a lot of people are calling this an invasion of privacy. This is hardly that.
Al Qaedia and its operatives have been identified as enemy combatants. Effectively, there's already an international 'warrant for their arrest'.
This technology, if had to be used in the US, would require a judge to approve a warrant for this type of information gathering. There'd have to be specific evidence that the individual was commiting a crime or likely to. Al Qaedia already falls under this category, IMHO.
Even further, this was a COMBAT action. In other conflicts, (see: wars) this is the same as using radar to identify enemy positions based on the metal used in their vehicles, etc.
And EVEN FURTHER, knowing where you are is essential in a cellular phone network. To forward the voice packets, the phones have to know the signal strength from your phone to the nearest towers. it figures your motion and signal degradation to determine the most likely cells to send your data to. knowing your approximate location is just a function of cellular technology.
my qualm is that the interviewee is not going to volunteer points against his... so its the interviewers job. and he didn't do it well, if you ask me. he mentioned section 215, but hardly said what the patriot act said in section 215...
if his positions are indefensible, bring up the offending patriot act problems, and have him defend them. the interviewer failed to do this. instead he asked how people 'felt' about the act. What the act says is important. whether it pisses people off is not.
is that while the interviewer was attempting to illustrate the fear people may feel about the patriot act, it hardly at all actually specifically cites the offending sections. Except for section 215, the interviewer doesn't specifically say the parts of the patriot act that are damning.
By not mentioning the specifics of the act, and instead talking about how people are afraid of the act, this report manages to, surprise surprise, actually stir up more fear (hence all the posts on slashdot.)
What I would like to see is a specific breakdown. here's what patriot act ACTUALLY SAYS and here's what the constitution says, and show me differences. then I can make an opinion. Here's why X is bad, here's why Y is bad.
Also, shame on you if you posted against the patriot act in this thread and have not actually read it yourself. you shouldn't trust the trolls around you to summarize it with their slant.
I for one thought Viet's response to the one accusation, section 215, was actually reasonable. The powers he mentioned exist and have existed on state level and make sense nationally.
and finally, to those who say that our greatest threat comes from our own government: Physical violence against citizens in the most blatant way, murder, is preventable. Each one of those twenty hijackers made a conscious effort. America did not deserve it. not one person who died deserved it. And it could have been prevented had a decent enough intelligence effort been put forth. If the government did NOT put forth efforts to protect us, it would be abdicating its duty.
and then what happens when they start charging seventy billion dollars for twinkies? everyone dieS!!!!!
excuse the hyperbole, but there's actually a fucking math and science that goes along with setting prices. Prices are determined by making the MOST money. to do this, you don't necessarily set the HIGHEST price above cost. To make the most money, you find the highest price that would reach the most people. The reason why that power companies and oil companies don't sell their product at exhorbant rates is that they could only move X units, which means they'd produce less, which means what they produce costs more to produce. And with a limited customer base, you hardly sell anything and make money. and you hardly grow. I'm so sick of the simpleton theory that 'OMG without g0v3rm3nt corporations would charge billions for bread.' No they won't... they'll charge what they can get to get the largest audience and the best sales. Which is almost never millions of dollars.
if all car manufactures jack up the price of cars $20,000, then car manufacturers would have to accept about 75% less sales. what idiot manufacturer would do this? so I make 50% more but can sell to more than half less than I was? and since the cost is still cheaper, some other manufacturer would be an idiot not to take away the marketshare from the colluding companies, hurting them more.
just like celestial bodies have to obey the laws of physics, so too do the corporate bodies have to obey the laws of math.
wow, so thousands of dollars in legal fees later, we have... a check for 13 dollars.
I really wonder, why even bother? Did this 'bite' the industry, or the 'violators'? a little. Probably not much.
I don't support this kind of legal action. I believe those who make stuff have the right to set the price. They can collude, conspire, or whatever. I don't care. if they're being unreasonable, I won't buy.
How much more effective could the community who was holding this lawsuit be by boycotting and organizing? a lot more effective than a lawsuit, which is long, drawn-out, and up to the capriciousness of a judge rather than our own individual decisions. How could I get $13.86 back? by refusing to do business with unreasonable companies. People say in previous posts to this thread 'i've bought $3,000 worth of merchandise and was overcharged more than $13!' and to that I say 'why the hell did you spend $3,000 with a company you thought was overcharging you?'
Seriously, our 'great' senator from Massachusetts (no not the one running for president.) might have a lot to say about the issue, given his history on the subject of drunk driving.
products, paying politicians/rulers/kings/whatever to mandate their products and seeking other ways to change their business model to de facto or de jure taxes
And the solution is not to take away the capitalism, its to take away the kings.
Ahh, yes, figuring taxable income, except for being able to deduct rent in MA, is pretty much the same. I just meant rates were different, a flat rate in MA, a staggered rate in federal.
Umm, I think you're wrong. I've been a massachusetts resident for a long time. The income tax is five percent (or 5.9, it was raised then lowered and I hear it will be raised again); there are 'allowances' for rent and other things to lighten the tax burden, but I don't believe the income tax rate for individuals is based on income. For instance, federal taxes tax the first 40,000 at one rate, then every dollar until x dollar at a higher rate. I believe massachusetts merely taxes all taxable income at the 5% rate.
However, while the tax system for mass may seem straightfoward, we have a state sales tax of five percent. New Hampshire has no such tax, and oftentimes it makes sense to drive the twenty-five minutes from Boston to Nashua to save the tax. We also have a large amount of fees associated with various government services. we have mandatory auto insurance that can be very expensive compared to nationwide rates. (Geico won't even do business here, its just not profitable). We have RMV fees, we have permit fees, we have fees and fees and fees.
its no wonder they nicknamed the state 'taxachusetts.'
proof = poverty still exists. the war on poverty began officially over forty years ago and unofficially with the policies of FDR. A large portion of the governments funds are spent on entitlement programs. However, poverty exists for a constant 1% of the population and about %5 at any given time (this happens because families that fall below the poverty line stay there for an average of six months.) that 1% hasn't changed in the last 50 years. (that information is available on the census website of the US government). welfare roles haven't specifically declined or advanced.
You may argue that the military and NASA spend a ton of money too, but entitlement programs aren't specifically written into our constitution as law, while national defense is.
Finally, yes, the astronaut is biased. It turns out that people actually have beliefs when it comes to things like this, and I felt his belief was a valid point in the arguement. If bias means he has a stake in there continuing the be a space program, then so be it. I can't think of a better spokesman for the space program than someone who sees firsthand what it can do for mankind.
I'm so sick of everyone saying how we should spend our money at home and not on exploration. Look what Pilot James Kelly said, (one of the next shuttle astronauts)
"I think if you look through history, you see that the explorers and the countries that were doing the exploring were really the ones that were making mankind better and the world a better place to live in. I think that's still true, and I think the minute that we turn off our eyes that are looking heavenward and our voices that are talking about going to other places, as soon as you cut off those voices and say, well, we need to only be looking inward, I think that's the time when we start falling back... [Human space flight is] something that's written in the character of our country."
Seriously, we could turn inward, we could spend every dime trying to cure every socital ailment, (which for the last fifty years hasn't worked)... or we could be bold and challenge the willpower and spirit of mankind by reaching further into the heavens.
Until the people in such-and-such a country vote for a law that says George Lucas must release the original Star Wars trilogy on DVD,
We all love Star Wars, or at least the original Star Wars. But the rights to call something Star Wars, the rights to the films, the movies, the characters, all that.. they were created by George Lucas. They are his property. He is free, because he owns it, to make whatever ill-guided decisions he wants about it. He is free to be irrational, to ignore the thousands of fans who made him rich to experience star wars. and we are free to not trade with him.
You couldn't pass a law that says Lucas must do X with his property. Well, you could, but it would be immoral. Democracy is a principle of self-rule, not mob rule. Meaning those governed control their fate through votes. but almost every modern democracy has restrictions that democracies or majorities cannot vote against the rights of individuals.
having said all that, Lucas is a jerk. Why? Almost every artist who's ever lived has created new art instead of butchering his old art. And to hide his old art as if he never did it, and as if the new versions are definitive, is a travesty. I'd respect him a lot more if he just made new creations instead of rehashing his old ones.
PS... does anyone know if he butchered indiana jones when he pressed the DVDs recently? he might have done the same thing there, too
Let me rephrase then. Math represents concepts that are involved in the real world. Negative numbers are merely an abstraction of quantities where the number line has two sides. Imaginary numbers actually prove me right, since a bunch of our mathematical functions require positive values, i . e. quantifiable values. Decimals and all sorts of other numbers are merely scales of actually quantifiable things. (where 3.67 is 367 X 10^-2)
Not only that, but math requires a reality insomuchas you need pencils and paper, which are known to be universally reality based.
On a serious note, though. Math was developed in order to measure and predict physical behaviors. Mathematics isn't some etherial spiritual language handed down from druids or anything. it is completely reality based
Copying costs near to nothing to nearly everyone, so the initial costs for an artist to spread the work is approaching zero.
Actually, you're not correct. While producing the saved form of the music for distribution is approaching zero, there's still the 'production costs' (and ask any member of a local struggling band how expensive it is to have studio time). There's also marketing costs. Marketing is the primary function of the music industry today. fans in cincinatti, provided they don't know anyone from or have never been to Boston, probably won't know a Boston band, save if they tour cincinatti... but how does the guy in cincinatti know? Media labels help bring physical products to bear, yes, and that need is diminishing, but they provide a lot more. I think you're oversimplifying the process.
Also, everyone discredits the value of shiny discs but shiny discs satisfy the 'physical' desire to 'own' music. We want something tangible and collectable, and its hard to sell MP3s in a crowded bar at your fledgling band's shows.
But it does. Producers of a product can and have been held responsible for actions based on that product. I really don't agree with it... but here in the U.S. , gun manufacturers have been sued , tobacco manufacturers have been sued... its only a matter of time before Kazaa is sued, and its users. Now criminal law... that's not going to be applied to tobacco companies or gun companies... it seems criminal action is only taken against participants in the crimes. This is where Kazaa et al are unique.
Actually, the rovers have nuclear power already. radioisotope heaters onboard.
Viking and other deep space probes had a heavy amount of nuclear material... close to one hundred pounds. The rover would have to be a lot heavier; changing the scope of the mission and the mobility and landing sites.
The arguement you make is the exact same arguement that the shuttle had. And you know what? the Shuttle wasn't cheaper in the long run. Re-usable doesn't always mean cheaper. The shuttle is re-useable... but the saftey considerations of re-usable means millions of dollars of refits and inspections between any flight.
When you complicate the situation, such as doing something so small as sticking the space vehicle on the side like the shuttle versus on the top, you can exponentially increase the failure rate. Its not that scramjets wouldn't work, its that rockets DO work, and work incredibly reliably. their attitude adjustment and flight paths are infinetly simpler than something that has to calculate for air moving at such high speeds through an engine. IIRS
I've always been a fan of pornography, and I think its a great career. I mean, who wouldn't like fscking young, supple women? I don't have any experience fscking for a living, but i think i'd really find it rewarding. anyone know how to get in on the porn business?
I'm not sure about the patriot act, but I am sure about this:
Any ISP who did NOT keep IPs of the customers using their sites is setting themselves up to be sued or to have criminal charges laid against them. Since the ISP didn't keep records of johnny downloader, how does the ISP defend itself when the government knocks on its door and says the ISPs internet connection has been routing malicious traffic? The ISP keeps IP logs to prove that it was a customer, not the ISP itself, accessing material. That, and for billing and monitoring purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
a lot of people are calling this an invasion of privacy. This is hardly that.
Al Qaedia and its operatives have been identified as enemy combatants. Effectively, there's already an international 'warrant for their arrest'.
This technology, if had to be used in the US, would require a judge to approve a warrant for this type of information gathering. There'd have to be specific evidence that the individual was commiting a crime or likely to. Al Qaedia already falls under this category, IMHO.
Even further, this was a COMBAT action. In other conflicts, (see: wars) this is the same as using radar to identify enemy positions based on the metal used in their vehicles, etc.
And EVEN FURTHER, knowing where you are is essential in a cellular phone network. To forward the voice packets, the phones have to know the signal strength from your phone to the nearest towers. it figures your motion and signal degradation to determine the most likely cells to send your data to. knowing your approximate location is just a function of cellular technology.
wait, where does it say it records your name? oh wait, it doesn't.
my qualm is that the interviewee is not going to volunteer points against his... so its the interviewers job. and he didn't do it well, if you ask me. he mentioned section 215, but hardly said what the patriot act said in section 215...
if his positions are indefensible, bring up the offending patriot act problems, and have him defend them. the interviewer failed to do this. instead he asked how people 'felt' about the act. What the act says is important. whether it pisses people off is not.
is that while the interviewer was attempting to illustrate the fear people may feel about the patriot act, it hardly at all actually specifically cites the offending sections. Except for section 215, the interviewer doesn't specifically say the parts of the patriot act that are damning.
By not mentioning the specifics of the act, and instead talking about how people are afraid of the act, this report manages to, surprise surprise, actually stir up more fear (hence all the posts on slashdot.)
What I would like to see is a specific breakdown. here's what patriot act ACTUALLY SAYS and here's what the constitution says, and show me differences. then I can make an opinion. Here's why X is bad, here's why Y is bad.
Also, shame on you if you posted against the patriot act in this thread and have not actually read it yourself. you shouldn't trust the trolls around you to summarize it with their slant.
I for one thought Viet's response to the one accusation, section 215, was actually reasonable. The powers he mentioned exist and have existed on state level and make sense nationally.
and finally, to those who say that our greatest threat comes from our own government: Physical violence against citizens in the most blatant way, murder, is preventable. Each one of those twenty hijackers made a conscious effort. America did not deserve it. not one person who died deserved it. And it could have been prevented had a decent enough intelligence effort been put forth. If the government did NOT put forth efforts to protect us, it would be abdicating its duty.
and then what happens when they start charging seventy billion dollars for twinkies? everyone dieS!!!!!
excuse the hyperbole, but there's actually a fucking math and science that goes along with setting prices. Prices are determined by making the MOST money. to do this, you don't necessarily set the HIGHEST price above cost. To make the most money, you find the highest price that would reach the most people. The reason why that power companies and oil companies don't sell their product at exhorbant rates is that they could only move X units, which means they'd produce less, which means what they produce costs more to produce. And with a limited customer base, you hardly sell anything and make money. and you hardly grow. I'm so sick of the simpleton theory that 'OMG without g0v3rm3nt corporations would charge billions for bread.' No they won't... they'll charge what they can get to get the largest audience and the best sales. Which is almost never millions of dollars.
if all car manufactures jack up the price of cars $20,000, then car manufacturers would have to accept about 75% less sales. what idiot manufacturer would do this? so I make 50% more but can sell to more than half less than I was? and since the cost is still cheaper, some other manufacturer would be an idiot not to take away the marketshare from the colluding companies, hurting them more.
just like celestial bodies have to obey the laws of physics, so too do the corporate bodies have to obey the laws of math.
wow, so thousands of dollars in legal fees later, we have ... a check for 13 dollars.
I really wonder, why even bother? Did this 'bite' the industry, or the 'violators'? a little. Probably not much.
I don't support this kind of legal action. I believe those who make stuff have the right to set the price. They can collude, conspire, or whatever. I don't care. if they're being unreasonable, I won't buy.
How much more effective could the community who was holding this lawsuit be by boycotting and organizing? a lot more effective than a lawsuit, which is long, drawn-out, and up to the capriciousness of a judge rather than our own individual decisions. How could I get $13.86 back? by refusing to do business with unreasonable companies. People say in previous posts to this thread 'i've bought $3,000 worth of merchandise and was overcharged more than $13!' and to that I say 'why the hell did you spend $3,000 with a company you thought was overcharging you?'
Seriously, our 'great' senator from Massachusetts (no not the one running for president.) might have a lot to say about the issue, given his history on the subject of drunk driving.
products, paying politicians/rulers/kings/whatever to mandate their products and seeking other ways to change their business model to de facto or de jure taxes
And the solution is not to take away the capitalism, its to take away the kings.
Ahh, yes, figuring taxable income, except for being able to deduct rent in MA, is pretty much the same. I just meant rates were different, a flat rate in MA, a staggered rate in federal.
i actually like the new name. dash is also short for dashboard, which an os /overlay sort of imply. Hey, it makes sense, and is more original than not.
Umm, I think you're wrong. I've been a massachusetts resident for a long time. The income tax is five percent (or 5.9, it was raised then lowered and I hear it will be raised again); there are 'allowances' for rent and other things to lighten the tax burden, but I don't believe the income tax rate for individuals is based on income. For instance, federal taxes tax the first 40,000 at one rate, then every dollar until x dollar at a higher rate. I believe massachusetts merely taxes all taxable income at the 5% rate.
However, while the tax system for mass may seem straightfoward, we have a state sales tax of five percent. New Hampshire has no such tax, and oftentimes it makes sense to drive the twenty-five minutes from Boston to Nashua to save the tax. We also have a large amount of fees associated with various government services. we have mandatory auto insurance that can be very expensive compared to nationwide rates. (Geico won't even do business here, its just not profitable). We have RMV fees, we have permit fees, we have fees and fees and fees.
its no wonder they nicknamed the state 'taxachusetts.'
isn't 29 the number of people in Canada who can actually get broadband?
haven't they done enough by taking away our rights to see a bare breast on television?
mmm.... janet jackson boobie.
proof = poverty still exists. the war on poverty began officially over forty years ago and unofficially with the policies of FDR. A large portion of the governments funds are spent on entitlement programs. However, poverty exists for a constant 1% of the population and about %5 at any given time (this happens because families that fall below the poverty line stay there for an average of six months.) that 1% hasn't changed in the last 50 years. (that information is available on the census website of the US government). welfare roles haven't specifically declined or advanced.
You may argue that the military and NASA spend a ton of money too, but entitlement programs aren't specifically written into our constitution as law, while national defense is.
Finally, yes, the astronaut is biased. It turns out that people actually have beliefs when it comes to things like this, and I felt his belief was a valid point in the arguement. If bias means he has a stake in there continuing the be a space program, then so be it. I can't think of a better spokesman for the space program than someone who sees firsthand what it can do for mankind.
Seriously, we could turn inward, we could spend every dime trying to cure every socital ailment, (which for the last fifty years hasn't worked)... or we could be bold and challenge the willpower and spirit of mankind by reaching further into the heavens.
Until the people in such-and-such a country vote for a law that says George Lucas must release the original Star Wars trilogy on DVD,
We all love Star Wars, or at least the original Star Wars. But the rights to call something Star Wars, the rights to the films, the movies, the characters, all that.. they were created by George Lucas. They are his property. He is free, because he owns it, to make whatever ill-guided decisions he wants about it. He is free to be irrational, to ignore the thousands of fans who made him rich to experience star wars. and we are free to not trade with him.
You couldn't pass a law that says Lucas must do X with his property. Well, you could, but it would be immoral. Democracy is a principle of self-rule, not mob rule. Meaning those governed control their fate through votes. but almost every modern democracy has restrictions that democracies or majorities cannot vote against the rights of individuals.
having said all that, Lucas is a jerk. Why? Almost every artist who's ever lived has created new art instead of butchering his old art. And to hide his old art as if he never did it, and as if the new versions are definitive, is a travesty. I'd respect him a lot more if he just made new creations instead of rehashing his old ones.
PS... does anyone know if he butchered indiana jones when he pressed the DVDs recently? he might have done the same thing there, too
Let me rephrase then. Math represents concepts that are involved in the real world. Negative numbers are merely an abstraction of quantities where the number line has two sides. Imaginary numbers actually prove me right, since a bunch of our mathematical functions require positive values, i . e. quantifiable values. Decimals and all sorts of other numbers are merely scales of actually quantifiable things. (where 3.67 is 367 X 10^-2)
Not only that, but math requires a reality insomuchas you need pencils and paper, which are known to be universally reality based.
On a serious note, though. Math was developed in order to measure and predict physical behaviors. Mathematics isn't some etherial spiritual language handed down from druids or anything. it is completely reality based
Dude, you're so wrong. Math involves quantities. Quantities cannot exist without a reality to have things to count.
Copying costs near to nothing to nearly everyone, so the initial costs for an artist to spread the work is approaching zero.
Actually, you're not correct. While producing the saved form of the music for distribution is approaching zero, there's still the 'production costs' (and ask any member of a local struggling band how expensive it is to have studio time). There's also marketing costs. Marketing is the primary function of the music industry today. fans in cincinatti, provided they don't know anyone from or have never been to Boston, probably won't know a Boston band, save if they tour cincinatti... but how does the guy in cincinatti know? Media labels help bring physical products to bear, yes, and that need is diminishing, but they provide a lot more. I think you're oversimplifying the process.
Also, everyone discredits the value of shiny discs but shiny discs satisfy the 'physical' desire to 'own' music. We want something tangible and collectable, and its hard to sell MP3s in a crowded bar at your fledgling band's shows.
But it does. Producers of a product can and have been held responsible for actions based on that product. I really don't agree with it... but here in the U.S. , gun manufacturers have been sued , tobacco manufacturers have been sued... its only a matter of time before Kazaa is sued, and its users. Now criminal law... that's not going to be applied to tobacco companies or gun companies... it seems criminal action is only taken against participants in the crimes. This is where Kazaa et al are unique.
Actually, the rovers have nuclear power already. radioisotope heaters onboard.
Viking and other deep space probes had a heavy amount of nuclear material... close to one hundred pounds. The rover would have to be a lot heavier; changing the scope of the mission and the mobility and landing sites.
Nasa luckily skirts green eco-nazis... for now.
yeah, and where are we going to find a nation full of geek slobs to consume that many pringles? oh wait... Slashdot community to the rescue!
The arguement you make is the exact same arguement that the shuttle had. And you know what? the Shuttle wasn't cheaper in the long run. Re-usable doesn't always mean cheaper. The shuttle is re-useable... but the saftey considerations of re-usable means millions of dollars of refits and inspections between any flight.
When you complicate the situation, such as doing something so small as sticking the space vehicle on the side like the shuttle versus on the top, you can exponentially increase the failure rate. Its not that scramjets wouldn't work, its that rockets DO work, and work incredibly reliably. their attitude adjustment and flight paths are infinetly simpler than something that has to calculate for air moving at such high speeds through an engine.
IIRS
I've always been a fan of pornography, and I think its a great career. I mean, who wouldn't like fscking young, supple women? I don't have any experience fscking for a living, but i think i'd really find it rewarding. anyone know how to get in on the porn business?
I'm not sure about the patriot act, but I am sure about this:
Any ISP who did NOT keep IPs of the customers using their sites is setting themselves up to be sued or to have criminal charges laid against them. Since the ISP didn't keep records of johnny downloader, how does the ISP defend itself when the government knocks on its door and says the ISPs internet connection has been routing malicious traffic? The ISP keeps IP logs to prove that it was a customer, not the ISP itself, accessing material. That, and for billing and monitoring purposes.