The whole question also shows a profound ignorance of the rest of the animal kingdom:
Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints (and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada). Why is this? Probably no reason at all, other than quirks of individual cell layout in the skin layer.
Chickens have similar uniqueness in the surface of their combs. Why? Likewise, probably no reason, other than it's just a trivial quirk of how the skin cells piled up in a given individual.
And none of this is at all relevant to the question at hand, since the study was not in any way concerned with the uniqueness of fingerprints. Your reply shows a profound ignorance of reading comprehension.
Even without errors in copying the genetic code, people get unique finger prints. The overall pattern and general style will end up the same, but they're still unique, even between twins with identical DNA. Reminds me of the markings on the cloned cat. The clone was a calico, just like the original, but that seemly random pattern in a calico's fur? Turns out, it actually is somewhat random. Identical DNA doesn't produce identical fingerprints either...
Perhaps it would be more effective if no one knows about it. Meanwhile, back in the real world where that's not even remotely realistically possible, particularly when the blimps in question are civilian vehicles being operated by civilians for commercial purposes, almost invariably involved in *drawing attention to* the airship...
Exactly - so their buddy sits outside the stadium and shoots it with a WW2 rifle first... Goodbye blimp!
People do this all the time, actually. It's a kinda scummy commentary on humanity how often they find bullet holes in blimps. It should be noted they usually find them long after the blimp has landed. A bullet hole isn't very big compared to a blimp. Not enough helium leaks out during a several hour flight for this to even be noticeable. You have to pump a lot of machine gun rounds into one before it really starts to loose buoyancy is a noticeable way. And it'll be a very, very easily survivable crash. More a slow sinking to the ground...
It's not so much mixing up and emphasis on what's important and what's not. And it's not just ignorance of the country or being from a far off land. I'm from Minnesota, and I have a strong tendency to think in terms of Minnesota="The Twin Cities". After all, Minnesota consists of the Twin Cities and... well... nothing much worth noting. XD
Just getting a blimp to the site would cost more and require way more advanced planning and advanced notice.
Huh? Blimps are already often at these sites. If you decide to hold a convention in Paris, and someone comes up with a plan involving putting cameras on the Eiffel Tower, how much money do you allocate to getting the Eiffel Tower to Paris?
We're talking about a helium-filled blimp here, not a hydrogen-carrying zeppelin. Having someone toss a tarp over you isn't all that terrifying. More annoying, really. And why would be it flaming?
People shoot at the Goodyear blimp all the time. They usually don't find out about it until later, after the blimp lands. A bullet hole doesn't make a large enough hole for the helium to leak out quickly enough to be noticeable in the span of a flight that's only four or six hours or so.
BTW, when was the last time your armed forces were used for defence ? Not since 1945 in my opinion.
If you apply a wide definition of defense, they're currently being used for defense. If you apply a narrow definition of defense, they haven't been used for defense since, I think, 1848. Certainly not in 1945 -- that was a war in another country, attempting to "preserve democracy" in nations where it was arguably none of our business. If you don't think American should project power abroad in that matter, we really should never have gotten involved in WWII. (And for those who say we were attacked, it should be noted that Hawai'i not only wasn't a state in 1941, it was a bit of territory we acquired by means far, far more dubious than our acquisition of the Phillipines -- if we just stuck to our own defense, the Kingdom of Hawai'i would still be its own country, or at least it would have been until become part of the Empire of Japan.)
Note, I'm not saying we shouldn't have come to Europe's aid in 1945. I'm just saying there's no reasonable interpretation of your statement. If your definition is wide enough, our current military engagements are defensive. If it's narrow enough, our use in 1945 wasn't defensive. And I don't see any definition where our use of military force in WWII would be considered defensive, but nothing since would. So if your opinion is that the last time was 1945, it's inconsistent somehow. Figure out what you mean by defense, then pick a date that would actually match that use. The most common definitions will yield either 1814, 1848, 1865, or 2009, depending on how wide or narrow you go. 1945 isn't really a consistent option.
And I know for sure, that not a single person i ever met would call himself an "European", when asked for his country.
Who on earth "asks for your country"? No one asks that. What people ask is "where are you from?" Many if not most of the Europeans I've met tend to answer that question, "I'm European," however my sample is probably not representative, being high on people from the "low countries", as well as, for reasons I'm not sure of, Scandinavians of one sort or another.
It must also be noted, though, that how people will answer that question depends very much on who's asking. For example, if most people in the world ask me that question, I say I'm American. If an American asks me, I say I'm Minnesotan. If a Minnesotan asks me, I say I'm from the Twin Cities. If someone from the Twin Cities asks me, I saw I'm from Brooklyn Center. If someone from Brooklyn Center asks me, I saw I live a few blocks from a particular landmark.
So, it would not be surprising if, being from Europe, if you ask other Europeans where they are from, they give you some answer along the lines of "I'm from the Netherlands", but when I ask the same person that question, they say "I'm European." YMMV. All I can tell is, that as a matter of fact, when I ask people from that august continent where they're from, "I'm European" is a very common answer.
No it's not. And frankly, if will only over my cold dead body. If it has to come to war against an illegal and illegitimate EU government, I am prepared.
It will be. The union of Europe is a generational process. As time passes, people are brought up seeing more union and just accepting that as the norm, and those brought up in eras of less unity pass on. Rest assured, your cold dead body will lie in a grave someday in a perfectly united Europe with probably even less local sovereignty than American states have on paper (in fact, American states have long since lost that sovereignty too).
I don't disagree per se. But a country is one of those things you point at and say; "that's a country" without really knowing why.
I know exactly why. It's because we call it a country. You're looking for some objective criteria in an utterly inappropriate place. It's like asking "Does Canada really have provinces, or states?" It's a stupid question. Canada has provinces. The US has states. Why and what's the difference? The why is historical and the difference is the term we use, period. Japan has prefectures. Not provinces, not states, and no argument about how the subdivisions of the country match some supposed bogus definition of "province" or "state" would be valid, because that's not what makes a political entity a state, province, or country. What makes it a state, province, or country, is the fact that we call it a state, a province, or a country.
If you say Europe is a country, you're simply wrong, just like if you say Minnesota is a province or that Ontario is a state. They aren't. The reason has nothing to do with what their attributes are, it has entirely to do with language and convention.
Apollo 13 ended happily with capsule and crew recovered, yet we lost 7 astronauts twice. And you thought 13 was supposed to be unlucky and 7 was supposed to be lucky...
Not that' it's any more logical, but it should be noted that the above has nothing to do with numerology, just with popular superstition.
...the use of apostrophes with initialisms like "learn your ABC's and "mind your P's and Q's" is now so universal as to be acceptable in almost any context.
Regardless of operating without the needed licenses? How did that reasoning wash?
They were not, in fact, operating without the needed licenses, because there were no needed licenses. You don't need a Minneosta PI license to read a web page from your computer in another state, even if the server happens to be in Minnesota.
I have no problem with this person being found guilty. What I have a problem with is being fined such a ridiculous amount for infringement that, even if we assume every download made was a purchase lost to iTunes or the like (highly unlikely) amounted to about $20. It's a ridiculous fine for petty theft. Neither letting her off completely nor fining her thousands of dollars is justice. But if those are the only two options offered -- letting her off completely is closer...
What the court is saying is that if you're a person in California sitting behind a computer in California and decide to look up some information on another person, and the information you find is located on a public webserver that happens to be in Minnesota, you are not required to apply for and receive a private investigator's license from the State of Minnesota before reading the web page.
In this case, the server was a Kazaa server, but it makes no difference if it's a Kazaa server or an FTP server or an HTTP server. The point is, you don't need a Minnesota PI license to read publicly published information from another state, even if the server happens to be located in Minnesota.
Had the court decided the other way, I think that'd be pretty seriously frakked up...
If I go a few hours down to Mexico and start hacking computers in the US, am I no longer liable under US laws just because I'm in Mexico when I did it?
I think that would go beyond merely receiving info from a computer in the US. See the paragraph at the bottom of page 6/top of page 7. In your case, you'd be violating the law. In the MediaSentry case, they were not. If they'd sat in a living room in Iowa and read info publicly posted on a webserver that happens to be in Minnesota, they would not be violating MN law regarding needed a private detective license from the State of Minn. to do so. The same applies to an FTP server. And the same applies to a Kazaa server.
If I place a webserver on my computer, and you access the publicly available web page I place there, you're not "snooping", even if your purpose is to obtain evidence to use against me. That's what the court's ruling boils down to. And I think it's fundamentally correct. Reading any information I publicly publish does not constitute "snooping" -- there is, as the court says, "no expectation of solitude or seclusion" when you run a server the purpose of which is to make data available to the public.
Me neither. But I'm not familiar with the Minnesota statute and caselaw. I'm sure that with most state licensing statutes, the result would be otherwise.
Why? It seems fairly straightforward. The State of Minnesota thinks that laws it passes regarding the licensing of private detectives operating within the State of Minnesota do not apply to private detectives not operating in the State of Minnesota. I'm pretty sure it also thinks our traffic laws don't apply to drivers not driving within the State of Minnesota. Is it really true that most other states assert the right to pass extraterritorial laws?
Slashdot Mirror
While I have no expertise in this area ... Are ocean current patterns really as static as the Earth's magnetic field?
Yes. Neither are static, both change continuously, but both are relatively slowly changing phenomena.
I'd think that there would be more fluctuations/variations in the Earth's magnetic field if it depended on the waterbodies.
On geological timescales, it would change dramatically. Which, we know, it does.
Wouldn't this also require compasses / magentic fields being disrupted when there are earthquakes/tsunamis or major storms?
No, since large-scale ocean currents are not noticeably affected by these things.
The whole question also shows a profound ignorance of the rest of the animal kingdom:
Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints (and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada). Why is this? Probably no reason at all, other than quirks of individual cell layout in the skin layer.
Chickens have similar uniqueness in the surface of their combs. Why? Likewise, probably no reason, other than it's just a trivial quirk of how the skin cells piled up in a given individual.
And none of this is at all relevant to the question at hand, since the study was not in any way concerned with the uniqueness of fingerprints. Your reply shows a profound ignorance of reading comprehension.
Even without errors in copying the genetic code, people get unique finger prints. The overall pattern and general style will end up the same, but they're still unique, even between twins with identical DNA. Reminds me of the markings on the cloned cat. The clone was a calico, just like the original, but that seemly random pattern in a calico's fur? Turns out, it actually is somewhat random. Identical DNA doesn't produce identical fingerprints either...
Ha! I was picturing a blimp with Ron Paul's name on the side... XD
Pot calling the kettle black here?
Perhaps it would be more effective if no one knows about it. Meanwhile, back in the real world where that's not even remotely realistically possible, particularly when the blimps in question are civilian vehicles being operated by civilians for commercial purposes, almost invariably involved in *drawing attention to* the airship...
Exactly - so their buddy sits outside the stadium and shoots it with a WW2 rifle first... Goodbye blimp!
People do this all the time, actually. It's a kinda scummy commentary on humanity how often they find bullet holes in blimps. It should be noted they usually find them long after the blimp has landed. A bullet hole isn't very big compared to a blimp. Not enough helium leaks out during a several hour flight for this to even be noticeable. You have to pump a lot of machine gun rounds into one before it really starts to loose buoyancy is a noticeable way. And it'll be a very, very easily survivable crash. More a slow sinking to the ground...
It's not so much mixing up and emphasis on what's important and what's not. And it's not just ignorance of the country or being from a far off land. I'm from Minnesota, and I have a strong tendency to think in terms of Minnesota="The Twin Cities". After all, Minnesota consists of the Twin Cities and... well... nothing much worth noting. XD
KIDDING! Kinda...
Just getting a blimp to the site would cost more and require way more advanced planning and advanced notice.
Huh? Blimps are already often at these sites. If you decide to hold a convention in Paris, and someone comes up with a plan involving putting cameras on the Eiffel Tower, how much money do you allocate to getting the Eiffel Tower to Paris?
We're talking about a helium-filled blimp here, not a hydrogen-carrying zeppelin. Having someone toss a tarp over you isn't all that terrifying. More annoying, really. And why would be it flaming?
People shoot at the Goodyear blimp all the time. They usually don't find out about it until later, after the blimp lands. A bullet hole doesn't make a large enough hole for the helium to leak out quickly enough to be noticeable in the span of a flight that's only four or six hours or so.
BTW, when was the last time your armed forces were used for defence ? Not since 1945 in my opinion.
If you apply a wide definition of defense, they're currently being used for defense. If you apply a narrow definition of defense, they haven't been used for defense since, I think, 1848. Certainly not in 1945 -- that was a war in another country, attempting to "preserve democracy" in nations where it was arguably none of our business. If you don't think American should project power abroad in that matter, we really should never have gotten involved in WWII. (And for those who say we were attacked, it should be noted that Hawai'i not only wasn't a state in 1941, it was a bit of territory we acquired by means far, far more dubious than our acquisition of the Phillipines -- if we just stuck to our own defense, the Kingdom of Hawai'i would still be its own country, or at least it would have been until become part of the Empire of Japan.)
Note, I'm not saying we shouldn't have come to Europe's aid in 1945. I'm just saying there's no reasonable interpretation of your statement. If your definition is wide enough, our current military engagements are defensive. If it's narrow enough, our use in 1945 wasn't defensive. And I don't see any definition where our use of military force in WWII would be considered defensive, but nothing since would. So if your opinion is that the last time was 1945, it's inconsistent somehow. Figure out what you mean by defense, then pick a date that would actually match that use. The most common definitions will yield either 1814, 1848, 1865, or 2009, depending on how wide or narrow you go. 1945 isn't really a consistent option.
And I know for sure, that not a single person i ever met would call himself an "European", when asked for his country.
Who on earth "asks for your country"? No one asks that. What people ask is "where are you from?" Many if not most of the Europeans I've met tend to answer that question, "I'm European," however my sample is probably not representative, being high on people from the "low countries", as well as, for reasons I'm not sure of, Scandinavians of one sort or another.
It must also be noted, though, that how people will answer that question depends very much on who's asking. For example, if most people in the world ask me that question, I say I'm American. If an American asks me, I say I'm Minnesotan. If a Minnesotan asks me, I say I'm from the Twin Cities. If someone from the Twin Cities asks me, I saw I'm from Brooklyn Center. If someone from Brooklyn Center asks me, I saw I live a few blocks from a particular landmark.
So, it would not be surprising if, being from Europe, if you ask other Europeans where they are from, they give you some answer along the lines of "I'm from the Netherlands", but when I ask the same person that question, they say "I'm European." YMMV. All I can tell is, that as a matter of fact, when I ask people from that august continent where they're from, "I'm European" is a very common answer.
err, that's supposed to say "I most often see (or hear) the term being used..."
Interesting, given that I most often use the term being used by Europeans. Are you saying Europeans annoy even themselves?
(Actually, that's a silly question. I know enough of them to know that nothing annoys Europeans more than Europeans...)
No it's not. And frankly, if will only over my cold dead body. If it has to come to war against an illegal and illegitimate EU government, I am prepared.
It will be. The union of Europe is a generational process. As time passes, people are brought up seeing more union and just accepting that as the norm, and those brought up in eras of less unity pass on. Rest assured, your cold dead body will lie in a grave someday in a perfectly united Europe with probably even less local sovereignty than American states have on paper (in fact, American states have long since lost that sovereignty too).
Why not? Justify your statement.
[Large amount of irrelevant points deleted.]
I don't disagree per se. But a country is one of those things you point at and say; "that's a country" without really knowing why.
I know exactly why. It's because we call it a country. You're looking for some objective criteria in an utterly inappropriate place. It's like asking "Does Canada really have provinces, or states?" It's a stupid question. Canada has provinces. The US has states. Why and what's the difference? The why is historical and the difference is the term we use, period. Japan has prefectures. Not provinces, not states, and no argument about how the subdivisions of the country match some supposed bogus definition of "province" or "state" would be valid, because that's not what makes a political entity a state, province, or country. What makes it a state, province, or country, is the fact that we call it a state, a province, or a country.
If you say Europe is a country, you're simply wrong, just like if you say Minnesota is a province or that Ontario is a state. They aren't. The reason has nothing to do with what their attributes are, it has entirely to do with language and convention.
If you believe in numerology...
Apollo 13 ended happily with capsule and crew recovered, yet we lost 7 astronauts twice. And you thought 13 was supposed to be unlucky and 7 was supposed to be lucky...
Not that' it's any more logical, but it should be noted that the above has nothing to do with numerology, just with popular superstition.
...the use of apostrophes with initialisms like "learn your ABC's and "mind your P's and Q's" is now so universal as to be acceptable in almost any context.
Regardless of operating without the needed licenses? How did that reasoning wash?
They were not, in fact, operating without the needed licenses, because there were no needed licenses. You don't need a Minneosta PI license to read a web page from your computer in another state, even if the server happens to be in Minnesota.
I have no problem with this person being found guilty. What I have a problem with is being fined such a ridiculous amount for infringement that, even if we assume every download made was a purchase lost to iTunes or the like (highly unlikely) amounted to about $20. It's a ridiculous fine for petty theft. Neither letting her off completely nor fining her thousands of dollars is justice. But if those are the only two options offered -- letting her off completely is closer...
That's easy to get around. Allow the WAP to connect to the internet. Just isolate it from your LAN.
What the court is saying is that if you're a person in California sitting behind a computer in California and decide to look up some information on another person, and the information you find is located on a public webserver that happens to be in Minnesota, you are not required to apply for and receive a private investigator's license from the State of Minnesota before reading the web page.
In this case, the server was a Kazaa server, but it makes no difference if it's a Kazaa server or an FTP server or an HTTP server. The point is, you don't need a Minnesota PI license to read publicly published information from another state, even if the server happens to be located in Minnesota.
Had the court decided the other way, I think that'd be pretty seriously frakked up...
If I go a few hours down to Mexico and start hacking computers in the US, am I no longer liable under US laws just because I'm in Mexico when I did it?
I think that would go beyond merely receiving info from a computer in the US. See the paragraph at the bottom of page 6/top of page 7. In your case, you'd be violating the law. In the MediaSentry case, they were not. If they'd sat in a living room in Iowa and read info publicly posted on a webserver that happens to be in Minnesota, they would not be violating MN law regarding needed a private detective license from the State of Minn. to do so. The same applies to an FTP server. And the same applies to a Kazaa server.
If I place a webserver on my computer, and you access the publicly available web page I place there, you're not "snooping", even if your purpose is to obtain evidence to use against me. That's what the court's ruling boils down to. And I think it's fundamentally correct. Reading any information I publicly publish does not constitute "snooping" -- there is, as the court says, "no expectation of solitude or seclusion" when you run a server the purpose of which is to make data available to the public.
Me neither. But I'm not familiar with the Minnesota statute and caselaw. I'm sure that with most state licensing statutes, the result would be otherwise.
Why? It seems fairly straightforward. The State of Minnesota thinks that laws it passes regarding the licensing of private detectives operating within the State of Minnesota do not apply to private detectives not operating in the State of Minnesota. I'm pretty sure it also thinks our traffic laws don't apply to drivers not driving within the State of Minnesota. Is it really true that most other states assert the right to pass extraterritorial laws?