I think that media companies are going to fight until the bitter end to supress Linux users because so much of their DRM technology just doesn't work. Microsoft will play ball with DRM Media companies, Linux users are much more likely to fight.
Thing is that DRM is unworkable on any platform. It's especially pointless in the BBC case, since all the material in question has previously been broadcast (to all of the UK together with parts of Eire, France, Belgium and The Netherlands).
That's draught beer. Bottled/canned beer is typically sold in simple fractions/multiples of a litre. 250, 440 and 500 ml are a lot more common than 568 ml.
Simply put, the average Joe that walks into a theatre will not walk out of the theatre if they get a call from someone important. I think it's a social problem,
Anyone who isn't going to be a pain has probably turned their phone off when they came in.
I dunno what exactly you mean by that but if it shorts out by natural circuit means as in a piece of metal touches both terminals on the capacity and it discharges half of the entire energy of a lithium ion battery all at once, UH OH!
This is something batteries generally do because they have an "internal resistance" limiting the currect they can deliver. Any kind of "smart" battery will also have other current limiting mechanisms.
! First it would probably arc enough to damage things around it. Second, if it doesn't them whatever metal takes the brunt of it would probably fly off in molten chunks. Don't say electrical shocks can't liquify and explode metal at the same time cuz I've got the burn marks in my arm and one of my tables to prove it.
In need not be molten metal, gas or even plasma is possible.
E-mail is electronic, so the message is NOT viewable in transit without making an effort to intercept and decode it, even if the encoding is just ASCII. It's not like mailing a postcard, it's like sending an electrically encoded text message over a packet-switched data network where the only expected viewing point is at the intended recipient's terminal; this is how the e-mail protocol was designed to work.
With many modern postal systems there is a lot of automation. So even a real postcard may not be seen by too many people. (Unless the address is incomplete or cannot be read by OCR.)
Great idea. you are forgetting one small tidbit. Audio quality will suck because of 2 things you fail to consider. Microphone quality in cellphones is below dismal. Think lower than toy quality. Secondly the audio processing aspects of callphones is just as dismal.
Actually they are both quite good for the intended purpose. Which is to pick up speach from within a few cm of the microphone.
Unless you can get an open hardware platform to scab on decent microphones and decent audio circuits and encoders it will not sound any better than a recorder stuffed in a persons pocket.
If you wanted to transmit over a cellular network you'd need to be making data calls (quite possibly multiple calls to get the required bandwidth, leading to synchronisation issues.) Far easier to use RAM or a HDD within the recording device. Rather than a "recorder in a pocket" you'd end up with a "bootlegging shirt/jacket".
Especially if there is no easy way to cause it to malfunction. As often appears to be the case with publically accessiable webcams near the site of any kind of demonstration. Even more so if the resolution is high enough to clearly see police officers faces and/or read their badges.
However, the current batch of idiots isn't even TRYING to find some middle ground. They've decided that in the absence of objective criteria for definitively removing the problem,
Before that would come an objective definition of "the problem". e.g. if the target is intended to be terrorists then actually target terrorists (regardless of their religion/ethnic origin)...
[tinfoil]Osama isn't being brought to justice or killed because he's far more useful to the US government as a bogeyman.
Of course, the preventative measures were piss poor, especially after a similar goofball got stopped at UVA a few months before. Allowing people with CCWs to carry on campus would have lowered the bodycount considerably.
The thing is that "gun free zones" (except for police and criminals) are politically correct, especially in places of education in the US. Whereas having armed students and staff is very politically incorrect.
Choice 3: React appropriately and install security measures that work, without unduly stressing people.
The "without unduly stressing people" may well be a subsection of "work". A big problem for both politicans and the mass media is that effective security can appear irrational/counterintuitive. All too often you find these people arguing for "more of the same". e.g. more detaining people without change, more money for "intelligence" agencies, etc. Even when there is no reason to believe that doing so will actually make any improvement and sometimes good reasons why these might actually make things worst.
We initially went after their assets in Afghanistan, but then we overreacted and somehow turned Iraq into the central from of the War On Terror. Do you think Bin Laden was unaware of PNAC's agenda? I'd say we played right into his hands.
Or the PNAC people should be on the list of suspects for the 9/11 attacks...
The 'Jihadists' want Islamic authoritarianism. The Neocons (et al,) want secular (or 'Christian') authoritarianism.
It's more the case that Islamic, Christian or Jewish authoritarianism are likely to be very similar. Whereas truely secular authoritarianism might well be distinctive from these.
If our new and improved homeland security is nothing more than security theater, they've won.
It's important to remember that "security theater" can easily be worst than useless. Thus it is quite possible to spend a lot of money and time doing something which which actually reduces actual security.
The response to 9/11 should have been to beef up airport and in-flight security somewhat, to grieve, and then to go on with our lives.
Most likely most of the needed response would have happened automatically in the form of a behaviour change from aircrews and passengers. One needed response which didn't happen was a proper investigation into the events.
The real post-9/11 damage wasn't done by terrorists, it was done by people who couldn't conquer their fear.
Or who wanted to frighten people with incredible conspiracy theories. More than 6 years later we are spending huge sums of money and occupying two countries on the basis of claims only slightly more credible than those of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, seen bigfoot/elvis, etc. If it wasn't so tragic the whole "Al Quaeda global terrorist conspiracy" thing would be laughable.
The real enemies of democracy post 9/11 have been people willing to vote away everybody's rights and dismantle our democracy in exchange for a perceived but non-existent increase in safety.
If not an actual reduction in safety. e.g. you'd usually expect that the police in London would investigate and attempt to arrest a gang of thugs who gunned down a commuter.
Anti-abortion groups don't design bombs by committee.
The interesting thing is how the media is often reluctant to call these people "terrorists". Even though they qualify better than a couple of idiots crashing a car into the door to an airport which is narrower than their car!
Anti-abortion groups (or whatever other kind of group you want to substitute) have a guy who knows about making bombs, and he makes them with no input other than size and yield. There may be a second guy who knows about hiding bombs. The point is, these two people are smart. Individually, everyone else in the group is likely reasonably intelligent. It's only as a group that they become dumb enough to place bombs at clinics frequented by pregnant women in an attempt to keep fetuses alive.
Or they bomb the homes/cars of people who work at said clinics.
I really don't see how anybody gets caught up in those suits, and frankly I don't see why the attorneys involved don't just blow these cases out of the water.
Possibly because very few of these cases ever get near a court.
1) MAYBE the IP Address belonged to the user. Say a 90% chance.
2) MAYBE an unauthorized individual downloaded the music. Say a 90% chance.
3) MAYBE the RIAA owns the rights to the music. Again, say a 90% chance.
4) MAYBE the RIAA was right and there was no router involved. Say a 90% chance.
The list of maybes could go on, but even if you just put up for MAYBE's along the way - even 90% maybe's you can interpret that to mean there was a 65% chance of their allegation being true - without bringing out any contrary evidence at all.
Actually it's closer to 66% with the example numbers. In practice some of these may rather less than 90%... You only need to get the agregate below 50% to win.
Wouldn't the criminal penalties for commercial copyright infringement apply here?
What kind of criminal penalties are actually applicable to "corporate people" either on paper or in practice. e.g. anyone ever seen (or heard of) a corporation even being arrested and taken to a police station for "questioning".
1. Robots don't breathe,drink or eat. Making them watertight would seem logical.
However internal combustion engines tend to need to both breath and exhaust. Whilst a simple valve might keep the exhaust dry, even enable it to function when submerged, water (especially in small quantities) in the intake will cause all sorts of problems.
2. gps and robots are not limited to the human range of vision.
Humans can easily use a telescope, radar, night vision goggles, CCTV, etc, etc.
Some backpack carried, hand launched, remotely piloted, tactical (not strategic like Predator or Global Hawk) spy planes do not use encryption and can be jammed, or perhaps even hijacked, but worse case you might bruise someone with it, or attempt to scout an area until its battery runs out.
Boats are more likely to run on internal combustion engines rather than batteries. Also it's rather easier to get someone onboard a boat compared with getting them onboard a tiny aircraft. An encrypted control channel much use if the "bad guys" have physical access. If needs be they can replace your control system with their own.
The article mentions that one of the tactics used by the pirates is to send out a fake distress call. Then whatever vessel approaches the pirates then becomes hijacked and ransomed for money. If a AUV ship is sent out, it can pick up survivors (if it is a genuine distress call) or shoot the **** out of the pirates.
Not only do you have the posibility to such a device machinegunning survivors you also have the problem of how to stop pirates hijacking it...
Slashdot Mirror
How many new criminal laws are passed each year, and how many others sunset or are repealed? Once a law is on the books it is hardly ever repealed.
The other issue is how many of these new laws are technically redundent because they forbid things already forbidden by existing laws.
Instead, we get more laws, a bigger prison population, with more expense to society, and in return we have absolutely nothing to show for it.
As well as selective enforcement so that there are plenty of people who should be imprisoned still free.
I think that media companies are going to fight until the bitter end to supress Linux users because so much of their DRM technology just doesn't work. Microsoft will play ball with DRM Media companies, Linux users are much more likely to fight.
Thing is that DRM is unworkable on any platform. It's especially pointless in the BBC case, since all the material in question has previously been broadcast (to all of the UK together with parts of Eire, France, Belgium and The Netherlands).
beer - always in pints
That's draught beer. Bottled/canned beer is typically sold in simple fractions/multiples of a litre. 250, 440 and 500 ml are a lot more common than 568 ml.
Simply put, the average Joe that walks into a theatre will not walk out of the theatre if they get a call from someone important. I think it's a social problem,
Anyone who isn't going to be a pain has probably turned their phone off when they came in.
Building it yourself doesn't make it legal. It is still a jammer and jammers are illegal.
Actually it probably is legal, just so long as you don't turn it on (especially in public).
I dunno what exactly you mean by that but if it shorts out by natural circuit means as in a piece of metal touches both terminals on the capacity and it discharges half of the entire energy of a lithium ion battery all at once, UH OH!
This is something batteries generally do because they have an "internal resistance" limiting the currect they can deliver. Any kind of "smart" battery will also have other current limiting mechanisms.
! First it would probably arc enough to damage things around it. Second, if it doesn't them whatever metal takes the brunt of it would probably fly off in molten chunks. Don't say electrical shocks can't liquify and explode metal at the same time cuz I've got the burn marks in my arm and one of my tables to prove it.
In need not be molten metal, gas or even plasma is possible.
E-mail is electronic, so the message is NOT viewable in transit without making an effort to intercept and decode it, even if the encoding is just ASCII. It's not like mailing a postcard, it's like sending an electrically encoded text message over a packet-switched data network where the only expected viewing point is at the intended recipient's terminal; this is how the e-mail protocol was designed to work.
With many modern postal systems there is a lot of automation. So even a real postcard may not be seen by too many people. (Unless the address is incomplete or cannot be read by OCR.)
Great idea. you are forgetting one small tidbit. Audio quality will suck because of 2 things you fail to consider. Microphone quality in cellphones is below dismal. Think lower than toy quality. Secondly the audio processing aspects of callphones is just as dismal.
Actually they are both quite good for the intended purpose. Which is to pick up speach from within a few cm of the microphone.
Unless you can get an open hardware platform to scab on decent microphones and decent audio circuits and encoders it will not sound any better than a recorder stuffed in a persons pocket.
If you wanted to transmit over a cellular network you'd need to be making data calls (quite possibly multiple calls to get the required bandwidth, leading to synchronisation issues.) Far easier to use RAM or a HDD within the recording device. Rather than a "recorder in a pocket" you'd end up with a "bootlegging shirt/jacket".
That the police are going to really dislike this.
Especially if there is no easy way to cause it to malfunction. As often appears to be the case with publically accessiable webcams near the site of any kind of demonstration. Even more so if the resolution is high enough to clearly see police officers faces and/or read their badges.
However, the current batch of idiots isn't even TRYING to find some middle ground. They've decided that in the absence of objective criteria for definitively removing the problem,
Before that would come an objective definition of "the problem". e.g. if the target is intended to be terrorists then actually target terrorists (regardless of their religion/ethnic origin)...
[tinfoil]Osama isn't being brought to justice or killed because he's far more useful to the US government as a bogeyman.
An alternative theory is that he is dead...
Of course, the preventative measures were piss poor, especially after a similar goofball got stopped at UVA a few months before. Allowing people with CCWs to carry on campus would have lowered the bodycount considerably.
The thing is that "gun free zones" (except for police and criminals) are politically correct, especially in places of education in the US. Whereas having armed students and staff is very politically incorrect.
Choice 3: React appropriately and install security measures that work, without unduly stressing people.
The "without unduly stressing people" may well be a subsection of "work". A big problem for both politicans and the mass media is that effective security can appear irrational/counterintuitive. All too often you find these people arguing for "more of the same". e.g. more detaining people without change, more money for "intelligence" agencies, etc. Even when there is no reason to believe that doing so will actually make any improvement and sometimes good reasons why these might actually make things worst.
We initially went after their assets in Afghanistan, but then we overreacted and somehow turned Iraq into the central from of the War On Terror. Do you think Bin Laden was unaware of PNAC's agenda? I'd say we played right into his hands.
Or the PNAC people should be on the list of suspects for the 9/11 attacks...
The 'Jihadists' want Islamic authoritarianism. The Neocons (et al,) want secular (or 'Christian') authoritarianism.
It's more the case that Islamic, Christian or Jewish authoritarianism are likely to be very similar. Whereas truely secular authoritarianism might well be distinctive from these.
If our new and improved homeland security is nothing more than security theater, they've won.
It's important to remember that "security theater" can easily be worst than useless. Thus it is quite possible to spend a lot of money and time doing something which which actually reduces actual security.
The response to 9/11 should have been to beef up airport and in-flight security somewhat, to grieve, and then to go on with our lives.
Most likely most of the needed response would have happened automatically in the form of a behaviour change from aircrews and passengers. One needed response which didn't happen was a proper investigation into the events.
The real post-9/11 damage wasn't done by terrorists, it was done by people who couldn't conquer their fear.
Or who wanted to frighten people with incredible conspiracy theories. More than 6 years later we are spending huge sums of money and occupying two countries on the basis of claims only slightly more credible than those of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, seen bigfoot/elvis, etc. If it wasn't so tragic the whole "Al Quaeda global terrorist conspiracy" thing would be laughable.
The real enemies of democracy post 9/11 have been people willing to vote away everybody's rights and dismantle our democracy in exchange for a perceived but non-existent increase in safety.
If not an actual reduction in safety. e.g. you'd usually expect that the police in London would investigate and attempt to arrest a gang of thugs who gunned down a commuter.
Anti-abortion groups don't design bombs by committee.
The interesting thing is how the media is often reluctant to call these people "terrorists". Even though they qualify better than a couple of idiots crashing a car into the door to an airport which is narrower than their car!
Anti-abortion groups (or whatever other kind of group you want to substitute) have a guy who knows about making bombs, and he makes them with no input other than size and yield. There may be a second guy who knows about hiding bombs. The point is, these two people are smart. Individually, everyone else in the group is likely reasonably intelligent. It's only as a group that they become dumb enough to place bombs at clinics frequented by pregnant women in an attempt to keep fetuses alive.
Or they bomb the homes/cars of people who work at said clinics.
I really don't see how anybody gets caught up in those suits, and frankly I don't see why the attorneys involved don't just blow these cases out of the water.
Possibly because very few of these cases ever get near a court.
1) MAYBE the IP Address belonged to the user. Say a 90% chance.
2) MAYBE an unauthorized individual downloaded the music. Say a 90% chance.
3) MAYBE the RIAA owns the rights to the music. Again, say a 90% chance.
4) MAYBE the RIAA was right and there was no router involved. Say a 90% chance.
The list of maybes could go on, but even if you just put up for MAYBE's along the way - even 90% maybe's you can interpret that to mean there was a 65% chance of their allegation being true - without bringing out any contrary evidence at all.
Actually it's closer to 66% with the example numbers. In practice some of these may rather less than 90%... You only need to get the agregate below 50% to win.
Wouldn't the criminal penalties for commercial copyright infringement apply here?
What kind of criminal penalties are actually applicable to "corporate people" either on paper or in practice. e.g. anyone ever seen (or heard of) a corporation even being arrested and taken to a police station for "questioning".
[cash or software, cash claim only if bought before 2006 & you have proof-of-purchase. 5% of what you paid]
The software most likely isn't as cross platform as a HDD either. So in quite a few cases the offer will be worthless...
This is about right. If you can have an automated boat loaded with explosives why risk a suicide run.
Only if the robot boat is cheaper than a regular boat and a fool.
1. Robots don't breathe,drink or eat. Making them watertight would seem logical.
However internal combustion engines tend to need to both breath and exhaust. Whilst a simple valve might keep the exhaust dry, even enable it to function when submerged, water (especially in small quantities) in the intake will cause all sorts of problems.
2. gps and robots are not limited to the human range of vision.
Humans can easily use a telescope, radar, night vision goggles, CCTV, etc, etc.
Some backpack carried, hand launched, remotely piloted, tactical (not strategic like Predator or Global Hawk) spy planes do not use encryption and can be jammed, or perhaps even hijacked, but worse case you might bruise someone with it, or attempt to scout an area until its battery runs out.
Boats are more likely to run on internal combustion engines rather than batteries. Also it's rather easier to get someone onboard a boat compared with getting them onboard a tiny aircraft. An encrypted control channel much use if the "bad guys" have physical access. If needs be they can replace your control system with their own.
"THIS VESSEL IS A SATELITE CONTROLLED DRONE... PROVIDE 64 bank account access codes or it will OPEN FIRE! Your airwaves are being monitored!"
Most likely a real pirate will interpret this as "...PROVIDE 64 bank account access codes or 6 RPGs..."
The article mentions that one of the tactics used by the pirates is to send out a fake distress call. Then whatever vessel approaches the pirates then becomes hijacked and ransomed for money. If a AUV ship is sent out, it can pick up survivors (if it is a genuine distress call) or shoot the **** out of the pirates.
Not only do you have the posibility to such a device machinegunning survivors you also have the problem of how to stop pirates hijacking it...