But you don't think that the NSA possesses the technology to give an ESTIMATE of how much information originates where?
That is incredibly naive and
That presumes the NSA is not in the business of analyzing intelligence.
Congress should have held the witness in contempt the moment such a statement came out of him mouth, charged him perjury and had him fired for being a lying piece of shit.
"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."
Citizenship is not mentioned and the clear intent of the Amendment is to limit the kinds of things the government can do. In a reasonably broad interpretation, it means that whoever the person is, regardless of citizenship, a warrant is required. In a reasonably narrow interpretation, "the people" means everybody who lives or does business in the United States. Remember that at the time this was written, the notion of citizenship was not sharply defined. There were many people living under the jurisdiction of US law whose status wasn't entirely clear. What people cared about was what the government had power to do in the States.
Call your Congressperson and demand that he do something... No wait, not the telephone; that's bugged. Send him an emai... dammit!. OK, send him a letter. They still (we think) won't open that without a warrant.
Should we all be paid the same per hour regardless of what we produce in that hour?
The Koch brothers employ 10's of thousands of people.
Obviously they're doing something for ordinary people.
That's true. I wipe my butt with their products every day. http://www.gp.com/forYourHome/bathtissue.html The point of the study was that (1) they're some of the largest, highest profile donors in America and (2) despite that high profile, we still can't figure out where their money is going.
My argument has nothing to do with the CONTENT of religion. All religion is all about doing the thing that is to be done because that is the accepted thing and believing what is to be believed because that is the accepted idea. It is all about following authority and tradition, except in the instance where somebody makes up something new and declares himself (or rarely herself) to be the new authority whom followers are now expected to believe and obey.
That whole approach is the reverse of science. In science, we observe and measure and hypothesize about what may be the cause of what we have observed and measured and try to form theories to predict what will happen if we measure again a different way.
Do you expect medical professionals to be able to cure every disease and infection ever? Do you expect automotive engineers to be able to build mechanically perfect vehicles? No. Of course the attitude the majority of people take towards online security is a joke, but no more so than saying "Cyber espionage, crime, and warfare are possible only because of poor application or system design, implementation, and/or configuration."
No, but cyber espionage, crime and warfare are made enormously easier and more productive by shoddy security design.
US security sucks? Now, now, there's no need to become all yoddle! After all, the US has been propagating that which is unseen to the foreign admissive. Why don't we all just get all along, and become brothers in rancid?
US security sucks or ALL electronic security sucks?
The problem is, even if you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we made up the idea of a creator, all that means is that you disproved the notion of a creator *as developed by humans*. The fact that humans invented a creator, does not mean there is no creator.
No, but it blows away any rationale for believing in a creator, because to believe in a different sort of creator, you must make one up.
Respectfully, I disagree. Religion and science are antithetical in nature. In religion, a thing is believed based on appeal to authority and tradition. In science, a thing is shown to be true (or true as best we can figure) based on demonstrable evidence. There is no room in science for accepting propositions based on appeals to authority or tradition. Nor is there any room in religion for the idea that basic assumptions can be tossed aside just because they conflict with evidence.
I'm tired of hearing people say, "the terrorists have won" when the government infringes on our freedom, because it's wildly inaccurate. Terrorists win when their tactics cause outcomes that meet their objectives. Terrorists literally could not care less whether Americans are oppressed by their own government. Their objectives are things like, getting the USA out of the middle east, destroying Israel, etc. What we do in our own country really isn't on their radar, except for American terrorists, who are very few and very low profile and really nobody is worried about them much.
Where is the advantage to home users if they use IPv6? If you buy a router that is interoperable with IPv6, what difference does it make to you if the network provides a IPv4 or IPv6 connection to your local network?
Invisibility cloaks exist that do exactly that. Do you live in a box? They aren't even new anymore. They also are currently so narrow band that they are pretty useless practically, but its got to start somewhere.
My eyes have close to an octave of bandwidth. I'm not impressed by technology that can hide from monochromatic light. Also, the "invisibility" only applies at specific locations in space.
Why didn't they just put a label on it that says "BBC Headquarters Time -- 201 Wood Lane, London, UK". And if people complain about not having accurate time, refer the to the Royal Observatory. They keep pretty good and very official time over there.
In criminal cases, there is sometimes new evidence that could be presented in the appeal and that should be allowed, but only if the evidence was not available to the defendants at the time of the first trial. [But] In civil cases, I don't think new evidence should be allowed
Can you explain why, specifically, you think new evidence that was not available to a defendant in a civil case should be barred, especially in a legal system where the alleged infringer always has to pay his own costs no matter who wins?
the original decision comports with the law and many legal precedents
The whole reason that Oracle filed this appeal is that Oracle disagrees with this assertion.
In a word, effiiency. Yes, it compromises justice somewhat, but also if you make it so you can present new evidence in the appeal you make for lazy lawyering. We want to incentivize both sides to present their best case at the first trial.
The reason I don't think that's appropriate in criminal trials is that there are few criminal appeals anyway and when there are appeals, and peoples' lives and public safety are on the line.
Because the light pulses went into the pipe. Theoretically, if the build their modulators right and exactly undo what they did to make their "time holes" (which normal people would call dark intervals the original unmodulated light will be there on the fiber, superposed with a temporally spread version of the coded pulses they injected, which would be there, but hard to detect.
At the other end of the obscured connection, the trick is to run the same modulation scheme again exactly and if you do it just right, the monochromatic component of the light will once again be spread into the gappy modulation pattern you had at the first modulator output, and the pulses you injected will be there in the otherwise dark intervals.
The scheme depends on two things: (1) you have to time it exactly so that you don't lose the phasing between the original modulator pair and the modulator at the receiving end. If you miss the phase, your data will be in the bright intervals instead of the dark intervals and you won't be able to read it easily. That's what apparently happened in this experiment and why they're confident that what they did really happened even though they didn't get their data back out of the system. The other thing (2) it depends on is that the modulators have to be linear enough that when you modulate and remodulate the light, you don't mix the spectra of the data with the stream you're using to obscure the pulse sequence. If they mix, you won't get a clean signal out no matter how exactly you match the modulators.
The second is a likely limitation on this scheme because they are using nonlinear modulators -- all electro-optically active materials are nonlinear. Linear materials don't modulate light. To do completely linear modulation, you would need to do the modulation mechanically, which is much to slow to create the kind of quite intervals they need to obscure their data.
I think they only have the right of one appeal and the superior court normally only considers evidence that was presented at the first court. In general, they are looking for grounds that the lower court made an error of law or the litigants were denied some rights they should have had. Higher courts can simply decline to hear the case.
I think those rules are too limiting in some cases and too loose in others. In criminal cases, there is sometimes new evidence that could be presented in the appeal and that should be allowed, but only if the evidence was not available to the defendants at the time of the first trial. For example, if a witness comes forward placing the defendant at a different place than where the crime was committed, or if DNA evidence is examined and excludes the suspect. In civil cases, I don't think new evidence should be allowed and the losing litigant should not get an automatic appeal. They should have to present evidence to the appeals court that the lower court made an error of law or did not consider facts that were presented in evidence before they are granted a full review.
In this case, I don't see how an appeals court could overturn the original decision, because the original decision comports with the law and many legal precedents.
What the lab did was to sequence the genome and then (oooh evil) expect to get paid for that work if someone else wanted to use THEIR work to build something with that. That's the modus operandi of every other genetics lab in the world - they all analyze stuff and then provide results to paying customers.
The Dutch lab is not blocking anyone from sequencing the genome themselves - that's a problem with *Saudi-Arabia*, they didn't even want to send the virus out to anyone in the first place for fear it would reflect badly upon their country. If the Saudi's sent out the virus to the CDC and other labs, for instance, this issue wouldn't be an issue, now would it?
The article is completely and wildly off the mark, and the summary is confusing the issue even more, if that's even possible.
Why can't they charge up front for their work, or on delivery of the promised work and be done with it?
Slashdot Mirror
Congress should have held the witness in contempt the moment such a statement came out of him mouth, charged him perjury and had him fired for being a lying piece of shit.
"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."
Citizenship is not mentioned and the clear intent of the Amendment is to limit the kinds of things the government can do. In a reasonably broad interpretation, it means that whoever the person is, regardless of citizenship, a warrant is required. In a reasonably narrow interpretation, "the people" means everybody who lives or does business in the United States. Remember that at the time this was written, the notion of citizenship was not sharply defined. There were many people living under the jurisdiction of US law whose status wasn't entirely clear. What people cared about was what the government had power to do in the States.
Call your Congressperson and demand that he do something... No wait, not the telephone; that's bugged. Send him an emai... dammit!. OK, send him a letter. They still (we think) won't open that without a warrant.
Should we all be paid the same per hour regardless of what we produce in that hour?
The Koch brothers employ 10's of thousands of people.
Obviously they're doing something for ordinary people.
That's true. I wipe my butt with their products every day. http://www.gp.com/forYourHome/bathtissue.html
The point of the study was that (1) they're some of the largest, highest profile donors in America and (2) despite that high profile, we still can't figure out where their money is going.
My argument has nothing to do with the CONTENT of religion. All religion is all about doing the thing that is to be done because that is the accepted thing and believing what is to be believed because that is the accepted idea. It is all about following authority and tradition, except in the instance where somebody makes up something new and declares himself (or rarely herself) to be the new authority whom followers are now expected to believe and obey.
That whole approach is the reverse of science. In science, we observe and measure and hypothesize about what may be the cause of what we have observed and measured and try to form theories to predict what will happen if we measure again a different way.
Do you expect medical professionals to be able to cure every disease and infection ever? Do you expect automotive engineers to be able to build mechanically perfect vehicles? No. Of course the attitude the majority of people take towards online security is a joke, but no more so than saying "Cyber espionage, crime, and warfare are possible only because of poor application or system design, implementation, and/or configuration."
No, but cyber espionage, crime and warfare are made enormously easier and more productive by shoddy security design.
US security sucks? Now, now, there's no need to become all yoddle! After all, the US has been propagating that which is unseen to the foreign admissive. Why don't we all just get all along, and become brothers in rancid?
US security sucks or ALL electronic security sucks?
People (some of them) enjoy the adrenaline rush when they believe they are in control. When they are not in control, there is just the fear.
The problem is, even if you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we made up the idea of a creator, all that means is that you disproved the notion of a creator *as developed by humans*. The fact that humans invented a creator, does not mean there is no creator.
No, but it blows away any rationale for believing in a creator, because to believe in a different sort of creator, you must make one up.
Respectfully, I disagree. Religion and science are antithetical in nature. In religion, a thing is believed based on appeal to authority and tradition. In science, a thing is shown to be true (or true as best we can figure) based on demonstrable evidence. There is no room in science for accepting propositions based on appeals to authority or tradition. Nor is there any room in religion for the idea that basic assumptions can be tossed aside just because they conflict with evidence.
Yet more evidence that the terrorists have won.
I'm tired of hearing people say, "the terrorists have won" when the government infringes on our freedom, because it's wildly inaccurate. Terrorists win when their tactics cause outcomes that meet their objectives. Terrorists literally could not care less whether Americans are oppressed by their own government. Their objectives are things like, getting the USA out of the middle east, destroying Israel, etc. What we do in our own country really isn't on their radar, except for American terrorists, who are very few and very low profile and really nobody is worried about them much.
Where is the advantage to home users if they use IPv6? If you buy a router that is interoperable with IPv6, what difference does it make to you if the network provides a IPv4 or IPv6 connection to your local network?
because the cops don't give a shit. they're too busy with the war on drugs to deal with criminals who are the criminal portion of the drugs business.
Police work is filled with many important and difficult decisions. For instance, Does this guy look black enough to arrest? http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet
Invisibility cloaks exist that do exactly that. Do you live in a box? They aren't even new anymore. They also are currently so narrow band that they are pretty useless practically, but its got to start somewhere.
My eyes have close to an octave of bandwidth. I'm not impressed by technology that can hide from monochromatic light. Also, the "invisibility" only applies at specific locations in space.
Why didn't they just put a label on it that says "BBC Headquarters Time -- 201 Wood Lane, London, UK". And if people complain about not having accurate time, refer the to the Royal Observatory. They keep pretty good and very official time over there.
Why do the thieves need help with Fords? There are plenty of Hondas to rob.
And the thieves don't have to crack your code. Instead, the buy a device that will open many many cars.
Some models of newer cars don't have physical keys at all. There's just an electronic widget.
In criminal cases, there is sometimes new evidence that could be presented in the appeal and that should be allowed, but only if the evidence was not available to the defendants at the time of the first trial. [But] In civil cases, I don't think new evidence should be allowed
Can you explain why, specifically, you think new evidence that was not available to a defendant in a civil case should be barred, especially in a legal system where the alleged infringer always has to pay his own costs no matter who wins?
the original decision comports with the law and many legal precedents
The whole reason that Oracle filed this appeal is that Oracle disagrees with this assertion.
In a word, effiiency. Yes, it compromises justice somewhat, but also if you make it so you can present new evidence in the appeal you make for lazy lawyering. We want to incentivize both sides to present their best case at the first trial.
The reason I don't think that's appropriate in criminal trials is that there are few criminal appeals anyway and when there are appeals, and peoples' lives and public safety are on the line.
Because the light pulses went into the pipe. Theoretically, if the build their modulators right and exactly undo what they did to make their "time holes" (which normal people would call dark intervals the original unmodulated light will be there on the fiber, superposed with a temporally spread version of the coded pulses they injected, which would be there, but hard to detect.
At the other end of the obscured connection, the trick is to run the same modulation scheme again exactly and if you do it just right, the monochromatic component of the light will once again be spread into the gappy modulation pattern you had at the first modulator output, and the pulses you injected will be there in the otherwise dark intervals.
The scheme depends on two things: (1) you have to time it exactly so that you don't lose the phasing between the original modulator pair and the modulator at the receiving end. If you miss the phase, your data will be in the bright intervals instead of the dark intervals and you won't be able to read it easily. That's what apparently happened in this experiment and why they're confident that what they did really happened even though they didn't get their data back out of the system. The other thing (2) it depends on is that the modulators have to be linear enough that when you modulate and remodulate the light, you don't mix the spectra of the data with the stream you're using to obscure the pulse sequence. If they mix, you won't get a clean signal out no matter how exactly you match the modulators.
The second is a likely limitation on this scheme because they are using nonlinear modulators -- all electro-optically active materials are nonlinear. Linear materials don't modulate light. To do completely linear modulation, you would need to do the modulation mechanically, which is much to slow to create the kind of quite intervals they need to obscure their data.
Take this into consideration, according to the quoted article:
"Their work built on the principles behind invisibility cloaks, which hide objects in space by channelling light rays around them."
... that it matters more who and how you treat each other than how you met?
I think they only have the right of one appeal and the superior court normally only considers evidence that was presented at the first court. In general, they are looking for grounds that the lower court made an error of law or the litigants were denied some rights they should have had. Higher courts can simply decline to hear the case.
I think those rules are too limiting in some cases and too loose in others. In criminal cases, there is sometimes new evidence that could be presented in the appeal and that should be allowed, but only if the evidence was not available to the defendants at the time of the first trial. For example, if a witness comes forward placing the defendant at a different place than where the crime was committed, or if DNA evidence is examined and excludes the suspect. In civil cases, I don't think new evidence should be allowed and the losing litigant should not get an automatic appeal. They should have to present evidence to the appeals court that the lower court made an error of law or did not consider facts that were presented in evidence before they are granted a full review.
In this case, I don't see how an appeals court could overturn the original decision, because the original decision comports with the law and many legal precedents.
Lots of them. Would you like yours with or without social networking and customizable playlists?
It's not patented... *sigh*
What the lab did was to sequence the genome and then (oooh evil) expect to get paid for that work if someone else wanted to use THEIR work to build something with that. That's the modus operandi of every other genetics lab in the world - they all analyze stuff and then provide results to paying customers.
The Dutch lab is not blocking anyone from sequencing the genome themselves - that's a problem with *Saudi-Arabia*, they didn't even want to send the virus out to anyone in the first place for fear it would reflect badly upon their country. If the Saudi's sent out the virus to the CDC and other labs, for instance, this issue wouldn't be an issue, now would it?
The article is completely and wildly off the mark, and the summary is confusing the issue even more, if that's even possible.
Why can't they charge up front for their work, or on delivery of the promised work and be done with it?