a key difference would be the conex boxes are fully supported from underneath in both cases.
this would be suspending a conex box with pins in the corner dogeyes...which they already do, and is fine, for moving or lifting it between truck and train...but i have my doubts about it when suspsending it from an aircraft 30000 feet up for a few hours. Complete with turbulence, vibration, shear forces all working on those pins. And if one should fail...it would be catastrophic for both the module (gravity is a B) and the carrier aircraft (now unbalanced and violently changed mass/lift relationship).
its been proven many times, hands free is not relevant. its the brain cognitive activity, not how its carried out, that is the distraction. also, it would at best be considered circumstantial evidence, and testimony and affidavits could challenge it.
probably cause. its even in the 4th amendment. checking a phone at the scene of an accident to determine if its a relevant factor inthe accident is well within in. it is a narrow scope, so scrolling though vacation photos wouldnt be covered. but the general idea of checking for texts or messges etc that match the time of the accident is well within probable cause.
AMENDMENT IV. 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.
you quote but you do not understand.
the key phrase: Probable Cause
this is about accident investigation. checking a cell phone for texts or calls in the minutes up to and during an accident is well within the 4th.
if the drunk ran a stop sign and got T-boned, he's still at fault. he may be the one that got hit...but he still caused the accident. just one example off top of my head. gonna need more details.
i should think that would be because most high end cpus are only using 120W or so.... if its generating 220 W of heat...you're not gonna try and only cool it by 120W
let's start with a couple off top of my head from wwii......the Norden bombsight, an advance over previous methods (namely, praying) that was akin to laser guided vs non-laser guided....the abilities of our codebreakers and first, early computation machines....the site of the D-day invasion...the fact that after nuking two japanese cities, we had no more bombs and if they didnt surrender we would have had to invade anyway (worlds biggest bluff)...the manhatten project, which the russians succeeded in stealing anyway
cold war era......the hydrogen bomb...many of the exact capabilites and design specifcs of the SR71 family and their one of a kind engines are STILL classified...the capabilities of the KH-11 satellites and their bretheren...the stealth fighter and bomber projects (f117 and b2)
modern day......the alien immigration/trading post on the dark side of the moon (j/k)
because they never assumed they were being listened to in the first place? if they did then theyre rank amatuers and destined to live a very short life.
when you have a secret you want to keep hidden, it doesnt matter what provider you use. you always assume "they" are listening in, regardless of whether they are or not. its not like these guys are talking "in the clear" over cellular networks, nor that the NSA is really listening in hoping to hear "the bomb will explode at midnight". they might hear that, but its extremely extremely unlikely. if the bad guys know anything at all they will be talking in code, making what appears to normal everyday conversation.
and that, that is the reason the NSA wants to listen in and use a big data mining operation approach: because they have the unenviable task of seperating the ordinary converstions from the would be plotters. and i understand the NSAs desire to tap everything. I just dont happen to support it or think they should do it on a blanket, everyone is a supect approach.
they are essentially using tremendous resources and expense to track and prevent statistical outliers......a 90yo grandma may be a plotter....but the odds are so astronomically low its not worth mentioning. however that new arrival from Iran who works in in a government research lab on a visa, who lives alone and never cooks calling home daily for an ingredient list that he never actually buys......would be well warranted a higher level of suspicion. but chances are they are already looking at him closer, including his phone, and dont need blanket phone surveillence on everyone in order to identify him as a higher probability threat.
its only "legal" because they passed laws making it so. however those laws are themselves in conflict with higher laws (namely the USC and general ideals/principles of a free, democratic society), and therefore anything they "make legal" are also in conflict.
he might have a contract. they need a list of dates and items to prove it when they do sack him. bigger companies tend to do this is theyre worried someone might complain and fight the sacking in court.
nearly every plot they have foiled has been done through old fashioned gumshoe work, not by listening to my grandmother give me her recipe for Ambrosia. all this "intelligence gathering" is a waste of time. if you have to listen to 350+ million people to stop only 2 people, its neither very efficient nor cost effective. it does however help immeasurable with the erosion of the rights of private citizens and further increase the hold on power of the powers that be, further removing and reducing the citizens that are supposed "be the government" from actually controlling that government.
You can have Liberty. Or you can Security. Or some mix between them. But you cannot have pure Liberty and pure Security together; it is a zero-sum game. And it inevitably comes about that the security involved is no longer that of the citizenry but of the people in power. the majority of human history has been spent in that position. We have over the past 200 years tried to move the balance further to the liberty side.
It remains to be seen whether we'll be able to keep it there.
if they succeeed in using this logic they can successfully and completely repeal the entire bill of rights.
you have nothing to hide? then you dont need protection from illegal search and seizure. you have nothing to hide? then you dont need protection against self incrimination. you have nothing to hide? then you dont need protected speech, press, religion, or assembly....after all, if you're a good little Merican you wont even think or act against the powers that be. you have nothing to hide? then you dont need the right and ability to defend yourself. you have nothing to hide? then you dont need a public trial to ensure fairness since after all, youre innocent right? surely the court will agree if you have nothing to hide.
so how is making a personal choice to not eat meat or live a vegan lifestype any different than making a personal choice to live or be Amish? no one is forcing them to do it.
you're not helping yourself. you're an ignorant bigot, below even the slugs you name yourself for. begone maggot.
so anything done to them thats wrong or unethical is ok? just like when the "lazy primitive backwards" tribes of africa were given an opportunity to work and be useful? just like when the ignorant savage redmen who resisted the advancement of culture and civilization were driven off their lands?
which is what people arent understanding. what you say can be used to convict you. but not if what you say is "i didnt do it" or "i refuse to answer".
saying "yes i shot him, and watched him die" can be used against you as an admission of guilt. saying "i refuse to answer under the 5th admint" cannot be used against you as an admission of guilt.
that's what the 5th does. it still allows the possibilty of actual confession or admission of guilt, but it must be actual admission of guilt. not "reading between the lines", not sayiing "well he refuses to answer, so he must be guilty"
the things you say can be used to convict you, such as confessing. hence the miranda warning "anything you say can and will beused against you", and confessions, etc. the 5th is in place to protect the things you do say that shouldnt or are not intended to incriminate you, from incriminating you.
if you legally confess, you legally confess. its a clear attempt to admit guilt and say "i did it". the action is initiated on your end. confession is still allowed. (but so is recanting a confession.)
but if you profess innonece, and maintain your innocence, the prosecution cannot call you as a witness and compell you to testify against yourself. and ordinary actions that you take in your own defense cannot be construed to prove your guilt. and even if you do agree to testify and answer some questions, they still cant force your to answer all of them, or prevent you from saying anything other than "i refuse to answer". and the fact fact that you dont answer canot be used against you to imply that you must be guilty.
any other witness can be held in contempt of court, of obstruction of justice, or wahtever else, for impeeding the process of truth-finding and refusing to speak. but you, the accussed cannot. you are the only person involved who can refuse to help the process along. that is what the 5th really protects you from: ie, being forced to help convict yourself and remove your own freedom and liberty, and allowing you to place the entire burden on the prosecution, and keep it there. this is why it extends to things like decrypting drives. not because there might be things on there, but because the fact you have teh capability to decrypt them could be construed to indicate your guilt.
Slashdot Mirror
a key difference would be the conex boxes are fully supported from underneath in both cases.
this would be suspending a conex box with pins in the corner dogeyes...which they already do, and is fine, for moving or lifting it between truck and train...but i have my doubts about it when suspsending it from an aircraft 30000 feet up for a few hours. Complete with turbulence, vibration, shear forces all working on those pins. And if one should fail...it would be catastrophic for both the module (gravity is a B) and the carrier aircraft (now unbalanced and violently changed mass/lift relationship).
how confident are you that a cooler intended for a standard 85-130W on todays chips will be sufficient for a 220W chip?
its been proven many times, hands free is not relevant. its the brain cognitive activity, not how its carried out, that is the distraction.
also, it would at best be considered circumstantial evidence, and testimony and affidavits could challenge it.
oh bullshit.
probably cause. its even in the 4th amendment.
checking a phone at the scene of an accident to determine if its a relevant factor inthe accident is well within in.
it is a narrow scope, so scrolling though vacation photos wouldnt be covered. but the general idea of checking for texts or messges etc that match the time of the accident is well within probable cause.
FTFY.
Right in one.
AMENDMENT IV. 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.
you quote but you do not understand.
the key phrase: Probable Cause
this is about accident investigation. checking a cell phone for texts or calls in the minutes up to and during an accident is well within the 4th.
if the drunk ran a stop sign and got T-boned, he's still at fault. he may be the one that got hit...but he still caused the accident.
just one example off top of my head.
gonna need more details.
i cant think they're actually going to succeed with this chip. the extra cooling needed is going to kill any cost savings vs the intel.
i should think that would be because most high end cpus are only using 120W or so....
if its generating 220 W of heat...you're not gonna try and only cool it by 120W
really? really?
let's start with a couple off top of my head from wwii... ...the Norden bombsight, an advance over previous methods (namely, praying) that was akin to laser guided vs non-laser guided. ...the abilities of our codebreakers and first, early computation machines. ...the site of the D-day invasion ...the fact that after nuking two japanese cities, we had no more bombs and if they didnt surrender we would have had to invade anyway (worlds biggest bluff) ...the manhatten project, which the russians succeeded in stealing anyway
cold war era... ...the hydrogen bomb ...many of the exact capabilites and design specifcs of the SR71 family and their one of a kind engines are STILL classified ...the capabilities of the KH-11 satellites and their bretheren ...the stealth fighter and bomber projects (f117 and b2)
modern day... ...the alien immigration/trading post on the dark side of the moon (j/k)
and if that decision were being made today nearly all of /. would be saying they got it wrong.
because they never assumed they were being listened to in the first place? if they did then theyre rank amatuers and destined to live a very short life.
when you have a secret you want to keep hidden, it doesnt matter what provider you use. you always assume "they" are listening in, regardless of whether they are or not. its not like these guys are talking "in the clear" over cellular networks, nor that the NSA is really listening in hoping to hear "the bomb will explode at midnight". they might hear that, but its extremely extremely unlikely. if the bad guys know anything at all they will be talking in code, making what appears to normal everyday conversation.
and that, that is the reason the NSA wants to listen in and use a big data mining operation approach: because they have the unenviable task of seperating the ordinary converstions from the would be plotters. and i understand the NSAs desire to tap everything. I just dont happen to support it or think they should do it on a blanket, everyone is a supect approach.
they are essentially using tremendous resources and expense to track and prevent statistical outliers......a 90yo grandma may be a plotter....but the odds are so astronomically low its not worth mentioning. however that new arrival from Iran who works in in a government research lab on a visa, who lives alone and never cooks calling home daily for an ingredient list that he never actually buys......would be well warranted a higher level of suspicion. but chances are they are already looking at him closer, including his phone, and dont need blanket phone surveillence on everyone in order to identify him as a higher probability threat.
its only "legal" because they passed laws making it so. however those laws are themselves in conflict with higher laws (namely the USC and general ideals/principles of a free, democratic society), and therefore anything they "make legal" are also in conflict.
its not wrong if its the right thing to do.
he might have a contract. they need a list of dates and items to prove it when they do sack him. bigger companies tend to do this is theyre worried someone might complain and fight the sacking in court.
they would say that wouldnt they?
nearly every plot they have foiled has been done through old fashioned gumshoe work, not by listening to my grandmother give me her recipe for Ambrosia. all this "intelligence gathering" is a waste of time. if you have to listen to 350+ million people to stop only 2 people, its neither very efficient nor cost effective. it does however help immeasurable with the erosion of the rights of private citizens and further increase the hold on power of the powers that be, further removing and reducing the citizens that are supposed "be the government" from actually controlling that government.
You can have Liberty. Or you can Security. Or some mix between them.
But you cannot have pure Liberty and pure Security together; it is a zero-sum game.
And it inevitably comes about that the security involved is no longer that of the citizenry but of the people in power. the majority of human history has been spent in that position. We have over the past 200 years tried to move the balance further to the liberty side.
It remains to be seen whether we'll be able to keep it there.
if they succeeed in using this logic they can successfully and completely repeal the entire bill of rights.
you have nothing to hide? then you dont need protection from illegal search and seizure.
you have nothing to hide? then you dont need protection against self incrimination.
you have nothing to hide? then you dont need protected speech, press, religion, or assembly....after all, if you're a good little Merican you wont even think or act against the powers that be.
you have nothing to hide? then you dont need the right and ability to defend yourself.
you have nothing to hide? then you dont need a public trial to ensure fairness since after all, youre innocent right? surely the court will agree if you have nothing to hide.
i could go on.
nixon was never impeached.
yes. how dare the ACLU stand up for and pretect the first amdnement
so how is making a personal choice to not eat meat or live a vegan lifestype any different than making a personal choice to live or be Amish?
no one is forcing them to do it.
you're not helping yourself.
you're an ignorant bigot, below even the slugs you name yourself for.
begone maggot.
so anything done to them thats wrong or unethical is ok?
just like when the "lazy primitive backwards" tribes of africa were given an opportunity to work and be useful?
just like when the ignorant savage redmen who resisted the advancement of culture and civilization were driven off their lands?
which is what people arent understanding.
what you say can be used to convict you.
but not if what you say is "i didnt do it" or "i refuse to answer".
saying "yes i shot him, and watched him die" can be used against you as an admission of guilt.
saying "i refuse to answer under the 5th admint" cannot be used against you as an admission of guilt.
that's what the 5th does. it still allows the possibilty of actual confession or admission of guilt, but it must be actual admission of guilt. not "reading between the lines", not sayiing "well he refuses to answer, so he must be guilty"
the things you say can be used to convict you, such as confessing. hence the miranda warning "anything you say can and will beused against you", and confessions, etc. the 5th is in place to protect the things you do say that shouldnt or are not intended to incriminate you, from incriminating you.
if you legally confess, you legally confess. its a clear attempt to admit guilt and say "i did it". the action is initiated on your end. confession is still allowed. (but so is recanting a confession.)
but if you profess innonece, and maintain your innocence, the prosecution cannot call you as a witness and compell you to testify against yourself. and ordinary actions that you take in your own defense cannot be construed to prove your guilt. and even if you do agree to testify and answer some questions, they still cant force your to answer all of them, or prevent you from saying anything other than "i refuse to answer". and the fact fact that you dont answer canot be used against you to imply that you must be guilty.
any other witness can be held in contempt of court, of obstruction of justice, or wahtever else, for impeeding the process of truth-finding and refusing to speak.
but you, the accussed cannot. you are the only person involved who can refuse to help the process along.
that is what the 5th really protects you from: ie, being forced to help convict yourself and remove your own freedom and liberty, and allowing you to place the entire burden on the prosecution, and keep it there. this is why it extends to things like decrypting drives. not because there might be things on there, but because the fact you have teh capability to decrypt them could be construed to indicate your guilt.
this. its still wrong, even if the amish let them get away with it.
so we should just ignore the wrongdoer?