Only further supports my crazy conspiracy theory from two weeks ago
Judge is intentionally dragging this out, and ensuring both sides have plenty of ammo for appeals. My unfounded conjecture is that she's getting kickbacks from both Apple and Sony. Additionally, she could be sharing a bit of profit from the lawyers involved, who will be employed for a long time, including the many MANY appeals that are sure to stem from this case.
Seriously, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. I'm going to quote my original post, see if you can follow along
But in light of another very recent/. article, I'm not sure if the alternatives are any better.
So, do you want to give up your 4th amendment, or pay $60 a year?
---- With me so far? Here's the part you must've skimmed past----
But in light of another very recent/. article, I'm not sure if the alternatives are any better.
---- Lightbulbs yet? Here's another hint ----
But in light of another very recent/. article, I'm not sure if the alternatives are any better.
Tracking? There's a different article (linked a half dozen times in this thread, including every single quote, above) that covers the 4th amendment violations afflicting a good portion of the "different carriers" you suggest. This article here covers the $60 robbery (and don't think for a second it's the last step in squeezing more money for nothing out of customers) Are there still carriers out there, free of theft and constitutional violations? Sure, probably. But I prefer to chose carriers based on coverage, service plans, phones, and things like that... not "which one is going to try and rape me the most gently"
While you're obviously trolling, I'll go ahead and reply in case you've confused anyone else with your idiocy.
My statement was a comparison of two different slashdot articles that were submitted nearly back to back:
In one article (this one) the "big" contract-based cellular providers have decided to charge you $60/year for a service which should be free, or at most incur a 1-time fee. (well, only Verizon so far, but assuming this doesn't explode in Verizon's face, ATT will be right behind them)
In the other article (linked twice already, and a 3rd time below) the "small" non-contract based cellular providers must comply with law enforcement request track you and search you and/or your vehicle without a warrant or probable cause.
Between the two, you have the choice of bare-faced robbery or getting your 4th violated. Not only do I find neither of these particularly appealing, it's odd that they'd be announced within 30 minutes of each other.
I know reading TFA is considered bad form around these parts, but I think reading comprehension is still in vogue.
Go back to my first post in this thread where I pondered the options of (A) getting worked over by Verizon for $60 a year or (B) getting my 4th amendment worked over by a prepaid phone, and a link to the article you mentioned.
I know reading TFA is considered bad form around these parts, but you might want to give it a shot from time to time.
Anyone on a prepaid cell phones lost a reasonable expectation of privacy, and can be tracked without warrant. If that's not a flagrant 4th amendment violation, I don't know what is.
I can't image the 6th Circuit will have the final word on this. Wouldn't be surprised to see this make it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Given the ubiquity of cell phones in this country, and TFAs assertion that roughly 25% of people are on prepaid.... I'd put a conservative guess around 40-50 million people in the US who just lost a good chuck of their 4th Amendment Rights with this ruling.
Worst part is, I can already see how the government might address the issue... Cell phone (and other hardware) manufacturers will be required to include a sticker on the packaging, or maybe just a footnote in the instruction manual that states : "This device complies with FCC regulation 42.x and emits location tracking data that can be collected and used by law enforcement. Ownership of this device implies acceptance of government tracking and anal probing in compliance with.... " etc etc etc
In fact, it might already be there. I sure as hell haven't read all my fine print.
There's a lot more to bioengineering than putting eyes in mice.
The first wave of these advancements will be to help those lacking sight or hearing, possibly limb replacement, and bringing them up to human standard... but after that, the sky is the limit. We could go the Lee Majors route and upgrade to long-range telescopic eyes, and immensely powerful arms/legs. Or how about engineering a better lung, that we might either hold our breath underwater for hours at a time, or so that we can better filter the air we breathe (HEPA-lungs). Imagine augmenting your own memory with a few gigs of flash memory (or whatever we have by then) You'd never forget another Birthday, Anniversary, Phone number, etc.
Of course, these are a long way off... but to write off bioengineering because you are healthy seems rather short sighted.
The only thing Apple is "guilty" of is being the first company to make tablets that did not suck big green ones and that people actually wanted to buy and use. Nobody was able to make the technology popular before them.
Being the first one to do something well, doesn't mean you're the first one to have the idea, and it certainly doesn't give you iron clad rights to prevent anyone else from trying to make a better one.
I could teach someone to fire a pistol or rifle in a day. Heck, I could teach you both in a day.
Doesn't make you an expert marksman or skilled assassin. Just means you know where to stick the bullets, and which part you squeeze for the boom. I'd imagine a 1-day code class isn't much more comprehensive than that.
1) Human learning isn't special. "Machine Learning" is a buzzword that sells clicks, or whatever metric TFA is after...
2) Humans already know what body language is natural. We might not know exactly how to express/quantify what is or isn't natural, but we sure as hell know it when we see it. Hence: uncanny valley. If we can program some basic keys and triggers into a computer system - have it learn "yeah... that's too much eye contact, you're creeping me out" - we can not only make more realistic games (i.e. by not having to hand-program every bit character in the back, but rather just have them mill about and follow the standard conventions of human interaction) but it would be a big step for real-world applications, and having our future droids not look like c3po.
2a) Seriously though, play a BioWare game. While most of their games are fun and contain varying levels of good/great writing... the way characters voice and face sync up (or rather, don't) can be more than a bit unsettling.
We, as a country, have been operating in the red for so long that it's become the norm. Other than a brief trip into the black when the dot-com bubble went crazy, we haven't had a balanced budget in my lifetime. So now, when someone talks about saving money in one place (i.e. closing tax loopholes) they immediately find a new home for that saved money (usually "my own pocket") without a thought of narrowing the deficit.
We don't like AT&T around here? Just trying to get a feel for the general zeitgeist. Is it due to their original iPhone monopoly, and thus tied to Apple-hate?
As best I can tell, if AT&T was a good guy, the headline would read something more like "AT&T plans to upgrade all phones to higher standards." But as they're apparently bad guys, they're planning to kill off a vital service!
Are you seriously trying to compare this and say it's on par with this?
Or that this is even in the same ballpark as this?
But maybe pictures don't spell it clearly enough. The top-of-the-line Quadrocopter from the site you linked has a flight time of ~20 minutes, a payload of 5 pounds, and a range of 500 meters. The Global Hawk and Predator measure flight time in hours and days, and can carry payloads in thousands of pounds and cover 10s of thousands of square miles. So yeah, conceptually we can call a lot of things "drones," but there are several orders of magnitude between what you or I can build regardless of money, and what the Air Force has. If the cops want to use a beefed up Quadrocopter, or some other variant, I couldn't care less. When they want to start deploying real drones over civilian populations, they can fuck right off.
Oh, and final thought, on your C4 strawman: I could strap explosives to a freaking frisbee. Doesn't put little disks o' plastic in the same category as Military Grade drones, nor does it improve the standing of your $10,000 hobby-copter. Admittedly a pretty sweet hobby-copter, as those things go... but still, just a toy.
The saddest part is, the American populace figured that out just over an hour. Seriously (timeline : 0846 local was the first hit. At 0957 local, passengers of Flight 93 began the revolt.)
And here we are, over a decade later, and TSA still doesn't have a clue. At what point does ignorance become willful?
Weapons would be the most obvious differentiation, as someone already pointed out. But there are many other features of the military drones that a rich guy and hobby shop won't be able to replicate.
Things like automation, levels of redundancy, purpose built software, entire buildings devoted to their operation, quality of cameras, etc. I'm not the one who draws the line between military and civilian usage, but those would be a few of my sticking points. If someone is sitting with a remote control in their hand piloting some 1/5 scale Cessna via Line of Sight with a smart phone strapped to the side... no one is confusing that with a Predator, Global Hawk, X-45, etc.
Another differentiation worth considering is damage potential. If a hobby-shop helicopter crashes into my house, I might need to replace some shingles. If an MQ-9 Reaper crashes into my house, I'll need to replace the house, and probably half the neighborhood.
I like it. It's certainly the most realistic solution. Possibly even have the sims purchased by the insurance companies themselves. Some bean-counter could math it out and make it work, might even weigh on insurance decisions and/or be useful ammo between insurance companies "Our driver was SIM certified, so clearly your driver was at fault. Pay up"
Still a lot of people that would need to be convinced, but this is at least somewhat in the realm of reality
How about we just treat drones like Military Hardware, because that's exactly what they are.
I don't expect to see police officers in Tanks, or wearing flack jackets and kevlar helmets, wielding M-16s. At least not on a day to day basis. So what makes it even remotely ok to use the same level of tech/hardware in the skies? Just because we can't see it??
Maybe for emergency use. "Call the National Guard" type stuff, then sure, bust out whatever hardware is required to get the job done. But for day to day business, make the cops walk their beat.
Incorrect. They were trying to submit evidence late in the discovery process.
I'm going to repeat that, because it bears repeating: They were trying to submit evidence late in the discovery process
As in, still part of the discovery process. To use a sports analogy, should we discount any late-game come-backs if the winning points were scored "late in the game"?
Slashdot Mirror
Only further supports my crazy conspiracy theory from two weeks ago
Judge is intentionally dragging this out, and ensuring both sides have plenty of ammo for appeals. My unfounded conjecture is that she's getting kickbacks from both Apple and Sony. Additionally, she could be sharing a bit of profit from the lawyers involved, who will be employed for a long time, including the many MANY appeals that are sure to stem from this case.
Seriously, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. I'm going to quote my original post, see if you can follow along
But in light of another very recent /. article, I'm not sure if the alternatives are any better.
So, do you want to give up your 4th amendment, or pay $60 a year?
---- With me so far? Here's the part you must've skimmed past----
But in light of another very recent /. article, I'm not sure if the alternatives are any better.
---- Lightbulbs yet? Here's another hint ----
But in light of another very recent /. article , I'm not sure if the alternatives are any better.
Tracking? There's a different article (linked a half dozen times in this thread, including every single quote, above) that covers the 4th amendment violations afflicting a good portion of the "different carriers" you suggest. This article here covers the $60 robbery (and don't think for a second it's the last step in squeezing more money for nothing out of customers) Are there still carriers out there, free of theft and constitutional violations? Sure, probably. But I prefer to chose carriers based on coverage, service plans, phones, and things like that ... not "which one is going to try and rape me the most gently"
While you're obviously trolling, I'll go ahead and reply in case you've confused anyone else with your idiocy.
My statement was a comparison of two different slashdot articles that were submitted nearly back to back:
In one article (this one) the "big" contract-based cellular providers have decided to charge you $60/year for a service which should be free, or at most incur a 1-time fee. (well, only Verizon so far, but assuming this doesn't explode in Verizon's face, ATT will be right behind them)
In the other article (linked twice already, and a 3rd time below) the "small" non-contract based cellular providers must comply with law enforcement request track you and search you and/or your vehicle without a warrant or probable cause.
Between the two, you have the choice of bare-faced robbery or getting your 4th violated. Not only do I find neither of these particularly appealing, it's odd that they'd be announced within 30 minutes of each other.
Link, as promised : http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/15/2129209/police-dont-need-a-warrant-to-track-your-disposable-cellphone
At this point, I was certain that most "nerd-centric" sites were of a similar mindset, and spammed up their pages to keep the Luddites out.
Their payment must've come up a bit short, because TFA included this chart that seems to imply I.E. is a steaming pile, regardless of version or OS.
I know reading TFA is considered bad form around these parts, but I think reading comprehension is still in vogue.
Go back to my first post in this thread where I pondered the options of (A) getting worked over by Verizon for $60 a year or (B) getting my 4th amendment worked over by a prepaid phone, and a link to the article you mentioned.
I know reading TFA is considered bad form around these parts, but you might want to give it a shot from time to time.
Anyone on a prepaid cell phones lost a reasonable expectation of privacy, and can be tracked without warrant. If that's not a flagrant 4th amendment violation, I don't know what is.
There's nothing you can do.
My first reaction was "Oh yes there is..."
But in light of another very recent /. article, I'm not sure if the alternatives are any better.
So, do you want to give up your 4th amendment, or pay $60 a year?
I can't image the 6th Circuit will have the final word on this. Wouldn't be surprised to see this make it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Given the ubiquity of cell phones in this country, and TFAs assertion that roughly 25% of people are on prepaid.... I'd put a conservative guess around 40-50 million people in the US who just lost a good chuck of their 4th Amendment Rights with this ruling.
Worst part is, I can already see how the government might address the issue ... Cell phone (and other hardware) manufacturers will be required to include a sticker on the packaging, or maybe just a footnote in the instruction manual that states : "This device complies with FCC regulation 42.x and emits location tracking data that can be collected and used by law enforcement. Ownership of this device implies acceptance of government tracking and anal probing in compliance with .... " etc etc etc
In fact, it might already be there. I sure as hell haven't read all my fine print.
There's a lot more to bioengineering than putting eyes in mice.
The first wave of these advancements will be to help those lacking sight or hearing, possibly limb replacement, and bringing them up to human standard ... but after that, the sky is the limit. We could go the Lee Majors route and upgrade to long-range telescopic eyes, and immensely powerful arms/legs. Or how about engineering a better lung, that we might either hold our breath underwater for hours at a time, or so that we can better filter the air we breathe (HEPA-lungs). Imagine augmenting your own memory with a few gigs of flash memory (or whatever we have by then) You'd never forget another Birthday, Anniversary, Phone number, etc.
Of course, these are a long way off ... but to write off bioengineering because you are healthy seems rather short sighted.
The only thing Apple is "guilty" of is being the first company to make tablets that did not suck big green ones and that people actually wanted to buy and use. Nobody was able to make the technology popular before them.
Being the first one to do something well, doesn't mean you're the first one to have the idea, and it certainly doesn't give you iron clad rights to prevent anyone else from trying to make a better one.
Likewise, basic working knowledge != skill
I could teach someone to fire a pistol or rifle in a day. Heck, I could teach you both in a day.
Doesn't make you an expert marksman or skilled assassin. Just means you know where to stick the bullets, and which part you squeeze for the boom. I'd imagine a 1-day code class isn't much more comprehensive than that.
Two things :
1) Human learning isn't special. "Machine Learning" is a buzzword that sells clicks, or whatever metric TFA is after...
2) Humans already know what body language is natural. We might not know exactly how to express/quantify what is or isn't natural, but we sure as hell know it when we see it. Hence: uncanny valley. If we can program some basic keys and triggers into a computer system - have it learn "yeah... that's too much eye contact, you're creeping me out" - we can not only make more realistic games (i.e. by not having to hand-program every bit character in the back, but rather just have them mill about and follow the standard conventions of human interaction) but it would be a big step for real-world applications, and having our future droids not look like c3po.
2a) Seriously though, play a BioWare game. While most of their games are fun and contain varying levels of good/great writing ... the way characters voice and face sync up (or rather, don't) can be more than a bit unsettling.
Umm... quick math lesson.
Going from 3 to 6 is an increase of 100%
Going from 3 to 3 is an increase of 0%
Though I suppose, going from the 3 total pre-O, adding his 6 for a total of 9 ... 3 to 9 is a 200% increase.
/maths
I think part of the problem is mindset
We, as a country, have been operating in the red for so long that it's become the norm. Other than a brief trip into the black when the dot-com bubble went crazy, we haven't had a balanced budget in my lifetime. So now, when someone talks about saving money in one place (i.e. closing tax loopholes) they immediately find a new home for that saved money (usually "my own pocket") without a thought of narrowing the deficit.
Hey now ... it's not paranoid delusions : it's extrapolating
P.S. oblig
Since about the same time that you could copyright a rectangle, I'd imagine.
We don't like AT&T around here? Just trying to get a feel for the general zeitgeist. Is it due to their original iPhone monopoly, and thus tied to Apple-hate?
As best I can tell, if AT&T was a good guy, the headline would read something more like "AT&T plans to upgrade all phones to higher standards." But as they're apparently bad guys, they're planning to kill off a vital service!
Are you seriously trying to compare this and say it's on par with this?
Or that this is even in the same ballpark as this?
But maybe pictures don't spell it clearly enough. The top-of-the-line Quadrocopter from the site you linked has a flight time of ~20 minutes, a payload of 5 pounds, and a range of 500 meters. The Global Hawk and Predator measure flight time in hours and days, and can carry payloads in thousands of pounds and cover 10s of thousands of square miles. So yeah, conceptually we can call a lot of things "drones," but there are several orders of magnitude between what you or I can build regardless of money, and what the Air Force has. If the cops want to use a beefed up Quadrocopter, or some other variant, I couldn't care less. When they want to start deploying real drones over civilian populations, they can fuck right off.
Oh, and final thought, on your C4 strawman: I could strap explosives to a freaking frisbee. Doesn't put little disks o' plastic in the same category as Military Grade drones, nor does it improve the standing of your $10,000 hobby-copter. Admittedly a pretty sweet hobby-copter, as those things go ... but still, just a toy.
The saddest part is, the American populace figured that out just over an hour. Seriously (timeline : 0846 local was the first hit. At 0957 local, passengers of Flight 93 began the revolt.)
And here we are, over a decade later, and TSA still doesn't have a clue. At what point does ignorance become willful?
Weapons would be the most obvious differentiation, as someone already pointed out. But there are many other features of the military drones that a rich guy and hobby shop won't be able to replicate.
Things like automation, levels of redundancy, purpose built software, entire buildings devoted to their operation, quality of cameras, etc. I'm not the one who draws the line between military and civilian usage, but those would be a few of my sticking points. If someone is sitting with a remote control in their hand piloting some 1/5 scale Cessna via Line of Sight with a smart phone strapped to the side ... no one is confusing that with a Predator, Global Hawk, X-45, etc.
Another differentiation worth considering is damage potential. If a hobby-shop helicopter crashes into my house, I might need to replace some shingles. If an MQ-9 Reaper crashes into my house, I'll need to replace the house, and probably half the neighborhood.
Still a lot of people that would need to be convinced, but this is at least somewhat in the realm of reality
How about we just treat drones like Military Hardware, because that's exactly what they are.
I don't expect to see police officers in Tanks, or wearing flack jackets and kevlar helmets, wielding M-16s. At least not on a day to day basis. So what makes it even remotely ok to use the same level of tech/hardware in the skies? Just because we can't see it??
Maybe for emergency use. "Call the National Guard" type stuff, then sure, bust out whatever hardware is required to get the job done. But for day to day business, make the cops walk their beat.
Incorrect. They were trying to submit evidence late in the discovery process.
I'm going to repeat that, because it bears repeating: They were trying to submit evidence late in the discovery process
As in, still part of the discovery process. To use a sports analogy, should we discount any late-game come-backs if the winning points were scored "late in the game"?