Loss of license for from 90 days to a year is typical in the US. Sometimes you get back a restricted license that lets you drive to and from work. Jail time is also typical. Second offense penalties are much more severe. DUI in the US
The tank most likely contained anhydrous ammonia rather than the dilute water solution you have. Of course, if there is any left in the tank it will obviously all evaporate when the tank bursts at high altitude, but you can't expect a PR flack to know that (or to have sense enough to ask).
If any pieces actually land it will be somewhere under the orbit of the ISS. A large one might dent your car in the extremely improbable case that one should hit it. There is no possibility, of course, that any of the ammonia will reach the ground.
> I could be wrong, but I would have thought as an Australian I do have the right to free > speech, as inherited through the United Nations.
The UN is (fortunately) not a world government: it is just a voluntary association of sovereign national governments. Unless your constitution includes a clause automatically incorporating UN resolutions or the Declaration has otherwise been incorporated into your local law it has nothing to do with you. Do you really think that any politician would support such a thing were it actually binding?
> anybody who wants to steal a car and actually knows how more than likely knows how to > drive stick.
That depends very much on the particular stick. You would have had more than a bit of trouble with my old Bronco even if you did realize that the thing lying on the passenger seat was the shift lever.
Why should the thief care whether or not you are able to collect from your insurance company?
In any case, it is rarely difficult to convince the insurance company that a burglary ocurred regardless of the means of entry. Burglars are not neat and tidy as they search the house for valuables. A few photos of the trashed interior usually suffice.
Variations on that method would work on most frame houses built during the last fifty years but burglars still attack doors and windows. This, of course, is because most are remarkably stupid (intelligent criminals go into politics).
Slashdot Mirror
> France also had one of the worst anti-cryptography laws worldwide... until they
> gradually replaced them with saner laws in 1996 and 2004.
So you are saying that France still has laws regulating the use of crypography?
> Sure, there may be different compile-time options used, but.... ...only Microsoft knows.
> Right, but what about when you need 1024 cores?
You use Linux.
Loss of license for from 90 days to a year is typical in the US. Sometimes you get back a restricted license that lets you drive to and from work. Jail time is also typical. Second offense penalties are much more severe. DUI in the US
Do you seriously believe that such people would ever be banned?
> I gueI guess it means every C&D letter (in the US you'd call it a DMCA notice, but it's
> not the US)
No. I'd call it a C&D letter, because that is what it would be. It would have nothing to do with the DMCA.
People have been hit by meteorites. They've also been hit by lumps of ice falling off airliners. Neither is classed as a major hazard, though.
You may be right. It could destroy a typical plastic Japanese rollerskate.
> This item was deliberately jettisoned, not accidentally dropped like everything else....
I know of nothing that was put in orbit by accident, and everything the was put in orbit deliberately was put there knowing it would come down.
The tank most likely contained anhydrous ammonia rather than the dilute water solution you have. Of course, if there is any left in the tank it will obviously all evaporate when the tank bursts at high altitude, but you can't expect a PR flack to know that (or to have sense enough to ask).
And there is no good reason that they shouldn't. It won't be dangerous and it will be worth something.
> I know the chances are low, but still.
The defenses you already have in place for meteorites will protect you.
> It's rare but being hit by metorites *does* happen.
That's my point. six billion people, it's rare that any are hit by all that natural junk, and you are worried about this?
> If something the size of a fridge hit you you'd feel a little bit more than a burning
> sensation!
NASA says no pieces larger than 40lb.
Natural space junk of similar mass hits the Earth all the time. When was the last time you heard of anyone getting killed by a meteorite?
Sovereign immunity. Sue the company that made the tank.
If any pieces actually land it will be somewhere under the orbit of the ISS. A large one might dent your car in the extremely improbable case that one should hit it. There is no possibility, of course, that any of the ammonia will reach the ground.
Wouldn't that just result in calls for "renewed enforcement" and "better tools" (i.e. more legislation)?
> I could be wrong, but I would have thought as an Australian I do have the right to free
> speech, as inherited through the United Nations.
The UN is (fortunately) not a world government: it is just a voluntary association of sovereign national governments. Unless your constitution includes a clause automatically incorporating UN resolutions or the Declaration has otherwise been incorporated into your local law it has nothing to do with you. Do you really think that any politician would support such a thing were it actually binding?
> Can anyone point me to some info on WHY the electric universe people are kooks?
I should think that would be self-evident: they enjoy it.
> Lately I find some of the EU theories easier to accept than "majick" dark matter, dark
> energy, and magnetic fields with no electric current.
Perhaps it is time to review some basic physics.
> "Magnetic reconnection" really?
Wikipedia is your friend.
> anybody who wants to steal a car and actually knows how more than likely knows how to
> drive stick.
That depends very much on the particular stick. You would have had more than a bit of trouble with my old Bronco even if you did realize that the thing lying on the passenger seat was the shift lever.
> You should thus not use MD5 to authenticate documents and other data as being
> "not-tampered with". As a checksum algorithm, it should not be used.
As a security checksum algorithm, it should not be used. There are other uses for checksums.
Especially amusing is that they almost certainly use a reversible blurring algorithm.
Why should the thief care whether or not you are able to collect from your insurance company?
In any case, it is rarely difficult to convince the insurance company that a burglary ocurred regardless of the means of entry. Burglars are not neat and tidy as they search the house for valuables. A few photos of the trashed interior usually suffice.
No, it's the people who break into your house that he doesn't know.
Variations on that method would work on most frame houses built during the last fifty years but burglars still attack doors and windows. This, of course, is because most are remarkably stupid (intelligent criminals go into politics).