The WP broke it down for you. 2776 cases includes incidence over 4 years.
Last year there were 900-odd total including 195 FISA act violations and roughly 700 violations of executive orders.
Of the FISA act violations: they break it down further:
60 operator errors
39 did not follow standard operating procedure (no news whether or not willful)
21 typographical errors or overly broad search terms
3 training issues
67 computer errors due to failure to recognize roaming phones
5 other system errors
This is not evidence of a vast conspiracy to deprive you of your rights. It's evidence of people failing to do things properly.
I figure to come up with that many errors, there must have been several thousand searches per year that were done as intended and according to the law. If they were always ignoring the law, that means the NSA would hardly be searching anything. If they were 99.9% in compliance, there would be about 900,000 searches to get about 900 errors. I think both of those scenarios are implausible. Nobody believes there are just a couple thousand searches per year and I doubt the NSA is good enough and careful enough to get 99.9% compliance. At the very limit of plausibility, they are not listening to all your phone calls.
My bad. Those 900 or so errors were for one quarter. The whole year is 2776, with 2012Q1 being the worst. Also, the trend is increasing.
The WP broke it down for you. 2776 cases includes incidence over 4 years.
Last year there were 900-odd total including 195 FISA act violations and roughly 700 violations of executive orders.
Of the FISA act violations: they break it down further:
60 operator errors
39 did not follow standard operating procedure (no news whether or not willful)
21 typographical errors or overly broad search terms
3 training issues
67 computer errors due to failure to recognize roaming phones
5 other system errors
This is not evidence of a vast conspiracy to deprive you of your rights. It's evidence of people failing to do things properly.
I figure to come up with that many errors, there must have been several thousand searches per year that were done as intended and according to the law. If they were always ignoring the law, that means the NSA would hardly be searching anything. If they were 99.9% in compliance, there would be about 900,000 searches to get about 900 errors. I think both of those scenarios are implausible. Nobody believes there are just a couple thousand searches per year and I doubt the NSA is good enough and careful enough to get 99.9% compliance. At the very limit of plausibility, they are not listening to all your phone calls.
I think any vertebrate, while it's active, would pass this test. It's not a useful tool for determining human-level consciousness, just whether your brain is working and connected up right. My cats, for instance, probably have a fully functioning brains, are aware of and respond to their surroundings in a somewhat organized way, can care for their basic needs (hunt, find water, find places to sleep, fight, beg for food they don't really need). Their brains is no doubt as well connected as any human's, but they're stupid as hell by any human measurement.
On the other hand, there are people who are aware of their surroundings and can carry on a conversation with you, but some of the subsystems of their brains are damaged and there are things my cats can do that they can't. There are others who have little or no apparent impairment, but almost half their brain is dead.
I fully agree.
Yet, the concept is around since electricity was mastered by humans. Next, I might go read TFA and see how much is real;-)
Depending on when you consider electricity having been mastered. If Tesla is your master, I guess you're right, because he contemplated everything being powered by giant transmitters.
I've got video of Niel Armstrong landing a vertical landing and take off rocket on the moon in 1969. Glad to see Space X could catch up.
There's only one reason why normal rockets don't land tail-down: it's INEFFICIENT when you have an atmosphere to work with. The space shuttle and NASA and Russian landing capsules land using no fuel. Beat that, Space X.
Kill virtual humans, of course. Or zombies or aliens if that's your preference.
The real idiocy here is the presumption that vast numbers of gamers would willingly spend ANY of their time doing anything that benefits anyone other than themselves.
It's a buy then. Revenue growth has been good and they're very profitable. The only fear I would have is that they have grown so big ($46 B!) that they are more likely to shrink than to continue to grow.
It's a cost effective solution. They can get their employees to work on the cheap -- and they don't have to park at Google HQ which is no doubt damn near impossible.
It's not very widely useful either. They mention getting the things to work at 6.5 miles from a television tower. That's great if you happen to be that close to a megawatt transmitter. Not so great everywhere else. Their effective (one device to another) is also very limited, because transmitter power is super low. It's limited to less than what you receive off the transmitter, which is not much. At a mile from a TV tower, you've got a few milliwatts to work with at most.
It's impressive that they got this to work at that kind of range from a tower at all. Under conditions at most people's homes, it wouldn't work without a local transmitter to light it up.
No, it should be rejected because it HASN'T been done. It's not technology. It's an idea for a program. You should not be able to just describe a feature list and patent it. Imagine if this were done with drugs. I'm patenting a drug that will cure cancer. Here's how it works: You take a green pill twice a day for one week and at the end of six weeks you will be cancer-free. The drug works by programming your immune cells to attack cancer cells.
'Wish' is right. This might make a nice bit of speculative fiction, maybe the core of some future story about a dystopian eduction system where the heroin discovers that evil people have altered the universal animation program....
The computer is supposed to do the storyboarding. It hasn't been automated before. What's missing is the WHOLE PROGRAM. The patent office needs to start demanding working code for software patents. If you don't have working code, you don't have an invention, just an idea that you might eventually some day years from now turn into an invention -- if it's even an invention.
These devices will be great for a time in 20 years when kids don't bother to learn to read and can't even listen to a story but must have everything shown to them in video clips. In short, it's for the brave new world of subhumans.
Evidence please? If you have none, then the current correct answer is "we have no idea". If it makes you feel better, you can GUESS that it MIGHT be coincidence, faulty memory, or deception. You haven't explained anything, you have simply made something up in the tradition of Aristotle.
He has explained the observed fact that some people report things that don't make sense. He hasn't covered all the possibilities, but he hit the top three.
I hate to post AC, but I've modded this thread already.
As somebody who doesn't rate Obama too badly as presidents go, I still agree with you, that Constitutionally, he does not really have the power to delay any part of it. But who would challenge his actions in this case?
The minute your medical bills exceed $12,700, you have standing to sue for enforcement of the ACA. There will be thousands of potential plaintiffs by this time next year.
The insurance companies do this already and already have out of pocket maximum calculated each year for many policies. It's clearly an empty excuse. They've known the law was coming for years. Obama knows this too. He just rolled over and did their bidding.
It's not in a district court judge's power to overrule a Supreme Court case. She did the best she could do, which is to gut the government's argument that they were operating even under the very lenient Terry standard.
It is in Congress's power to overrule it though. They could pass a law that says, "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."
Let the court try and reverse THAT on Constitutional grounds.
With that law in place as statute, with penalties for violating it, police wouldn't dare stop you without probable cause because to do so would be a federal crime that they could be charged with.
I prefer the truth even if you think it is callous. Nobody murdered Aaron Schwartz. He killed himself and nobody else can or should be held responsible for that.
Slashdot Mirror
The WP broke it down for you. 2776 cases includes incidence over 4 years. Last year there were 900-odd total including 195 FISA act violations and roughly 700 violations of executive orders. Of the FISA act violations: they break it down further:
This is not evidence of a vast conspiracy to deprive you of your rights. It's evidence of people failing to do things properly.
I figure to come up with that many errors, there must have been several thousand searches per year that were done as intended and according to the law. If they were always ignoring the law, that means the NSA would hardly be searching anything. If they were 99.9% in compliance, there would be about 900,000 searches to get about 900 errors. I think both of those scenarios are implausible. Nobody believes there are just a couple thousand searches per year and I doubt the NSA is good enough and careful enough to get 99.9% compliance. At the very limit of plausibility, they are not listening to all your phone calls.
My bad. Those 900 or so errors were for one quarter. The whole year is 2776, with 2012Q1 being the worst. Also, the trend is increasing.
Last year there were 900-odd total including 195 FISA act violations and roughly 700 violations of executive orders.
Of the FISA act violations: they break it down further:
This is not evidence of a vast conspiracy to deprive you of your rights. It's evidence of people failing to do things properly.
I figure to come up with that many errors, there must have been several thousand searches per year that were done as intended and according to the law. If they were always ignoring the law, that means the NSA would hardly be searching anything. If they were 99.9% in compliance, there would be about 900,000 searches to get about 900 errors. I think both of those scenarios are implausible. Nobody believes there are just a couple thousand searches per year and I doubt the NSA is good enough and careful enough to get 99.9% compliance. At the very limit of plausibility, they are not listening to all your phone calls.
Is he the Wan Hu was legendarily blew himself up with rockets?
I think any vertebrate, while it's active, would pass this test. It's not a useful tool for determining human-level consciousness, just whether your brain is working and connected up right. My cats, for instance, probably have a fully functioning brains, are aware of and respond to their surroundings in a somewhat organized way, can care for their basic needs (hunt, find water, find places to sleep, fight, beg for food they don't really need). Their brains is no doubt as well connected as any human's, but they're stupid as hell by any human measurement.
On the other hand, there are people who are aware of their surroundings and can carry on a conversation with you, but some of the subsystems of their brains are damaged and there are things my cats can do that they can't. There are others who have little or no apparent impairment, but almost half their brain is dead.
I fully agree. Yet, the concept is around since electricity was mastered by humans. Next, I might go read TFA and see how much is real ;-)
Depending on when you consider electricity having been mastered. If Tesla is your master, I guess you're right, because he contemplated everything being powered by giant transmitters.
I've got video of Niel Armstrong landing a vertical landing and take off rocket on the moon in 1969. Glad to see Space X could catch up.
There's only one reason why normal rockets don't land tail-down: it's INEFFICIENT when you have an atmosphere to work with. The space shuttle and NASA and Russian landing capsules land using no fuel. Beat that, Space X.
Kill virtual humans, of course. Or zombies or aliens if that's your preference.
The real idiocy here is the presumption that vast numbers of gamers would willingly spend ANY of their time doing anything that benefits anyone other than themselves.
Doesn't apply to Cisco. Their sales are up the last two years and their profits are steady (and large). Chambers is trying to increase profitability.
It's a buy then. Revenue growth has been good and they're very profitable. The only fear I would have is that they have grown so big ($46 B!) that they are more likely to shrink than to continue to grow.
Probably not in the short term. I think he decided they had 5% more employees than they need to do the business he expects to do.
It's a cost effective solution. They can get their employees to work on the cheap -- and they don't have to park at Google HQ which is no doubt damn near impossible.
What's new is they're working with very low power levels. I've never seen a backscatter system that can work with so little incident power.
It's not very widely useful either. They mention getting the things to work at 6.5 miles from a television tower. That's great if you happen to be that close to a megawatt transmitter. Not so great everywhere else. Their effective (one device to another) is also very limited, because transmitter power is super low. It's limited to less than what you receive off the transmitter, which is not much. At a mile from a TV tower, you've got a few milliwatts to work with at most.
It's impressive that they got this to work at that kind of range from a tower at all. Under conditions at most people's homes, it wouldn't work without a local transmitter to light it up.
No, it should be rejected because it HASN'T been done. It's not technology. It's an idea for a program. You should not be able to just describe a feature list and patent it. Imagine if this were done with drugs. I'm patenting a drug that will cure cancer. Here's how it works: You take a green pill twice a day for one week and at the end of six weeks you will be cancer-free. The drug works by programming your immune cells to attack cancer cells.
'Wish' is right. This might make a nice bit of speculative fiction, maybe the core of some future story about a dystopian eduction system where the heroin discovers that evil people have altered the universal animation program....
I knew there were drugs involved.
If all patents were like software patents, there wouldn't be any computers to run the software on.
The computer is supposed to do the storyboarding. It hasn't been automated before. What's missing is the WHOLE PROGRAM. The patent office needs to start demanding working code for software patents. If you don't have working code, you don't have an invention, just an idea that you might eventually some day years from now turn into an invention -- if it's even an invention.
These devices will be great for a time in 20 years when kids don't bother to learn to read and can't even listen to a story but must have everything shown to them in video clips. In short, it's for the brave new world of subhumans.
Evidence please? If you have none, then the current correct answer is "we have no idea". If it makes you feel better, you can GUESS that it MIGHT be coincidence, faulty memory, or deception. You haven't explained anything, you have simply made something up in the tradition of Aristotle.
He has explained the observed fact that some people report things that don't make sense. He hasn't covered all the possibilities, but he hit the top three.
I hate to post AC, but I've modded this thread already.
As somebody who doesn't rate Obama too badly as presidents go, I still agree with you, that Constitutionally, he does not really have the power to delay any part of it. But who would challenge his actions in this case?
The minute your medical bills exceed $12,700, you have standing to sue for enforcement of the ACA. There will be thousands of potential plaintiffs by this time next year.
Not surprising. The complexity and cost of health insurance in the USA dwarfs Wisconsin.
The insurance companies do this already and already have out of pocket maximum calculated each year for many policies. It's clearly an empty excuse. They've known the law was coming for years. Obama knows this too. He just rolled over and did their bidding.
It's not in a district court judge's power to overrule a Supreme Court case. She did the best she could do, which is to gut the government's argument that they were operating even under the very lenient Terry standard.
It is in Congress's power to overrule it though. They could pass a law that says, "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."
Let the court try and reverse THAT on Constitutional grounds.
With that law in place as statute, with penalties for violating it, police wouldn't dare stop you without probable cause because to do so would be a federal crime that they could be charged with.
I prefer the truth even if you think it is callous. Nobody murdered Aaron Schwartz. He killed himself and nobody else can or should be held responsible for that.
This case does not involve the NSA.
It might include copies of some of the documents he illegally copied and it may contain many files that partially duplicate each other.