I'd have to mod you both down. You forget that it's position and momentum, not position and speed. You have to divide hbar by the mass in eV to find the minimum uncertainty. An electron's mass is about 500 KeV. A Leaf's mass....
If the restart isn't instantaneous (i.e., if there isn't an instant-on-to-browser mode built in) then this would seem to be a means of sandboxing a machine, as for use as a public kiosk type of terminal.
In which case the question is of course how to get back to a fully-functional shell, if, say, you lose your keys, or sump'n like dat.
It took getting rid of J. Edgar Hoover and his massive stack of blackmail files to bring them back. The misuse of COINTELPRO was directed from the top. The FBI now has internal controls and a culture of cutting off at the knees anyone who soils an investigation with personal bullshit. That's the proper result of ending COINTELPRO. Eliminating investigative methods that can be used righteously is not the proper result.
ROFL, if you let the prosecutor use your refusal to submit to unreliable technology against you in court, instead of using his reliance on it against him, then you might as well plead guilty to things you didn't do.
They were too busy talking about Roswell. I couldn't get it through to them that Afghanistan would one day be powerful enough to topple three skyscrapers in downtown NYC and put a hole in the Pentagon, or that we'd have a president too stupid to catch the rich monk who'd organized it. Then there was this "vorp...vorp...vorp" noise and the wormhole closed.
COINTELPRO was legit, except where it incited crimes to occur in order to sway politics. The program wasn't the problem, the use of it was. Again, not a constitutional issue. Just one of management's understanding of whether cops should or shouldn't follow the law.
The cops shouldn't have the ability to google your name to see if you've been bragging about your crimes?
As for the "piss off a federal agent" thing, that will always be a part of the paradigm, as long as we rely on human beings to investigate and prosecute crimes. The key is to rely on independent human beings to investigate and prosecute crimes committed by federal agents.
If you read TFA you realize that 90% of this story is about how much infrastructure we have in place to ensure that the things cops can do are not abused by the cops.
Because, left to their own devices, they devise rubber hoses, evidence drops, and one-way trips to the county line. This is nothing more than telling them there are things they can do that aren't rubber hoses, evidence drops, or one-way trips to the county line, that they can devise on their own recognizance and still be acting within a suspect's rights.
You have "Unconstitutional" confused for "Inconvenient".
According to the summary and TFA, and the USAG, the changes are still constitutional. You may disagree with USAG, but you should doubt that the SCOTUS will.
BTW, these are all things that the agents can do, physically, at any time, and any abuse of that ability is still unconstitutional. It's just that now they don't have to go through red tape to get legitimate actions approved administratively. It wasn't a matter of getting a warrant before, and it isn't now. So it allows lower-level cops to abuse your rights, instead of requiring an executive decision to abuse your rights, if anyone's going to use these tools illegally.
It's because perps, except the true psychopaths, are scared shitless of them. Using them doesn't produce actionable evidence, but it weeds out the guilty who know they're guilty and don't feel they can beat a polygraph. Saves a lot of rubber-hose time that way.
You have it backwards. By limiting themselves unnecessarily and not investigating things fully they were wasting taxpayer dollars that were budgeted to do investigations fully.
So, nothing is really different about what they could do, within the law, they're just being told by their executives that they should do more, within the law.
I see why this should be controversial. It appears that their policy has been not to do everything they could.
unfortunately, the laws of physics guarantee that the latter cannot continue indefinitely.
Depends on which laws of physics you apply. The law has been jiggered a few times to account for paradigm shifts. It used to be all about transistors on a chip. Now it's about gross performance metrics. People keep finding ways to make the results of innovation follow the pace Moore observed.
It's been a long time since I've seen a system that was full, btw. Even bloat-champ Firefox seems to use less than 25% of a typical computer's RAM. Pretty sure Parkinson was working at a time that innovation in software was way ahead of innovation in storage. Now companies that make hardware have become drivers of software use-cases to create demand for their output. I think someone mentioned it already, but Mozilla's best strategy here might be to just buy everyone another gig of memory.
Slashdot Mirror
You used to be able to disable OnStar just by not paying the exhorbitant fee for it.
Broadcast power.
I'd have to mod you both down. You forget that it's position and momentum, not position and speed. You have to divide hbar by the mass in eV to find the minimum uncertainty. An electron's mass is about 500 KeV. A Leaf's mass....
If the restart isn't instantaneous (i.e., if there isn't an instant-on-to-browser mode built in) then this would seem to be a means of sandboxing a machine, as for use as a public kiosk type of terminal.
In which case the question is of course how to get back to a fully-functional shell, if, say, you lose your keys, or sump'n like dat.
It took getting rid of J. Edgar Hoover and his massive stack of blackmail files to bring them back. The misuse of COINTELPRO was directed from the top. The FBI now has internal controls and a culture of cutting off at the knees anyone who soils an investigation with personal bullshit. That's the proper result of ending COINTELPRO. Eliminating investigative methods that can be used righteously is not the proper result.
you mean there's a fap for that.
ROFL, if you let the prosecutor use your refusal to submit to unreliable technology against you in court, instead of using his reliance on it against him, then you might as well plead guilty to things you didn't do.
They were too busy talking about Roswell. I couldn't get it through to them that Afghanistan would one day be powerful enough to topple three skyscrapers in downtown NYC and put a hole in the Pentagon, or that we'd have a president too stupid to catch the rich monk who'd organized it. Then there was this "vorp...vorp...vorp" noise and the wormhole closed.
COINTELPRO was legit, except where it incited crimes to occur in order to sway politics. The program wasn't the problem, the use of it was. Again, not a constitutional issue. Just one of management's understanding of whether cops should or shouldn't follow the law.
Doesn't say that. Says they don't have to start a paper trail. Any supervisor is still going to want to know the details of his employees' day.
1956 called. Wants its reason for splitting up "electrical engineering" and "computer science" curricula back.
You are doing those things in public, so yes.
So don't submit to it. Say you know they're innaccurate and inadmissable. Or better, have your lawyer say it. Make them prove your guilt themselves.
It applies only if what the cops do is actually unreasonable.
Googling your name to see if you're a flamboyant crook isn't unreasonable.
The cops shouldn't have the ability to google your name to see if you've been bragging about your crimes?
As for the "piss off a federal agent" thing, that will always be a part of the paradigm, as long as we rely on human beings to investigate and prosecute crimes. The key is to rely on independent human beings to investigate and prosecute crimes committed by federal agents.
If you read TFA you realize that 90% of this story is about how much infrastructure we have in place to ensure that the things cops can do are not abused by the cops.
Because, left to their own devices, they devise rubber hoses, evidence drops, and one-way trips to the county line. This is nothing more than telling them there are things they can do that aren't rubber hoses, evidence drops, or one-way trips to the county line, that they can devise on their own recognizance and still be acting within a suspect's rights.
who's a hostage?
if you want your own information, you're free to create it
Yeah, but OCR won't install bathroom tile for a little extra pay.
You have "Unconstitutional" confused for "Inconvenient".
According to the summary and TFA, and the USAG, the changes are still constitutional. You may disagree with USAG, but you should doubt that the SCOTUS will.
BTW, these are all things that the agents can do, physically, at any time, and any abuse of that ability is still unconstitutional. It's just that now they don't have to go through red tape to get legitimate actions approved administratively. It wasn't a matter of getting a warrant before, and it isn't now. So it allows lower-level cops to abuse your rights, instead of requiring an executive decision to abuse your rights, if anyone's going to use these tools illegally.
It's because perps, except the true psychopaths, are scared shitless of them. Using them doesn't produce actionable evidence, but it weeds out the guilty who know they're guilty and don't feel they can beat a polygraph. Saves a lot of rubber-hose time that way.
You have it backwards. By limiting themselves unnecessarily and not investigating things fully they were wasting taxpayer dollars that were budgeted to do investigations fully.
So, nothing is really different about what they could do, within the law, they're just being told by their executives that they should do more, within the law.
I see why this should be controversial. It appears that their policy has been not to do everything they could.
they weren't supposed to make your life easier.
they were supposed to make your ticket price leave more profit in the airline's pocket.
all those people who couldn't get anywhere? just how many got their money back?
the system is working exactly as designed, even if the passengers don't get to feel all special about it.
dude. you paid for FARK???
Um, no. Everything is NOT good. This interface is totally fucked on some not-so-old browers and OSes.
unfortunately, the laws of physics guarantee that the latter cannot continue indefinitely.
Depends on which laws of physics you apply. The law has been jiggered a few times to account for paradigm shifts. It used to be all about transistors on a chip. Now it's about gross performance metrics. People keep finding ways to make the results of innovation follow the pace Moore observed.
It's been a long time since I've seen a system that was full, btw. Even bloat-champ Firefox seems to use less than 25% of a typical computer's RAM. Pretty sure Parkinson was working at a time that innovation in software was way ahead of innovation in storage. Now companies that make hardware have become drivers of software use-cases to create demand for their output. I think someone mentioned it already, but Mozilla's best strategy here might be to just buy everyone another gig of memory.