Can they go into Canada or Mexico and seize stuff? Is this even legal? Or does it count as an invasion? Or has it got to be in the sea?
It's obvious that considerations of what is legal are out the window. If they try it, just tell them that the Constitution applies to everywhere in the USA and to American citizens no matter where they are. If they really believe that they can do this legally, they're going to be telling it to a judge and that judge will not be the least bit sympathetic to the claim that the 4th Amendment doesn't exist in places like San Diego and Seattle.
Cities within the 'zone':
San Diego, Escondido, Chula Vista, California
Yuma, parts of Tucson, Las Cruces, Douglas, Arizona
El Paso, Presidio, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Laredo, McAllen, Harlingen, Brownsville Texas
A bunch of little burgs in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont,
Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo New York,
Cleveland, parts of Akron and Toledo Ohio,
Detroit, Michigan
Lots of little places along the border of Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Washington
Bellingham, Washington
Juneau, Alaska
If they count coasts as borders, add half of our major cities, if not more.
And what law, exactly, negates the 4th Amendment?
You asked about the effects of improved methods of detection and treatment. Chronological, regional and economic controls are sufficient to screen out those effects. Now you're throwing in other variables that add a little more complication. What they would be attempting is to establish whether the alleged cause (cell phones) stands out above a background, so they have to measure the background too. Scientists do such studies all the time. Just because you don't understand how they categorize people and behaviors and how they mathematically account for known and suspected risk factors doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means you don't understand. If you really want to know, there are books on these statistical methods at a library near you.
Obligatory XKCD reference
OT, it depends on what your definition of "long term" is. Regardless of the provenance of the funding, such long term epidemiological studies are a huge can of worms due to the stupendous number of confounding variables. How would you, for instance, correct for the a) improved methods for (early) detection of cancer and b) our improved ways to fight cancer?
By comparing people who use cell phones to people who don't use cell phones over the same time period.
To even propose the phrase of 'merging science and religion' shows a lack of understand of the subjects or at least the relevant religions.
The first tenant of a religion is to bootstrap the meme with faith in the unknown. If you can believe that, your brain has been rooted and almost anything is possible. Science requires assertions, constraints, and verifications not required by religion and often in contradiction to their first tenant. Science also requires openness to the possibility that anything can be incorrect. From a religious perspective this is often blasphemous and might even get you killed if the religious are given their way.
TENET. The word is TENET. TENET TENET TENET! Not "tenant."
There is a basic conflict between science are religion. The basic mode of arriving at conclusions is entirely opposite.
In science, a theory is held to be good if it
adequately explains the data
is not cluttered with elements not critical to explaining those facts
is consistent with principles generally believed to be true based on other data
contains a mathematical or otherwise logical model of how things are related.
Additionally, in science, questioning an established theory based on new information is an essential element of how science is done.
Theories are often incomplete and are sometimes at odds with other accepted theories, but the inconsistency is at least recognized and regarded as a problem.
In religion, a belief is held to be true if it
it has been believed for a long time
it was asserted by a person of recognized religious authority
it is more comforting than the alternatives
In religion, there is no requirement that beliefs be consistent. Multiple inconsistent dogmas often exist in the same religion. This frequently goes unrecognized by adherents to the religion but is easily recognized by others familiar with the beliefs. Beliefs that are at odds with real data are not questioned on that basis. Beliefs are neither validated nor invalidated by facts
No scientist knew if atoms were real or not, and they knew it, and they had no mechanistic explanation for the regularities in the recently understood periodic table, and they knew it. They had no mechanistic quantitative explanation for chemical reactions or reaction rates, and knew it.
Right now, physicists know that they have no good, experimentally confirmed, ideas for explaining
a) dark matter
b) dark energy
c) the variety of arbitrary parameters in the standard model
They have an large selection of theoretical proposals for the above.
Today they do have good knowledge about virtually all materials and energetic processes typically occurring and observable on Earth,
That's a difference from the 19th century.
And that's just physics. There are similar lists in biology, genetics, pscychology. sociology, economics, chemistry...
"p.s. the reason there are more females in interior design is that more females enjoy that kind of work/challenge."
I don't understand why more people don't accept this. Why is thinking that their is a fundamental difference between the sexes and that they are better suited for different hobbies/challenges/activities so wrong? Why do we push for equality for equality's sake?
Because historically, the differences between people have been an excuse to oppress many of them. And it's not the people who are suited to the hobbies but the other way 'round.
You are seeing this with video games recently and the complaints that the video game industry is sexist, there aren't enough women in the industry, games are not made equally for men and women, etc. Why is it not okay to just accept that video games are a hobby that have a special appeal for males? The same thing applies to science. No one is saying women can't be scientists, it's just that the male gender is more likely to be better suited for the role of a scientist. It doesn't mean women are stupider or worse than men, it just means they think differently. Why is difference such a bad thing?
It's the stereotyping that is a bad thing. It prevents people from having the opportunities that their abilities and interests should naturally afford them.
Because it's their job? I mean, I don't condone overreaching, but it goes both ways: why should the school pay them if their work does not belong to the school?
It's normally the subject of an explicit agreement between the employee and the employer. If they do the work specifically for the school, such as writing a lesson plan for the classes they teach, then yeah, I would say the district should automatically own rights to that. If the work is tangential to their work for the district and isn't pursuant to some work assigned to them, the courts aren't going to presume that the district has any rights unless they can show an agreement in force stating that the employee cedes them.
And what I said is still the case. If you take away somebody's ownership of their own work, they are less interested in doing it. It's human nature.
1) this patent was filed in 1993, making it a 17 years from issue date patent. Based upon it's issue date of April 9, 1996, it expires (dies) on April 9, 2013. So in a very very short time, the patent will be useless anyway.
2) What is claimed is based upon side channel data in a simultaneous analog/digital signal. It is very unlikely to actually apply to WiFi, but if they can scare you into paying them, then they win. With a competent atty., it is very likely you can make them look elsewhere for victims they can frighten into settlements.
Yep. I'd wait this one out. Most likely, you were selected at random from a long list of people who might be using some equipment relevant to this patent. From my reading, it would have to be an old voice/data modem. In this age, it's unlikely that you even have one, but if you do, it might not be a bad idea to stop using it. AFAICT, has nothing to do with WiFi.
This seems to be only about "work produced for the school", meaning papers for class, lesson plans and the like. It doesn't seem as though they plan to lay claim to your Great American Novel (TM) if you plan on writing one while enrolled or employed there.
For the pupils at least, that claim also likely has no standing, notwithstanding any delusional beliefs to the contrary of the board.
All contracts require some consideration from all parties to the contract. Consideration, in the contract sense, means a bargained-for performance or promise. Restatement (Second) of Contracts 71(1). Basically, this is something of value given or promised as part of the agreement. This can be anything that the parties agree is valuable; the classic example is a single peppercorn. Whitney v. Stearns, 16 Me. 394, 397 (1839).
That means, the school has to explicitly give the pupils something in exchange for their copyright. 'Teaching' can't be it, since they are obliged to do that anyway.
But, the students are not employees, and signed no waiver when they enrolled.
I agree. A school should not be able to claim copyright on a student's work because they're not employed by the school. Teachers, on the other hand, are employed by the school, and thereby their work should be the property of the employer.
No it shouldn't. Who made up THAT idea? The employer only owns the employee's work if the employer has a contractual arrangement with the employee assigning ownership of such work. (Accepting an assignment to work on a project is such an agreement.)
Otherwise, anything you do on your own initiative is your own work and you own all rights to it. This is why tech companies typically make their employees sign agreements that explicitly assign their creative works to the employers. (Such agreements vary in how much of the employees work the employer has rights to, but they are usually pretty onerous.) They wouldn't bother getting you to sign something stating that what you do is theirs if they already knew that it was by default.
Yeah, but it's a great way to stifle teacher creativity. Why should the teachers bother to create anything that might be beneficial to the school if it will just be taken from them?
one that requires voltage to keep it on, one that requires voltage to keep it off (P channel vs N channel FET's), ones that require current levels to keep it on and off (npn and pnp BJT's)
so to say
"First, keeping the voltage on requires power"
is a broad statement, yea something that uses power requires power
And it's not TRUE either. Keeping charge on a buried gate requires no power. How the f*** does this guy think Flash?
And there's no such thing as an FPGA with embedded FLASH? This sounds very much to me like scientists trying to find a solution to a non-problem using a basic method that has innate vulnerabilities that conventional technology does not have.
At the scales they mention in the article, you could have a whole lot of reconfigurable logic gates in the space that one cell of their prototype takes up. They haven't figured out how to miniaturize the cell to anything like modern semiconductor cells, let alone shield it from stray fields or make it work as fast as semiconductors.
and at the tail end of the article, you'll find this zinger...
But Johnson notes that magnetism is already catching on in circuit design: some advanced devices are beginning to use a magnetic version of random access memory, a type of memory that has historically been built only with conventional transistors. “I think a shift is already under way,” he says.
The MacOS checks each string as you type it, that's how it spell checks and things like that. If you look at the language and Text panel in the System Preferences you will see check boxes for spell checking and replacing text with certain symbols: like a copy write symbol if you type (c). This is how if you get a date in your email the OS can offer to make an appointment in iCal for you, passing info between applications is an OS function. That process has a flaw which causes a crash when it encounters that particular string. There are some more detailed explanations above.
Yes, I understand what the feature does and what people use it for. But understanding what it is for does not result in my thinking that it is a good thing to have a subsystem searching user input and other data sources for anything that looks like a file reference.
Maybe you wonder why that's an issue. It's because referencing a file is a half step from opening it. Opening it is tantamount to editing it or executing it if it's executable. By attempting to generate a shortcut to open the file, the system is exposing the user and every program to potentially opening, editing and executing files accidentally when it would not otherwise be the case, and counter to prevailing expectations of what user inputs are supposed to do in the program the user is using.
It's not like a fluid, but the dynamics of traffic flow are modeled. But it's a relatively new science and has not been widely applied. For many decades, traffic light controls were programmed heuristically, with some being very bad and some systems being quite good. 30 years ago, the traffic controls in Denver along major roads was excellent, without causing big interruptions on the minor streets. That was all done based on timers and heuristics because there were no good mathematical models of traffic flow in those days. But get out of Denver into the suburbs and drive on roads where the lights weren't programmed by Denver's competent traffic engineers and things were not nearly as good. Sometimes you'd have to stop every 3 or 4 blocks. Ugh.
Damn, we had to learn the functions of Congress back in grade school and Middle school. By high school I had two classmates intern.
Makes me question the quality of school today. The quality of Congress hasn't been a question in my lifetime.
It could be the college course is a little more detailed.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they just made this shit up. The first judge who sees such a case is going to throw it out.
Can they go into Canada or Mexico and seize stuff? Is this even legal? Or does it count as an invasion? Or has it got to be in the sea?
It's obvious that considerations of what is legal are out the window. If they try it, just tell them that the Constitution applies to everywhere in the USA and to American citizens no matter where they are. If they really believe that they can do this legally, they're going to be telling it to a judge and that judge will not be the least bit sympathetic to the claim that the 4th Amendment doesn't exist in places like San Diego and Seattle.
Cities within the 'zone': San Diego, Escondido, Chula Vista, California Yuma, parts of Tucson, Las Cruces, Douglas, Arizona El Paso, Presidio, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Laredo, McAllen, Harlingen, Brownsville Texas A bunch of little burgs in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo New York, Cleveland, parts of Akron and Toledo Ohio, Detroit, Michigan Lots of little places along the border of Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Washington Bellingham, Washington Juneau, Alaska If they count coasts as borders, add half of our major cities, if not more. And what law, exactly, negates the 4th Amendment?
You asked about the effects of improved methods of detection and treatment. Chronological, regional and economic controls are sufficient to screen out those effects. Now you're throwing in other variables that add a little more complication. What they would be attempting is to establish whether the alleged cause (cell phones) stands out above a background, so they have to measure the background too. Scientists do such studies all the time. Just because you don't understand how they categorize people and behaviors and how they mathematically account for known and suspected risk factors doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means you don't understand. If you really want to know, there are books on these statistical methods at a library near you.
No problem. They'll upload their spyware-laden files to the services from which you download what you think are safe copies.
Obligatory XKCD reference OT, it depends on what your definition of "long term" is. Regardless of the provenance of the funding, such long term epidemiological studies are a huge can of worms due to the stupendous number of confounding variables. How would you, for instance, correct for the a) improved methods for (early) detection of cancer and b) our improved ways to fight cancer?
By comparing people who use cell phones to people who don't use cell phones over the same time period.
To even propose the phrase of 'merging science and religion' shows a lack of understand of the subjects or at least the relevant religions.
The first tenant of a religion is to bootstrap the meme with faith in the unknown. If you can believe that, your brain has been rooted and almost anything is possible. Science requires assertions, constraints, and verifications not required by religion and often in contradiction to their first tenant. Science also requires openness to the possibility that anything can be incorrect. From a religious perspective this is often blasphemous and might even get you killed if the religious are given their way.
TENET. The word is TENET. TENET TENET TENET! Not "tenant."
OK, I'm done ranting now.
But I am prepared to do it again.
There is a basic conflict between science are religion. The basic mode of arriving at conclusions is entirely opposite.
In science, a theory is held to be good if it
Additionally, in science, questioning an established theory based on new information is an essential element of how science is done. Theories are often incomplete and are sometimes at odds with other accepted theories, but the inconsistency is at least recognized and regarded as a problem.
In religion, a belief is held to be true if it
In religion, there is no requirement that beliefs be consistent. Multiple inconsistent dogmas often exist in the same religion. This frequently goes unrecognized by adherents to the religion but is easily recognized by others familiar with the beliefs. Beliefs that are at odds with real data are not questioned on that basis. Beliefs are neither validated nor invalidated by facts
No it wasn't.
No scientist knew if atoms were real or not, and they knew it, and they had no mechanistic explanation for the regularities in the recently understood periodic table, and they knew it. They had no mechanistic quantitative explanation for chemical reactions or reaction rates, and knew it.
Right now, physicists know that they have no good, experimentally confirmed, ideas for explaining
a) dark matter b) dark energy c) the variety of arbitrary parameters in the standard model
They have an large selection of theoretical proposals for the above.
Today they do have good knowledge about virtually all materials and energetic processes typically occurring and observable on Earth, That's a difference from the 19th century.
And that's just physics. There are similar lists in biology, genetics, pscychology. sociology, economics, chemistry...
"p.s. the reason there are more females in interior design is that more females enjoy that kind of work/challenge." I don't understand why more people don't accept this. Why is thinking that their is a fundamental difference between the sexes and that they are better suited for different hobbies/challenges/activities so wrong? Why do we push for equality for equality's sake?
Because historically, the differences between people have been an excuse to oppress many of them. And it's not the people who are suited to the hobbies but the other way 'round.
You are seeing this with video games recently and the complaints that the video game industry is sexist, there aren't enough women in the industry, games are not made equally for men and women, etc. Why is it not okay to just accept that video games are a hobby that have a special appeal for males? The same thing applies to science. No one is saying women can't be scientists, it's just that the male gender is more likely to be better suited for the role of a scientist. It doesn't mean women are stupider or worse than men, it just means they think differently. Why is difference such a bad thing?
It's the stereotyping that is a bad thing. It prevents people from having the opportunities that their abilities and interests should naturally afford them.
Wouldn't that violate the whole concept of fair grading? Oh and therefor the education "contract"?
"fair grading?"
"education contract?
I'm confused. You talk about these things as if they actually exist.
Where does it say that? I didn't get any such agreement from the school when I enrolled my kids.
Because it's their job? I mean, I don't condone overreaching, but it goes both ways: why should the school pay them if their work does not belong to the school?
It's normally the subject of an explicit agreement between the employee and the employer. If they do the work specifically for the school, such as writing a lesson plan for the classes they teach, then yeah, I would say the district should automatically own rights to that. If the work is tangential to their work for the district and isn't pursuant to some work assigned to them, the courts aren't going to presume that the district has any rights unless they can show an agreement in force stating that the employee cedes them.
And what I said is still the case. If you take away somebody's ownership of their own work, they are less interested in doing it. It's human nature.
You should find yourself an attorney.
1) this patent was filed in 1993, making it a 17 years from issue date patent. Based upon it's issue date of April 9, 1996, it expires (dies) on April 9, 2013. So in a very very short time, the patent will be useless anyway.
2) What is claimed is based upon side channel data in a simultaneous analog/digital signal. It is very unlikely to actually apply to WiFi, but if they can scare you into paying them, then they win. With a competent atty., it is very likely you can make them look elsewhere for victims they can frighten into settlements.
Yep. I'd wait this one out. Most likely, you were selected at random from a long list of people who might be using some equipment relevant to this patent. From my reading, it would have to be an old voice/data modem. In this age, it's unlikely that you even have one, but if you do, it might not be a bad idea to stop using it. AFAICT, has nothing to do with WiFi.
This seems to be only about "work produced for the school", meaning papers for class, lesson plans and the like. It doesn't seem as though they plan to lay claim to your Great American Novel (TM) if you plan on writing one while enrolled or employed there.
For the pupils at least, that claim also likely has no standing, notwithstanding any delusional beliefs to the contrary of the board.
As per analysis of the contract in the Hobbit
All contracts require some consideration from all parties to the contract. Consideration, in the contract sense, means a bargained-for performance or promise. Restatement (Second) of Contracts 71(1). Basically, this is something of value given or promised as part of the agreement. This can be anything that the parties agree is valuable; the classic example is a single peppercorn. Whitney v. Stearns, 16 Me. 394, 397 (1839).
That means, the school has to explicitly give the pupils something in exchange for their copyright. 'Teaching' can't be it, since they are obliged to do that anyway.
How about they get an A?
But, the students are not employees, and signed no waiver when they enrolled.
I agree. A school should not be able to claim copyright on a student's work because they're not employed by the school. Teachers, on the other hand, are employed by the school, and thereby their work should be the property of the employer.
No it shouldn't. Who made up THAT idea? The employer only owns the employee's work if the employer has a contractual arrangement with the employee assigning ownership of such work. (Accepting an assignment to work on a project is such an agreement.)
Otherwise, anything you do on your own initiative is your own work and you own all rights to it. This is why tech companies typically make their employees sign agreements that explicitly assign their creative works to the employers. (Such agreements vary in how much of the employees work the employer has rights to, but they are usually pretty onerous.) They wouldn't bother getting you to sign something stating that what you do is theirs if they already knew that it was by default.
Yeah, but it's a great way to stifle teacher creativity. Why should the teachers bother to create anything that might be beneficial to the school if it will just be taken from them?
one that requires voltage to keep it on, one that requires voltage to keep it off (P channel vs N channel FET's), ones that require current levels to keep it on and off (npn and pnp BJT's)
so to say
"First, keeping the voltage on requires power"
is a broad statement, yea something that uses power requires power
And it's not TRUE either. Keeping charge on a buried gate requires no power. How the f*** does this guy think Flash?
And there's no such thing as an FPGA with embedded FLASH? This sounds very much to me like scientists trying to find a solution to a non-problem using a basic method that has innate vulnerabilities that conventional technology does not have.
At the scales they mention in the article, you could have a whole lot of reconfigurable logic gates in the space that one cell of their prototype takes up. They haven't figured out how to miniaturize the cell to anything like modern semiconductor cells, let alone shield it from stray fields or make it work as fast as semiconductors.
and at the tail end of the article, you'll find this zinger...
But Johnson notes that magnetism is already catching on in circuit design: some advanced devices are beginning to use a magnetic version of random access memory, a type of memory that has historically been built only with conventional transistors. “I think a shift is already under way,” he says.
I guess Nature never heard or core.
The MacOS checks each string as you type it, that's how it spell checks and things like that. If you look at the language and Text panel in the System Preferences you will see check boxes for spell checking and replacing text with certain symbols: like a copy write symbol if you type (c). This is how if you get a date in your email the OS can offer to make an appointment in iCal for you, passing info between applications is an OS function. That process has a flaw which causes a crash when it encounters that particular string. There are some more detailed explanations above.
Yes, I understand what the feature does and what people use it for. But understanding what it is for does not result in my thinking that it is a good thing to have a subsystem searching user input and other data sources for anything that looks like a file reference.
Maybe you wonder why that's an issue. It's because referencing a file is a half step from opening it. Opening it is tantamount to editing it or executing it if it's executable. By attempting to generate a shortcut to open the file, the system is exposing the user and every program to potentially opening, editing and executing files accidentally when it would not otherwise be the case, and counter to prevailing expectations of what user inputs are supposed to do in the program the user is using.
I disagree. I think the problem is trying to "handle" user input that isn't intended to be executed at all.
Habitually running red lights definitely puts other peoples' lives and property at risk.
It's not like a fluid, but the dynamics of traffic flow are modeled. But it's a relatively new science and has not been widely applied. For many decades, traffic light controls were programmed heuristically, with some being very bad and some systems being quite good. 30 years ago, the traffic controls in Denver along major roads was excellent, without causing big interruptions on the minor streets. That was all done based on timers and heuristics because there were no good mathematical models of traffic flow in those days. But get out of Denver into the suburbs and drive on roads where the lights weren't programmed by Denver's competent traffic engineers and things were not nearly as good. Sometimes you'd have to stop every 3 or 4 blocks. Ugh.
Clearly. Most of the hookers the Congressmen get never tell anything.
Damn, we had to learn the functions of Congress back in grade school and Middle school. By high school I had two classmates intern. Makes me question the quality of school today. The quality of Congress hasn't been a question in my lifetime.
It could be the college course is a little more detailed.