The Europeans should not be attacking Google for indexing what is available on the Internet, they should be talking to the people that put that information on the Internet in the first place.
The problem is that would create a large backlash from a lot of people who, for a variety of reasons, would find such requests unreasonable. Google, and other search engines, are unable to mobilize such responses and thus a more palatable target. That it is a US company is just a bonus.
. The rule that what I create with my own hands os mine to give away, trade, or sell exists for a very good reason.
And what's that reason? Not everyone agrees about imaginary property Ray. The concept is rather new. You're free to disagree, but the world is changing and as information is so easy to copy fewer and fewer people are seeing things your way.
It's about time too. Far too many people think because they take two minutes to add some code to a program they have some sort of right to control its distribution. Gold code, for example, costs nothing and thus has zero value yet some folks seem to think it is ok to force you to share any changes you make if decide to distribute the results. Since it is imaginary property and they lose nothing by your distributing it it's about time the GPL takes it's rightfully place in the dust bin of history.
You are drinking the kool-aid. Just look at the wealth gap between rich and poor - clearly the dream is just that - a dream.
The wealth gap is mostly irrelevant in the discussion of opportunity. There are plenty of wealthy people that started with nothing. And even more that are comfortable that came from similar circumstances. The question was why do immigrants see the US as desirable place to move to and the answer is, in part, because they see an opportunity to better their lives vs other places. It's not perfect but still is preferential to many others. Don't let your drinking the 'I'm not rich so life is unfair and I'm a poor victim' Kool-Aid blind you to reality.
It's already here. They're called smartphone apps.
Actually, that is probably the holy grail for malware. If you can sneak an app past Apple's testing by delaying its activities you would open up a whole lot of phones to infections. Given the readiness of people to d/l and trust smartphone apps you could probably get away with it for quite some times I doubt many people look for suspicious behavior once your inside the walled garden; just look at what today's apps can (somewhat) openly collect. The challenge is to build one that avoids detection and bypasses Apple's built in protections and become popular enough to get a lot of downloads.
Despite the viewpoint of many on/., America is still viewed as a place where you can achieve success no matter where you are from. Sure, if you have family connections you have a leg up but you are not limited if you didn't go to the right school or have connections. the "american Dream" is still viewed as a possibility; even for young Americans who see greater opportunities here than abroad. If you make money you are granted access to power a lot quicker in America than in many other countries; and it is easier to start from nothing and make it here than in many places; so I am not surprised by the results.
Actually I don;t care whether any of us agree with the statement. It's a moot point since Reid v. Covert, where the Court concluded that U.S. citizens have the same rights against the U.S. government when it acts against them abroad.
Except Reid v. Covert as you point out, relates to US citizens. The property searched was not that of a US citizen and thus Reid v. Covert wouldn't apply, even though they found evidence to be used against a US citizen. The evidence was in the possession of a non-US citizen, i.e. the owners of the server, and thus enjoy no protection; at least that would be the argument the US seems to be making.
Usually a foreign property search requires the permission of that country to pre-approve the search. I very much doubt the US requested permission. Violating another country's sovereignty should never be taken lightly.
Which is a separate issue form the one that is being argued. The country could have given permission to US law enforcement to access the server; however that would not answer the question "Does Fourth Amendment protections apply in the case of a non-US search and seizure?" The answer to the later could be yes and thus the search illegal even with host country permission.
So what they are saying is that anyone outside the US can freely hack US servers without a warrant too. Surely they don't expect special treatment?
Not really. What they are saying is US Constitutional protections do not apply abroad. Wether or not you agree with that statement is a different issue than saying it's OK to hack into a US computer. The agents hacking into the computer could be guilty of violating the laws of the country that hosts the server an subject to prosecution if that country decides to go after them.
You see, it might be Dubai, but the software will be perfected there, and it will migrate elsewhere. Slowly, it becomes acceptable in a conventional sense. Then it becomes "the norm".
A thousand cuts..... then a million.
I agree, my point was Dubai doesn't necessarily have the same due process concerns of the OP.
You forgot to mention the necessary sense of walking around: liberty. Even if you're a "positive", what of due process? Will you land in a jail, await a long process? How and who guarantees that you'll be then excluded if you're falsely positive? It's a slippery slope. Google has opened a Pandora's box of paranoia.
Will people stop traveling in fear of false-positives? Where are governments permitted to gnaw on their citizenry, privacy death by a thousand cuts?
If companies want a diverse workforce then the people who are not well represented would command a higher salary, for the same skills, since companies in essence would be bidding for a scarce resource. While the pay gap is large, small or non-exsistant, depending on the study you use; the existence of a gap or parity indicates companies do not value diverse workforces enough to pay for them. However they want to appear to do so and thus need to find a reason why it's not their fault; the educational pipeline is convenient and kills two birds with one stone; "we can't hire more women because schools aren't producing enough with STEM skills and by the way that's why we need more H1-B's." As Hal Holbrook said, "follow the money..."
My car is a mobile extension of my home. By accepting my invitation to enter, you are accepting the moral and legal obligations that accompany, viz: you consent to being monitored, you consent to being recorded, and you promise to behave yourself lest the recordings be used against you in a civil or criminal claim.
Unfortunately that is not what the law says in some states. What would deb interesting is how a one party consent state would consider who the other party is? the car? The owner even if they are not a party to the call?
Honestly, is there no lever the Indian government won't sink to to save money?
Yea, but what until something goes wrong and Bob on tech support line tells them they need to reinstall Windows. Or MS tech support calls them and tells them "I have been monitoring your computer and you have a reall bad virus that will steal your information. "
Per TFA, the have added power supplies to maintain voltage when grid voltage dips
Right. But this kind of event happened before solar and wind electrical generation became popular. It simply happened less frequently.
True, but it appears to not have been an issue since companies did not take steps to deal with it or not at least to the extent of adding their own power backup.
Ultimately, power companies have plans to add more storage capacity to smooth out the dips, but they're having to wait for batteries to become available as they are reclaimed from electric vehicles. Even if they wanted to buy the batteries new, they couldn't afford to, because EV builders will pay more. There will be a period of adjustment. But this equipment pays dividends in other ways, as well. The fact that they're adding it only now doesn't mean that the entire cost is eaten by compensating for new faults; they also get the benefit of compensating for the existing faults.
Not really. Whatever preventative measures they took prior to these could be attributed to existing faults. Since these were taken as a result of new issues they should be attributed to those causes. That's like saying if someone buys a reader detector to that detects a new technology as well as the old ones it's costs should be attributed to police using the old and new tech even though whatever methods used to avoid tickets from the old tech worked and thus a detector would not have been bought if the new tech hadn't been introduced. How's that for a shocking car analogy?
Those operations are already completely failure-prone, because they can't handle the least outage in any case. Semiconductor production facilities have power conditioning equipment which covers the entire plant because it's expensive when power fails, or has any other kind of problem. Sounds like these guys need the same thing.
Per TFA, the have added power supplies to maintain voltage when grid voltage dips. This, however, raises two issues with wind and or solar:
1. It's an added hidden cost of power. Sure, the electricity prices may not go up but the cost of power doesn't to customers Ast THFA pointed outré, sat some point companies look to other locations without such problems.
2. Right now, consumers and most businesses aren't seeing a problem because most appliances can handle short voltage drops. However, as the percentage of those sources increase we could see dips that damage appliances or cause consumer or business issues. Expecting them to buy power conditioning equipment isn't a solution that most politicians probably want to suggest, so the producers and or grid companies will have to solve the problem,; whereupon the costs of power will go up as it reflects the actual costs of delivering clean power.
None of these problems are unsolvable but tend to get ignored in the debate. The regulator in Germany already punted the issue by planning "to discuss the problem with experts and associations in detail" which translated to non-politik sprache means "ignore the problem by studying it." Maybe what's needed is for voting machines to experience problems, that cost someone an election, later traced to a power fluctuation. That sort of cost gets a lot of attention from politicians.
Wouldn't limiting the transfer of funds, via signed contracts or something, limit the risks of such a thing happening?
Possibly, and it is how most non-kickstarter projects are funded. the problem is not in how funding is done, however; it is in KS desire to assume zero liability for failed projects. If they start deciding if a project deserves more funding then they open themselves up to lawsuits when the project failed. By taking a clear hands off approach they protect themselves while still getting their cut. A start would be for them to refund their 5% cut of the raised funds for failed projects.
It is not really extra effort. He stops paying until he is informed of her current address, at which point he serves her the papers. If he never receives her address, he never makes another payment and no further court action occurs.
There are a few problems with that approach. First, there are already means in place to serve notice when a current address is not known; this erely move stat into the digital age. While there are problems with this approach it's no worse than requiring a notice in newspaper at the last known address; i'd argue in some ways it's better since there is at least some reason to believe the account is active and tis may see the notice. Secondly, suspending payments would not necessarily end his obligation to pay and thus he needs a court order ending the liability for payments. Absent that a court could order him to make the back payments.
Of course, with the ruling I suggested in hand, he might also have a basis for requesting a court order to freeze the account in question, since the address on the account is not that of the registered account holder.
Even so, the person has not been served and thus might be able to fight any legal cation on that basis, leaving him still on the hook for payments up to a final decision. As for freezing the account because oaf a bad address banks have plenty of accounts with bad addresses and all that happens is eventually the state gets the money.
Even if he cannot obtain a court order, he can possibly make the bank uncomfortable enough about the account that they report it to the appropriate government agency for investigation as a "suspicious account" under various anti-money laundering laws.
I doubt a bank, let alone a law enforcement agency, would get worked up over a few hundred dollars being sent to an account with a bad address. Even so, a call to the person making the deposits would reveal they are court order child support an thus case closed.
The gentleman in question was going to court to end the court order requiring him to pay child support payments for his now 21 year old son. It seems to me that a better solution would have been for the judge to issue an order to the provide the address for the account where the child support payments were being deposited. Followed up by an order suspending the payments if the ex-wife was not at that address until such a time as an actual address was found (the logic being that if the address the account was registered at was not at that address, then there was reason to believe that the account was actually being used by someone else). Confirmation of the correct account being found would come in the form of the court papers being served. Further the court could have ruled that the suspended child support payments would only be due if the court found in the ex-wife's favor on the petition which the man had made.
True, but that's a lot of extra effort and drags out the process or very little gain. He had already exhausted all reasonable efforts to serve her, and given she was active on Facebook allowing her to be served in that manner was reasonable. It seems to me she was trying to avoid a subpoena so the judge needed another way to serve her with some assurances she would get the notice. The judge could then stop the payments if she failed to appear; and once she noticed she wasn't getting the money could go back to court.
We should have been working hard at improving nuclear power, and solving its problems, to the point that this would, by now, be a no-brainer.
The US Navy has been all-in with Nuclear power. R&D has been non-stop. If they haven't "solved its problems", it's unlikely throwing even more money at it, would do so.
the real challenge to commercial nuclear shipping is the operations and maintenance costs; on the nuclear as well as secondary side. The Navy spares no expense in maintaining their fleet, training crews, and keeping large crews to oversee operations; all of which would add tremendously to the cost of a commercial nuke vessel and likely make it noncompetitive with traditional ones. Now, if you could have upscale how power is produced for space probes an run a nuclear-electric ship with a simple nuke side you might have a winner, at least form a technology and cost perspective.
Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers
on
China's Island Factory
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
International law on these issues is anything but clear, and are subject to a great deal of argument, which is why there are always contested areas.
As for the UK, it's a natural island that has been inhabited by the same peoples for centuries (at the least - you can argue about 1066). Now that's clear.
International law, as put in practice for centuries, is pretty clear: as long as I can beat the crap out of you I can sail wherever I want.
Slashdot Mirror
The Europeans should not be attacking Google for indexing what is available on the Internet, they should be talking to the people that put that information on the Internet in the first place.
The problem is that would create a large backlash from a lot of people who, for a variety of reasons, would find such requests unreasonable. Google, and other search engines, are unable to mobilize such responses and thus a more palatable target. That it is a US company is just a bonus.
. The rule that what I create with my own hands os mine to give away, trade, or sell exists for a very good reason. And what's that reason? Not everyone agrees about imaginary property Ray. The concept is rather new. You're free to disagree, but the world is changing and as information is so easy to copy fewer and fewer people are seeing things your way.
It's about time too. Far too many people think because they take two minutes to add some code to a program they have some sort of right to control its distribution. Gold code, for example, costs nothing and thus has zero value yet some folks seem to think it is ok to force you to share any changes you make if decide to distribute the results. Since it is imaginary property and they lose nothing by your distributing it it's about time the GPL takes it's rightfully place in the dust bin of history.
You are drinking the kool-aid. Just look at the wealth gap between rich and poor - clearly the dream is just that - a dream.
The wealth gap is mostly irrelevant in the discussion of opportunity. There are plenty of wealthy people that started with nothing. And even more that are comfortable that came from similar circumstances. The question was why do immigrants see the US as desirable place to move to and the answer is, in part, because they see an opportunity to better their lives vs other places. It's not perfect but still is preferential to many others. Don't let your drinking the 'I'm not rich so life is unfair and I'm a poor victim' Kool-Aid blind you to reality.
It's already here. They're called smartphone apps.
Actually, that is probably the holy grail for malware. If you can sneak an app past Apple's testing by delaying its activities you would open up a whole lot of phones to infections. Given the readiness of people to d/l and trust smartphone apps you could probably get away with it for quite some times I doubt many people look for suspicious behavior once your inside the walled garden; just look at what today's apps can (somewhat) openly collect. The challenge is to build one that avoids detection and bypasses Apple's built in protections and become popular enough to get a lot of downloads.
Despite the viewpoint of many on /., America is still viewed as a place where you can achieve success no matter where you are from. Sure, if you have family connections you have a leg up but you are not limited if you didn't go to the right school or have connections. the "american Dream" is still viewed as a possibility; even for young Americans who see greater opportunities here than abroad. If you make money you are granted access to power a lot quicker in America than in many other countries; and it is easier to start from nothing and make it here than in many places; so I am not surprised by the results.
Actually I don;t care whether any of us agree with the statement. It's a moot point since Reid v. Covert, where the Court concluded that U.S. citizens have the same rights against the U.S. government when it acts against them abroad.
Except Reid v. Covert as you point out, relates to US citizens. The property searched was not that of a US citizen and thus Reid v. Covert wouldn't apply, even though they found evidence to be used against a US citizen. The evidence was in the possession of a non-US citizen, i.e. the owners of the server, and thus enjoy no protection; at least that would be the argument the US seems to be making.
Usually a foreign property search requires the permission of that country to pre-approve the search. I very much doubt the US requested permission. Violating another country's sovereignty should never be taken lightly.
Which is a separate issue form the one that is being argued. The country could have given permission to US law enforcement to access the server; however that would not answer the question "Does Fourth Amendment protections apply in the case of a non-US search and seizure?" The answer to the later could be yes and thus the search illegal even with host country permission.
So what they are saying is that anyone outside the US can freely hack US servers without a warrant too. Surely they don't expect special treatment?
Not really. What they are saying is US Constitutional protections do not apply abroad. Wether or not you agree with that statement is a different issue than saying it's OK to hack into a US computer. The agents hacking into the computer could be guilty of violating the laws of the country that hosts the server an subject to prosecution if that country decides to go after them.
You see, it might be Dubai, but the software will be perfected there, and it will migrate elsewhere. Slowly, it becomes acceptable in a conventional sense. Then it becomes "the norm".
A thousand cuts..... then a million.
I agree, my point was Dubai doesn't necessarily have the same due process concerns of the OP.
You forgot to mention the necessary sense of walking around: liberty. Even if you're a "positive", what of due process? Will you land in a jail, await a long process? How and who guarantees that you'll be then excluded if you're falsely positive? It's a slippery slope. Google has opened a Pandora's box of paranoia.
Will people stop traveling in fear of false-positives? Where are governments permitted to gnaw on their citizenry, privacy death by a thousand cuts?
It's Dubai. They don't have those worries.
If companies want a diverse workforce then the people who are not well represented would command a higher salary, for the same skills, since companies in essence would be bidding for a scarce resource. While the pay gap is large, small or non-exsistant, depending on the study you use; the existence of a gap or parity indicates companies do not value diverse workforces enough to pay for them. However they want to appear to do so and thus need to find a reason why it's not their fault; the educational pipeline is convenient and kills two birds with one stone; "we can't hire more women because schools aren't producing enough with STEM skills and by the way that's why we need more H1-B's." As Hal Holbrook said, "follow the money..."
you can in many jurisdiction legally marry as a minor; just don't take any pictures afterward.
is public-facing CCTV legal in those states? What's the difference if it's mounted in a vehicle like a bus or (gasp!) a private conveyance?
You are not recording the conversation with video. Personally, this is an area where technology has outpaced the law.
My car is a mobile extension of my home. By accepting my invitation to enter, you are accepting the moral and legal obligations that accompany, viz: you consent to being monitored, you consent to being recorded, and you promise to behave yourself lest the recordings be used against you in a civil or criminal claim.
Unfortunately that is not what the law says in some states. What would deb interesting is how a one party consent state would consider who the other party is? the car? The owner even if they are not a party to the call?
Honestly, is there no lever the Indian government won't sink to to save money?
Yea, but what until something goes wrong and Bob on tech support line tells them they need to reinstall Windows. Or MS tech support calls them and tells them "I have been monitoring your computer and you have a reall bad virus that will steal your information. "
Per TFA, the have added power supplies to maintain voltage when grid voltage dips
Right. But this kind of event happened before solar and wind electrical generation became popular. It simply happened less frequently.
True, but it appears to not have been an issue since companies did not take steps to deal with it or not at least to the extent of adding their own power backup.
Ultimately, power companies have plans to add more storage capacity to smooth out the dips, but they're having to wait for batteries to become available as they are reclaimed from electric vehicles. Even if they wanted to buy the batteries new, they couldn't afford to, because EV builders will pay more. There will be a period of adjustment. But this equipment pays dividends in other ways, as well. The fact that they're adding it only now doesn't mean that the entire cost is eaten by compensating for new faults; they also get the benefit of compensating for the existing faults.
Not really. Whatever preventative measures they took prior to these could be attributed to existing faults. Since these were taken as a result of new issues they should be attributed to those causes. That's like saying if someone buys a reader detector to that detects a new technology as well as the old ones it's costs should be attributed to police using the old and new tech even though whatever methods used to avoid tickets from the old tech worked and thus a detector would not have been bought if the new tech hadn't been introduced. How's that for a shocking car analogy?
Those operations are already completely failure-prone, because they can't handle the least outage in any case. Semiconductor production facilities have power conditioning equipment which covers the entire plant because it's expensive when power fails, or has any other kind of problem. Sounds like these guys need the same thing.
Per TFA, the have added power supplies to maintain voltage when grid voltage dips. This, however, raises two issues with wind and or solar :
1. It's an added hidden cost of power. Sure, the electricity prices may not go up but the cost of power doesn't to customers Ast THFA pointed outré, sat some point companies look to other locations without such problems.
2. Right now, consumers and most businesses aren't seeing a problem because most appliances can handle short voltage drops. However, as the percentage of those sources increase we could see dips that damage appliances or cause consumer or business issues. Expecting them to buy power conditioning equipment isn't a solution that most politicians probably want to suggest, so the producers and or grid companies will have to solve the problem,; whereupon the costs of power will go up as it reflects the actual costs of delivering clean power.
None of these problems are unsolvable but tend to get ignored in the debate. The regulator in Germany already punted the issue by planning "to discuss the problem with experts and associations in detail" which translated to non-politik sprache means "ignore the problem by studying it." Maybe what's needed is for voting machines to experience problems, that cost someone an election, later traced to a power fluctuation. That sort of cost gets a lot of attention from politicians.
I've almost given up on debunking conspiracy theories. Those who believe in them, BELIEVE in them. It's like trying to debunk somebody's religion.
I find they eventually come around to "you're part of the conspiracy..."
nVidia clearly wants to distract attention from the true flaw - shadows. Everyone knows there are no shadows in a vacuum.
Maybe this should be posted in alt.folklore.urban?
After all, trolling /. is only slightly harder than rec.org.mensa
Wouldn't limiting the transfer of funds, via signed contracts or something, limit the risks of such a thing happening?
Possibly, and it is how most non-kickstarter projects are funded. the problem is not in how funding is done, however; it is in KS desire to assume zero liability for failed projects. If they start deciding if a project deserves more funding then they open themselves up to lawsuits when the project failed. By taking a clear hands off approach they protect themselves while still getting their cut. A start would be for them to refund their 5% cut of the raised funds for failed projects.
They seemed to imply it's an Italian thing but I've been to Italy and I'm pretty sure they had ice there.
Maybe it melted on the trip when they tried to import it
It is not really extra effort. He stops paying until he is informed of her current address, at which point he serves her the papers. If he never receives her address, he never makes another payment and no further court action occurs.
There are a few problems with that approach. First, there are already means in place to serve notice when a current address is not known; this erely move stat into the digital age. While there are problems with this approach it's no worse than requiring a notice in newspaper at the last known address; i'd argue in some ways it's better since there is at least some reason to believe the account is active and tis may see the notice. Secondly, suspending payments would not necessarily end his obligation to pay and thus he needs a court order ending the liability for payments. Absent that a court could order him to make the back payments.
Of course, with the ruling I suggested in hand, he might also have a basis for requesting a court order to freeze the account in question, since the address on the account is not that of the registered account holder.
Even so, the person has not been served and thus might be able to fight any legal cation on that basis, leaving him still on the hook for payments up to a final decision. As for freezing the account because oaf a bad address banks have plenty of accounts with bad addresses and all that happens is eventually the state gets the money.
Even if he cannot obtain a court order, he can possibly make the bank uncomfortable enough about the account that they report it to the appropriate government agency for investigation as a "suspicious account" under various anti-money laundering laws.
I doubt a bank, let alone a law enforcement agency, would get worked up over a few hundred dollars being sent to an account with a bad address. Even so, a call to the person making the deposits would reveal they are court order child support an thus case closed.
The gentleman in question was going to court to end the court order requiring him to pay child support payments for his now 21 year old son. It seems to me that a better solution would have been for the judge to issue an order to the provide the address for the account where the child support payments were being deposited. Followed up by an order suspending the payments if the ex-wife was not at that address until such a time as an actual address was found (the logic being that if the address the account was registered at was not at that address, then there was reason to believe that the account was actually being used by someone else). Confirmation of the correct account being found would come in the form of the court papers being served. Further the court could have ruled that the suspended child support payments would only be due if the court found in the ex-wife's favor on the petition which the man had made.
True, but that's a lot of extra effort and drags out the process or very little gain. He had already exhausted all reasonable efforts to serve her, and given she was active on Facebook allowing her to be served in that manner was reasonable. It seems to me she was trying to avoid a subpoena so the judge needed another way to serve her with some assurances she would get the notice. The judge could then stop the payments if she failed to appear; and once she noticed she wasn't getting the money could go back to court.
The US Navy has been all-in with Nuclear power. R&D has been non-stop. If they haven't "solved its problems", it's unlikely throwing even more money at it, would do so.
the real challenge to commercial nuclear shipping is the operations and maintenance costs; on the nuclear as well as secondary side. The Navy spares no expense in maintaining their fleet, training crews, and keeping large crews to oversee operations; all of which would add tremendously to the cost of a commercial nuke vessel and likely make it noncompetitive with traditional ones. Now, if you could have upscale how power is produced for space probes an run a nuclear-electric ship with a simple nuke side you might have a winner, at least form a technology and cost perspective.
International law on these issues is anything but clear, and are subject to a great deal of argument, which is why there are always contested areas.
As for the UK, it's a natural island that has been inhabited by the same peoples for centuries (at the least - you can argue about 1066). Now that's clear.
International law, as put in practice for centuries, is pretty clear: as long as I can beat the crap out of you I can sail wherever I want.