It is a damage award, and probably less than the plaintiffs paid their lawyers. It also isn't a "scary precedent". It isn't a precedent at all: it's what normally happens when you fail to show up and present your case.
>...foreign judge...
So you feel that a USA court should refuse to hear a case brought by a USA plaintiff just because the defendent is foreign?
If Spamhaus had bothered to show up and present a defense they could have gotten the case dismissed with prejudice and had a good shot at being awarded fees and expenses.
> Image recognition is certainly considered a part of "AI" research...
According to the anti-AI crowd AI is whatever it is that computers can't do yet. There was a time when all agreed that a machine playing a credible game of chess would constitute proof that AI had arrived but now defeating grand masters is "mere computation".
> Actually, I don't have a huge problem believing it's a relatively small > number of people doing it.
It's a large number of people doing it (unknowingly).
> The initial emails at least are most certainly NOT sent out by means of > someone clicking "New message", filling in the To:, subject: and content and > hitting send.
No. They just turn on their pcs. The bot handles all the details in the background.
Young people. They have this attitude that they can safely put all sorts of private and embarrassing stuff up on FaceSpace because they are "streetsmart" and know how to twiddle the privacy settings so that only their "friends" can see it.
Educated people. These are also the people who paid $40,000 for a car with an electric transmission because it was "green" and Japanese rather than a $10,000 Chevy that got better mileage. They also got sucked into the "fair trade" scam.
> You don't have to but the onerous regulations basically force people to form > a corporation in order to survive. And of course a bookkeeper is mandatory > unless you want to risk an IRS inquisition..... er, I mean audit.
Both false (though incorporating is sufficiently simple and inexpensive in many states that it is worth doing for its advantages).
You aren't thinking it through. There would be no lower limit to the size of an bomb made with stable anti-matter (not to mention what it would do for the propulsion of weapons and military craft).
>...vehicles that can't be destroyed by explosively formed penetrators that > can be fabricated by anybody with a supply of ammonium nitrate and metal > forming skills somewhere between "early modern blacksmith" and "1850's > machine shop", etc.
And that's the worry, isn't it? (at least for the politicians). Eventually the technology would become public knowledge and when someone with a grudge and no reason to live can swallow a gel capsule containing a milligram of anti-matter and then just loiter within half a mile or so of your palace...
>...they want to sell weapons to people who DO want to kill people.
I.e., the politicians: the people with the money, and the ones who have been financing physics generously for 65 years in hopes of getting even badder weapons.
> If, for example, one of these Higgs particles could be commercialized as a > cure for male-pattern baldness or a source of HDTVs within the next two > years...
No. What would guarantee generous funding for the next 65 years would be the development of a successor to nuclear weapons (anti-matter bombs, for example). You have to address the primary interest of those who control the money: killing people.
> I'm sure a "perfect storm" could scale down accordingly and cause damage to > some smaller devices in regions that are receiving a particularly strong > blast.
I'm not. In fact, I'm fairly sure it couldn't.
> Coal is hard to come by...
Charcoal is easy to make.
>...most of us do not know how to smelt iron (I sure don't)...
I do.
> fireplaces are not present in most homes now...
You wouldn't want one. You'd want a wood or coal furnace.
>...and most of us do not own horses...
I do.
> The voltage+current surges required to destroy the power grid are enormous.
Fortunately, no one is predicting such a thing. The sort of event under discussion (similar to the 1859 event) would not destroy power grids. What it might do is severely damage the transformers connected to the ends of long transmission lines if they are not provided with proper protection. This could result in long outages over large areas, but it would not involve destruction of the grid.
> Simultaneously plugged into a multi-thousand mile grid of copper electrical > power wiring and miles of aluminum hardline for the cablemodem, not so good.
The cable distribution network is too small to be affected by this, as is the portion of the electrical grid your computer is directly connected to.
Aluminium is a better conductor than copper per unit weight and is much cheaper. Cable tv distribution cable typically has a copper center conductor and a aluminium shield.
> But I agree with the GP post in wondering exactly how they can predict this > three years in advance...
The scientists aren't predicting. They are merely noting that the Sun is behaving strangely and speculating a bit. It is the "journalists" who are predicting.
>...unless your electric car is actually plugged in when it hits it will be > fine...
It'll be fine even if it is plugged in. These sorts of events induce large, very low frequency (effectively DC) common-mode currents into long-distance transmission lines. These currents can damage the transformers at the ends of the line but are not coupled into the local distribution system.
Slashdot Mirror
> On that note, isn't this ordinance stepping on the toes of the FCC anyway?
No. It does not impinge upon the design or operation of the phones.
It is a damage award, and probably less than the plaintiffs paid their lawyers. It also isn't a "scary precedent". It isn't a precedent at all: it's what normally happens when you fail to show up and present your case.
> ...foreign judge...
So you feel that a USA court should refuse to hear a case brought by a USA plaintiff just because the defendent is foreign?
If Spamhaus had bothered to show up and present a defense they could have gotten the case dismissed with prejudice and had a good shot at being awarded fees and expenses.
> I don't think they tend to put in cell towers in areas where the nearest
> human population complex is 30 miles away.
ROFL. I live 30 miles (a 15 minute drive) from the nearest hospital. We have excellent cell phone coverage.
> Image recognition is certainly considered a part of "AI" research...
According to the anti-AI crowd AI is whatever it is that computers can't do yet. There was a time when all agreed that a machine playing a credible game of chess would constitute proof that AI had arrived but now defeating grand masters is "mere computation".
> You'd need something at least as solid as tuna chunks or a crispy donut to
> stop spam.
Or steel plate if it is still in the can and fired from a decent beer-barrel cannon.
> Actually, I don't have a huge problem believing it's a relatively small
> number of people doing it.
It's a large number of people doing it (unknowingly).
> The initial emails at least are most certainly NOT sent out by means of
> someone clicking "New message", filling in the To:, subject: and content and
> hitting send.
No. They just turn on their pcs. The bot handles all the details in the background.
> People who I've witnessed who got suckered:
Young people. They have this attitude that they can safely put all sorts of private and embarrassing stuff up on FaceSpace because they are "streetsmart" and know how to twiddle the privacy settings so that only their "friends" can see it.
Educated people. These are also the people who paid $40,000 for a car with an electric transmission because it was "green" and Japanese rather than a $10,000 Chevy that got better mileage. They also got sucked into the "fair trade" scam.
There is no such thing as "proprietary" data ( or "propriety" data according to the article). Data is just published or unpublished. No one owns it.
> You don't have to but the onerous regulations basically force people to form
> a corporation in order to survive. And of course a bookkeeper is mandatory
> unless you want to risk an IRS inquisition..... er, I mean audit.
Both false (though incorporating is sufficiently simple and inexpensive in many states that it is worth doing for its advantages).
> Some sort of uber-nuke super-superweapon...
You aren't thinking it through. There would be no lower limit to the size of an bomb made with stable anti-matter (not to mention what it would do for the propulsion of weapons and military craft).
> ...vehicles that can't be destroyed by explosively formed penetrators that
> can be fabricated by anybody with a supply of ammonium nitrate and metal
> forming skills somewhere between "early modern blacksmith" and "1850's
> machine shop", etc.
And that's the worry, isn't it? (at least for the politicians). Eventually the technology would become public knowledge and when someone with a grudge and no reason to live can swallow a gel capsule containing a milligram of anti-matter and then just loiter within half a mile or so of your palace...
> ...they want to sell weapons to people who DO want to kill people.
I.e., the politicians: the people with the money, and the ones who have been financing physics generously for 65 years in hopes of getting even badder weapons.
The LHC wasn't built just to find the Higgs.
Try the "off" switch. It works on all of them.
> If, for example, one of these Higgs particles could be commercialized as a
> cure for male-pattern baldness or a source of HDTVs within the next two
> years...
No. What would guarantee generous funding for the next 65 years would be the development of a successor to nuclear weapons (anti-matter bombs, for example). You have to address the primary interest of those who control the money: killing people.
> I'm sure a "perfect storm" could scale down accordingly and cause damage to
> some smaller devices in regions that are receiving a particularly strong
> blast.
I'm not. In fact, I'm fairly sure it couldn't.
> Coal is hard to come by...
Charcoal is easy to make.
> ...most of us do not know how to smelt iron (I sure don't)...
I do.
> fireplaces are not present in most homes now...
You wouldn't want one. You'd want a wood or coal furnace.
> ...and most of us do not own horses...
I do.
> The voltage+current surges required to destroy the power grid are enormous.
Fortunately, no one is predicting such a thing. The sort of event under discussion (similar to the 1859 event) would not destroy power grids. What it might do is severely damage the transformers connected to the ends of long transmission lines if they are not provided with proper protection. This could result in long outages over large areas, but it would not involve destruction of the grid.
> Would it put us back into the Stone Age?
No. It might do a few tens of billions of dollars damage.
> Simultaneously plugged into a multi-thousand mile grid of copper electrical > power wiring and miles of aluminum hardline for the cablemodem, not so good.
The cable distribution network is too small to be affected by this, as is the portion of the electrical grid your computer is directly connected to.
Aluminium is a better conductor than copper per unit weight and is much cheaper. Cable tv distribution cable typically has a copper center conductor and a aluminium shield.
> But I agree with the GP post in wondering exactly how they can predict this
> three years in advance...
The scientists aren't predicting. They are merely noting that the Sun is behaving strangely and speculating a bit. It is the "journalists" who are predicting.
> ...unless your electric car is actually plugged in when it hits it will be
> fine...
It'll be fine even if it is plugged in. These sorts of events induce large, very low frequency (effectively DC) common-mode currents into long-distance transmission lines. These currents can damage the transformers at the ends of the line but are not coupled into the local distribution system.
> Therefore, the shorter wires near a computer may be able to absorb enough
> energy to damage the computer even though they are not kilometers long.
But they aren't. They are much, much too short.
Not only would this software allow the site to connect the penis-wavers to each other, it could also target ads for sexual toys at them.
Now come up with boob-recognition and classification software and "We have your size in stock" bra ads can be targeted as well.
> ...Napster's failure...
What failure? Isn't Fanning rich and famous?
> "Who'd want to do that???"
Surely TSA has a database of photos of the genitalia of known "terrorists".
> ...you could just link those users to a video/chatbot that laughs at them.
Just link them to each other.