worse than the State ID card (i.e. driver's license) that I accepted long ago?
Exactly. Instead of an automatic response to reject any technology which might possibly be misused, take a moment to give the putative victim enough power to challenge the potential abuser.
Slashdot Mirror
Those clever Brit.s have figured out how to download televisions? I still have to lug them home physically.
In other words, someone who knows a lot about the relevant fields of interest has to read or at least examine each document, understand it, figure out its place in the scheme of things, then reach down into his own brain (so to speak) and pull out all the deep linkages so he can annotate the document.
Waddia know, we still need librarians after all!
Yes. If A uses B's "CC#, SSN and bank PIN" without authorization by B, then A has stolen money from B and defrauded the bank as well (having obtained services from the bank under false pretenses, and making them liable for B's loss). He's also defrauded the merchant. A is in a whole lotta trouble, if caught.
At least, that's the way I see it -- if you want a legal opinion, buy one from a lawyer.
This brings up an interesting point. We actually do have long experience, in law, with the taking of "virtual property". Forging a check, for example, gives the forger possession of money which rightly belongs to someone else, even though the money may never have existed as physical coin or currency. Much of the money circulating today never existed in the physical world. This blows another hole in the argument that taking someone's information is fundamentally different from taking his silver candlesticks.
"Using my toaster is cooking; using my identity is... burglary?"
Fraud. See how much easier it is to talk about these things when we call them by familiar names? Inserting a computer doesn't make it something totally new, any more than the invention of firearms turned murder into something new.
The only part that's still sticky is taking information, because nobody ever broke into anyone's house to make and carry away a copy of his toaster. Wait...espionage?
I recall a story...some fellow had jiggered a computer to embezzle a big stack of money. On conviction, the authorities jiggered his *brain* so that he couldn't look at a computer without getting headaches and dizziness, couldn't touch one without minor pain. The fellow couldn't even feed himself, because all the restaurants and stores were computerized -- he had to beg strangers to use his credit card for him. The authorities saw to it that he could always buy what he needed, but he was incapable of making the transaction with his own hands.
Was that right? was that wrong?
100% of my work isn't classified, but I know better than to throw secrets around unencrypted.
Setting aside what the President may or may not deserve, *we* deserve better from the people who work for us.
"It is one thing to crack into a network. Stealing social security numbers and personal photos is another, however."
Yes, it is. One is burglary; the other is copyright infringement.
I want to see a CD with 100,000 songs on it. They must be fairly *short* songs....
Dunno anything about Highway to Heaven, but the gimmick always makes me think it's a remake of The Time Tunnel.
Hmmm, first I want to hear what Mr. Straczynski thinks Star Trek should be like. I have liked ST less and less as it developed, since it kept creeping further away from the idealism evident in TOS. The Federation in DS9 was no better than society is now; it just had cooler toys. One of the things I found attractive about TOS was the idea that we really can be "white hats" if we care enough to make it so. In later series physical courage was still upheld but moral courage seemed to be bleeding out of Federation society.
I'd like to think that JMS had enough of corrupt, decayed, or self-serving organizations in B5 (which was really good at that, BTW) and would like to tackle something completely different. If I want "gritty realism" I can open the newspaper and find enough to choke on. I'd like my entertainment to call me toward being better.
That's an awfully vague term. We've got an Ethernet hub with a corner knocked off its case, so theoretically you could say it's "broken", but it still works as well as it ever did. A lot of cryptologic results are like that: we know more than we did before about X, but X is not suddenly rendered useless or even worrisomely less strong. Whereas, in the movies, "we broke their code" generally means, "we have the key and can read their secret messages as quickly and easily as they can."
Water has nonzero viscosity, so some of that energy never reaches the beach. Is it a negligible amount? That would be great. How do we know that?
I'm on the side of responsible use of technology here -- I think there's just about too many of us unless we begin to actively manage our planet, so one of the answers to "how can we survive" means more tech, not less. I don't want to spend the next thousand years analyzing and never doing (or analyzing in order to *delay* the doing) but I want a system that we understand well enough to plan for the next century or five. I don't want my grandkids wondering how I could be so stupid as to permit the building of X without considering the consequences.
And I'm also perverse enough to wonder if anything bad happens if we slow the erosion of coastlines.
I wasn't just talking about the beaches. If we're taking energy out of the system, how does that distort the operation of the system? Remember Le Chatelier's Principle? How will the system push back?
For example, will the fishing grounds move to somewhere we can't predict and won't like, because the fish don't get enough oxygen where they are now, because smaller waves don't mix in enough air?
Will currents shift or just die out? How will the atmosphere respond to that?
Pulling gigawatts out of the ocean is going to change the ocean. What are *all* the significant changes we should expect, which need mitigation, and what are we going to do about them? When I say "design", I'm not talking about individual installations; I'm talking about the active management of energy and material resources of a continent, as a whole. We haven't done that, and now we need to fix up what we've done, so let's do the complete job this time and try to avoid making something else that will need fixing.
...for a phone *without* digital music toys in it?
...then they should have stopped doing it.
So, what are the long term effects of sapping 50% of wave energy? How does that affect mixing of the upper waters and the movement of nutrients? Will the fish be scared away to their doom? Will goop pile up at the mouths of rivers? Will warm and cold spots get warmer resp. colder?
I really would like to believe that the answers to these questions are good. But let's not screw up again, please. Design, *then* build. We may only have a few monumental mistakes left in our account.
I could get all that and more decades ago from Edmund Scientific.
Securing these data is good, and NSA might be able to help. Harmonizing accessibility and authorization sounds needful, but NSA is a strange choice for that role, I'm thinking.
But it seems to me that the greatest needs are for someone to go round applying the boot to appropriate posteriors in order to actually dislodge jealously hoarded information, and for Congress to wake up long enough to tune laws regarding appropriate disclosure to be a little more subtle than the current don't-give-anyone-anything-ever approach.
Oh, and of course to sharpen our tools for removing and punishing any of our hired help in DC when they misbehave. The balance of power must remain balanced.
*sigh* Remove the support, of course. Vote the rascals out. Convince your fellow citizens that the current law causes more problems than it solves, and that a different one would do what we want and not do what we don't want.
Citizen: [standing there]
Bad Cop: Go to jail.
Citizen: Why?
Judge: Yes, why?
Bad Cop: I don't like his face.
Judge: Bad Cop, go to jail. Citizen, you are free.
Citizen: Thank you, Your Honor.
is how it's supposed to work.
But it won't happen in that order. The states will first have to ensure that they can live without the federal money, *then* they will be able to demand the cessation of federal programs and lowering of then-unnecessarily-high taxes, because the federal purse strings will be unable to strangle the initiative.
It won't happen at all, of course. Some states generate less wealth per capita than others, and there are not-unreasonable arguments that throwing poorer states upon their own resources is un-neighborly. It's the same kind of insoluble dilemma that led to the different formulas for representation in the two houses of Congress.
Yeah, right. If a law is inconvenient, just ignore it. Don't fix laws that cause other problems.
I have a birth certificate to prove my legitimacy. :-)
Please demonstrate how the creation of a national ID *automatically* causes people to abuse it because they don't like my face. If people shouldn't do that, we should pass useful laws punishing such behavior, and use them. The card is not the problem; disparity of power (if there actually is any) is the problem.
And the difference between linked and unlinked driver's licenses is zero if I'm standing in my home state.
Please explain again why a National ID card is so obviously a calamity. In particular, why is it any worse than the State ID card (i.e. driver's license) that I accepted long ago?
Exactly. Instead of an automatic response to reject any technology which might possibly be misused, take a moment to give the putative victim enough power to challenge the potential abuser.