In each of your examples, it has already been established that Joe Blow owes money to John Doe. In this case, that has clearly not been established (if it had, there would be nothing about which to conduct a deposition).
Making an educated guess, it shouldn't be that hard to build a sensor to distinguish between "WATER (99%+ pure)" and "NOT WATER". With that in place, the most immediate problem (people needing to hydrate in the dessicated onboard air) could be solved by allowing water (after pouring a few drops into the sensor) on board.
(Yes, a terrorist could hide something else in a false bottom. However, a terrorist could hide a similar quantity of whatever substance anyway unless he's strip-searched and anal-probed).
And the nice thing about naming stuff after dead folks is that they can never do something embarassing or stupid once they are dead (I'm thinking: "The Michael Jackson Music Center for Children).
Even with dead people, there's the problem that 1)hitherto unknown "embarassing or stupid" deeds might be discovered and 2)the definition of "embarassing or stupid" is not fixed.
Locking the carry-on bins for the duration of flight would solve the problem of somebody using a modified/disguised electronic detonator while making it possible to safely carry laptops, PDAs, etc -- given how dependent modern business travelers are on these devices, I just don't think the airlines are going to able to stay in business if they don't come up with a solution that accomodates them.
Of course, this wouldn't do jack against a timer that requires no human intervention during the flight, but then neither does the carry-on ban (the timer device would work just as well in checked baggage -- either way, it's a matter of sneaking it through).
This would also enable people to carry their toiletries and a change of clothes for when their luggage gets lost, though they'd still be out of luck for inflight food and drink.
What we need isn't so much any new anti-spamming laws, but rather a clear doctrine that any deliberate attempt to break/evade spam filtering is a form of computer intrusion, to be punished like any other form of black-hat cracking. Given that the key factors are number of targets (lots) and severity of effect (degrading the target's ability to use e-mail for any purpose), it ought to pretty much default to the maximum available sentence under the existing computer-crime laws.
Consider that the PTO is overwhelmed with patent applications.
This bill does nothing to resolve that problem, as it provides no additional resources for the PTO to hire/retain people.
Changing to a first-to-file model makes the job of evaluating the initial validity of the patent easier, as you don't need to worry about prior art searches.
Prior art searches look for publications that predate the filing date. They are not affected by this bill.
Nope. The Constitution says otherwise, not once but twice. (A real property right is inherent, not granted by Congress at its discretion; a real property right lasts forever, not for "a limited time".)
I think these companies are seriously fooling themselves.
That phrase implies that they are guilty only of poor judgment leading to honest mistakes. IMO, the insurance companies know perfectly well that the technology doesn't work as well as advertised, but figure that they can get away with using it as an excuse to avoid paying claims they owe.
Compare the population of Virginia to Tennessee in 1770.
Irrelevant; "Tennessee" as a distinct political entity did not exist in 1770 (and in any case the United States did not yet exist).
The actual ratio between largest and smallest states at the beginning of the Republic was 12.6:1 (1790 population of Virginia: 747610; 1790 population of Delaware: 59096), which is almost an order of magnitude smaller than the corresponding ratio today.
While the executive order makes for nice PR, it has no effect on Kelo or any other action taken by local governments. Bush's order only applies to Federal emiment domain.
And, of course, it can be reversed at the stroke of a pen by Bush or any future president.
Federal legislation would be a bit harder to undo, and has the further advantage of possibly having a strong influence on state/local governments (if it includes a "don't do this if you like the idea of ever getting federal funds again" clause).
I mean how many people really use PGP [or the like] nowadays anyways? Fairly low.
That's my point -- the stupid government policies made it impossible to incorporate decent crypto into data structures by default. (It might not have happened anyway, or might have happened with half-assed implementations such that anyone desiring real security would have had to add it themselves anyway, but it could not happen while the old crypto rules were in place.)
Yes, some of this software can be difficult to use. So is most of the junk on the average office machine, and everybody has survived that. (The selection of cryptography software might also be better if the federal government hadn't spent years trying to criminalize a free, open standard for encryption called Pretty Good Privacy. But I digress.)
He makes a good point -- if it hadn't been for idiotic government policies in the 90s, there's a good chance data security would have been routinely and transparently built into operating systems and/or firmware as a matter of course, to the point where you'd have to consciously do something to screw it up (rather than having to consciously jump through hoops to be secure, as is the actual situation).
"Took off" is, however, a prerequisite (if not precisely a synonym) for "became significant enough to have the alleged effect on the development of physics".
"When it comes to extending our knowledge of the laws of nature, we have made no real headway" in 30 years, writes physicist Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada, in his book, "The Trouble with Physics," also due in September. "It's called hitting the wall."
He blames string theory for this "crisis in particle physics," the branch of physics that tries to explain the most fundamental forces and building blocks of the world.
String theory, which took off in 1984....
Does string theory explain how its own effects are able to reach back in time a decade before its creation?
Did you know Microsoft, Google and Yahoo are lobbying for net neutrality? If they're successful, they'll get a special, low-government-set price for the bandwidth they use....
...net neutrality would be a 180 degree reversal....
...net neutrality would require more government monitoring and surveillance of Internet traffic....
Wow, this guy really piles an Pelion on an Ossa on an Olympus of bullshit.
One example of a particular kind of abuse is where a company leverages their monopoly or semi-monopoly power in one area (the cabling, i.e. the transport layer) to profit in another area, e.g. in services that are available over the cabling, by discriminating against competitors for those services -- competitors who don't have the government-granted benefit of being able to run cables to people's houses. Trust me, you really don't want to be on the receiving end of this kind of discrimination.
Net neutrality regulation is trying to head off this sort of discrimination before it starts (whether it does so in the right way is another question). Some people say that this hasn't been a problem yet, and we can deal with it if and when it arises.
I'm sure that these people are perfectly consistent in their reasoning, and therefore take the position that (for example) we should start doing something about Iran's nuclear program once they actually build a bomb, and not worry about it just because their leaders have publicly stated the intent to nuke "the Zionist entity" off the map.
You pay your typical residential ISP to get you onto their network, not to provide any particular, exact flavor of peering to any specific other network in a particular way.
Nope, since the standard and expected purpose of getting onto an ISP's network is to enable the end user to reach the Internet content of his choice. If this is not the case (e.g. if I pay Verizon for a 1.5 Mbps connection, but only get a 128 kbps connection to Google because Google gets its bandwidth from another ISP and didn't give Verizon a double-dip payment), then my ISP is violating what is generally known as the "implied warranty of merchantability" (to offer something for sale is to assert that it is suitable for its normal and customary use).
Now, what's strange is that the promotional materials for the two-tier Internet say that Google, Microsoft and others should be paying. But at least in terms of the services they are best known for, there should be no need for them to pay....
Or perhaps Two-Tier doesn't work as I imagine?
Obviously, Two-Tier doesn't work as you imagine. You are imagining that there is "no need" for Google to pay its end user's ISPs. The advocates of a two-tier system are specifically naming Google as a target to be shaken down.
The root cause of the divergence is that you're envisioning extra payments based on legitimate cost criteria, but they're envisioning payments based on the deepest pockets that can be tapped on some pretext, however tangential.
Slashdot Mirror
Where's the "-1 Crackpot" moderation option?
Shouldn't the Sun have a hell of a tide due to Jupiter?
Tidal effects (the difference between gravitational acceleration at the near and far sides of an object) vary with the inverse cube of distance.
In each of your examples, it has already been established that Joe Blow owes money to John Doe. In this case, that has clearly not been established (if it had, there would be nothing about which to conduct a deposition).
Making an educated guess, it shouldn't be that hard to build a sensor to distinguish between "WATER (99%+ pure)" and "NOT WATER". With that in place, the most immediate problem (people needing to hydrate in the dessicated onboard air) could be solved by allowing water (after pouring a few drops into the sensor) on board.
(Yes, a terrorist could hide something else in a false bottom. However, a terrorist could hide a similar quantity of whatever substance anyway unless he's strip-searched and anal-probed).
And the nice thing about naming stuff after dead folks is that they can never do something embarassing or stupid once they are dead (I'm thinking: "The Michael Jackson Music Center for Children).
Even with dead people, there's the problem that 1)hitherto unknown "embarassing or stupid" deeds might be discovered and 2)the definition of "embarassing or stupid" is not fixed.
Locking the carry-on bins for the duration of flight would solve the problem of somebody using a modified/disguised electronic detonator while making it possible to safely carry laptops, PDAs, etc -- given how dependent modern business travelers are on these devices, I just don't think the airlines are going to able to stay in business if they don't come up with a solution that accomodates them.
Of course, this wouldn't do jack against a timer that requires no human intervention during the flight, but then neither does the carry-on ban (the timer device would work just as well in checked baggage -- either way, it's a matter of sneaking it through).
This would also enable people to carry their toiletries and a change of clothes for when their luggage gets lost, though they'd still be out of luck for inflight food and drink.
What we need isn't so much any new anti-spamming laws, but rather a clear doctrine that any deliberate attempt to break/evade spam filtering is a form of computer intrusion, to be punished like any other form of black-hat cracking. Given that the key factors are number of targets (lots) and severity of effect (degrading the target's ability to use e-mail for any purpose), it ought to pretty much default to the maximum available sentence under the existing computer-crime laws.
Consider that the PTO is overwhelmed with patent applications.
This bill does nothing to resolve that problem, as it provides no additional resources for the PTO to hire/retain people.
Changing to a first-to-file model makes the job of evaluating the initial validity of the patent easier, as you don't need to worry about prior art searches.
Prior art searches look for publications that predate the filing date. They are not affected by this bill.
According to the Constitution they are.
Nope. The Constitution says otherwise, not once but twice. (A real property right is inherent, not granted by Congress at its discretion; a real property right lasts forever, not for "a limited time".)
I think these companies are seriously fooling themselves.
That phrase implies that they are guilty only of poor judgment leading to honest mistakes. IMO, the insurance companies know perfectly well that the technology doesn't work as well as advertised, but figure that they can get away with using it as an excuse to avoid paying claims they owe.
Low-population Tennessee and Kentucky were admitted in the 1790s.
As of the first census (1800) after their admission:
Kentucky: 220955
Tennessee: 105602
(both higher than Deleware, at 64273)
Compare the population of Virginia to Tennessee in 1770.
Irrelevant; "Tennessee" as a distinct political entity did not exist in 1770 (and in any case the United States did not yet exist).
The actual ratio between largest and smallest states at the beginning of the Republic was 12.6:1 (1790 population of Virginia: 747610; 1790 population of Delaware: 59096), which is almost an order of magnitude smaller than the corresponding ratio today.
And, of course, it can be reversed at the stroke of a pen by Bush or any future president.
Federal legislation would be a bit harder to undo, and has the further advantage of possibly having a strong influence on state/local governments (if it includes a "don't do this if you like the idea of ever getting federal funds again" clause).
That's my point -- the stupid government policies made it impossible to incorporate decent crypto into data structures by default. (It might not have happened anyway, or might have happened with half-assed implementations such that anyone desiring real security would have had to add it themselves anyway, but it could not happen while the old crypto rules were in place.)
"Geez -- our customers really don't want to see every pimple on her butt or the incision lines from her boob job."
"Took off" is, however, a prerequisite (if not precisely a synonym) for "became significant enough to have the alleged effect on the development of physics".
He blames string theory for this "crisis in particle physics," the branch of physics that tries to explain the most fundamental forces and building blocks of the world.
String theory, which took off in 1984....
Does string theory explain how its own effects are able to reach back in time a decade before its creation?
Wow, this guy really piles an Pelion on an Ossa on an Olympus of bullshit.
I blame William Jefferson (for making the GOP overconfident that they'd defanged the "culture of corruption" issue).
In response, Senator Tom Coburn's office releases a statement: Told You So!
Net neutrality regulation is trying to head off this sort of discrimination before it starts (whether it does so in the right way is another question). Some people say that this hasn't been a problem yet, and we can deal with it if and when it arises.
I'm sure that these people are perfectly consistent in their reasoning, and therefore take the position that (for example) we should start doing something about Iran's nuclear program once they actually build a bomb, and not worry about it just because their leaders have publicly stated the intent to nuke "the Zionist entity" off the map.
You're only missing one word:
if you are a content producer you should pay ONCE for the bandwidth that is allocated for your content, period and end of story
The anti-neutrality side wants to get double-dip second, third, etc payments for that which has already been purchased.
Nope, since the standard and expected purpose of getting onto an ISP's network is to enable the end user to reach the Internet content of his choice. If this is not the case (e.g. if I pay Verizon for a 1.5 Mbps connection, but only get a 128 kbps connection to Google because Google gets its bandwidth from another ISP and didn't give Verizon a double-dip payment), then my ISP is violating what is generally known as the "implied warranty of merchantability" (to offer something for sale is to assert that it is suitable for its normal and customary use).
Or perhaps Two-Tier doesn't work as I imagine?
Obviously, Two-Tier doesn't work as you imagine. You are imagining that there is "no need" for Google to pay its end user's ISPs. The advocates of a two-tier system are specifically naming Google as a target to be shaken down.
The root cause of the divergence is that you're envisioning extra payments based on legitimate cost criteria, but they're envisioning payments based on the deepest pockets that can be tapped on some pretext, however tangential.