I agree with your post but there's a small detail I want to correct. In your example, if you are a customer of Verizon, they might not be able to legally give your emails to the police without a warrant. That depends on the contract they have with you (most likely the TOS). But it is likely the TOS does not include such protections for you.
They could still legally give your emails to the police, but then they would be in breach of contract. At that point, you would have to file a civil case against them. The emails would still be considered admissible evidence in a criminal case against you.
That's not the argument they're making. They're arguing that since you don't own the computer the message is stored on, you have no right to privacy.
That makes no sense, however. I don't own the phone network once it leaves my house (more precisely, the NID), but I have a right to privacy as defined by quite a bit of legislation.
That right there is the key. There is quite a bit of legislation protecting phone conversations. There isn't similar legislation in the case of emails.
In addition to that, the police do not need a warrant if they have permission from the owner. For example, if you get pulled over by the police, they don't need a warrant to search your car if they ask you for permission and you say "yes". Similarly, if they ask Verizon for the emails in a user's account, and Verizon gives it to them, it is perfectly legal without a warrant. The theory is that if the owner does not object to the search/seizure, then it must not be unreasonable.
Well, it's hard to say how it will function. If software producer A sign their binaries, and hardware company B produces hardware that only reads binaries signed by A, the GPLv3 is somehow supposed to magically supply me with A's private key so that I might run modified versions of the application. But A isn't doing anything to demand release of the keys, and B isn't bound by the GPLv3 because they don't ship software. If a company can find a way to ship the software and hardware separately (or under the "mere aggregation" clause, or claiming that the software and hardware is not a derivative work according to copyright law), then the GPLv3 is screwed.
Well, the GPL is a distribution license, so it would only affect B if they are distributing the software.
If they don't have the key from A to distribute, they still have the option of getting the source (we are talking about GPL'd software, after all) and signing it themselves with their own key, then distributing that key with it.
I fully agree. Like I said, that's one of Debian's biggest strengths. It is a wonderful general distribution, and that is the reason why it is the starting point for so many other distributions (like Ubuntu, Knoppix, and Linspire). It is extremely versitile and customizable (sp?).
There's absolutely no reason for there to be any antagonism between Debian and any of the Debian-derived distributions. Debian can't be everything for everyone, but it certainly provides a wonderful starting point for others to build upon. It's the foundation stones, but you can build many different buildings on the same foundation.
I posted this first to Mark's blog, but I'll repeat it here:
This is a very well-written summation of the issues.
To paraphrase a comment from a message board I visit, "[Debian|Ubuntu] can't be everything to everyone."
Debian provides a wonderful base for many other distributions, not just Ubuntu, and it is a rock-solid platform for servers. It runs on many different architectures, and can be used on machines from a handheld up to a massive server. This is one of its greatest strengths, but also one of its greatest weaknesses.
Ubuntu, on the other hand, is far more focused than Debian is. Starting with the general base (the plateau, as Mark called it), it builds a strong distribution targeted to only 3-4 architectures (counting SPARC), which opens many more options. This is no different than many other distributions have done. For example, Knoppix is another version of Debian with customizations on top of it for a specific platform (or platforms).
Ubuntu can't be everything to everyone, because everyone has different needs and goals, and Ubuntu has a specific focus. Similarly, Debian can't be everything to everyone, because it is a more general distribution, a jack of all trades (and master of none).
I didn't say it was the user's fault, I asked whether they have some responsibility or not. That is a big difference.
In situations like this, there's usually more than enough blame to spread around. Sure, it's easy to just say that AOL was completely in the wrong and should have to pay for it, but that doesn't reflect the whole truth, does it?
Think of it this way, there are quite a few people who would never think of putting their own personal information into a search engine (I didn't, until this incident happened, and I still wouldn't put my credit card or SSN into any search engine). Yes, I've searched for my name, but I've found about a dozen others around the world with my same name (where are the privacy implications in that?).
Out of the tens of thousands of searches that they released, there were, what, about 100 or so numbers that may have been SSNs? We're talking about an infintesimal proportion of the data.
At what point would it have been acceptable? If there was only one possible SSN? Or do you insist on perfection?
If you are insisting on perfection, then I would suggest that your problem isn't with the privacy data, but with any data being released. If that's the case, don't lie and make it seem like it's just the privacy data that you are up in arms about.
Ultimately, it does fall to the users to remember that any information that they give to another party becomes the property of that party (except as otherwise defined by law, or negotiated in a legal agreement or contract). At that point, they can do what they wish with that information.
But the important question is, is it AOL's responsibility for what users decide to search for?
How is AOL supposed to know if a subset of data includes privacy data? A 9-digit number could be a SSN, but it could also be a phone number (not all countries use 10 or 7 digits), an ISBN (minus the check digit), or any number of other numbers. A 16-digit number (or 15 digits) isn't necessarily a credit card number. Just because someone puts an address into a search engine doesn't mean that it's their own address.
Don't the users have some responsibility for their own private data?
But then, I'll probably be modded down (like what happened in the last discussion) for not being slashdotically correct, or something.
Among other things, the complaint asks AOL to notify all users affected by the data disclosure via certified mail and provide free credit monitoring for a year.
Why should AOL have to provide free credit monitoring? Did the search information include Social Secuirity Numbers, home addresses, mother's maiden name (and identifiable as such), PINs, or some other sort of data that could be used to affect someone's credit report? If not, then what reason is there to ask for credit monitoring?
1. Its Chairman, Jeffrey Citron, was charged by the SEC with Securities violations due to illegal trades, while he was Chairman of Datek Securities, before starting Vonage.
If he was charged before, then he was either found not guilty (in which case from the law's standpoint he didn't do anything wrong and it can't be held against him) or he was found guilty and paid the penalty for his actions (in which case, unless the penalty included abandoning the business field, he is also in the clear).
2. Vonage has consistently engaged in anticompetitvive behaviour against its competitors by blocking SIP calls, and locking down their devices to prevent customers from using the devices with competitors.
They sold you a device designed to work with their service. What law requires them to provide support to you in using that device outside of hte parameters for which it was designed and sold? You are free to modify your device all you want, but they are not responsible for helping you or fixing it if you make it unusable.
3. Vonage has consistently engaged in deceptive advertising when selling their equipment and services by not disclosing that the equipment is not really owned by the consumer (it can't be unlocked to work with other providers).
It was sold for the purpose of connecting to the Vongage service, and no representation was made that it can be connected to other services (at least, I can't find any in the materials I got with my adapter). If anything, they are up front about it. You are still free to modify it if you want, but they are not required to help you, nor are they required to make it easy for you. If you want an unlocked adapter, you need to search out and buy an unlocked adapter.
4. Vonage has consistently engaged in deceptive marketing by convincing customers to LNP port their existing phone number to Vonage when the LNP port could not be done. Even though Vonage could not port the number due to lack of a CLEC in their area code, Vonage reps would tell the customer it could be done "soon".
This one may have some merit, but in order to really prosecute it, you would need to establish that it is company policy, not simply the actions of individual customer service reps.
5. Vonage deceptively operates a web site at Vonage-Forum.com. Only recently has a notice gone up that the site is not operated by Vonage. The site, however, uses the trademarked Vonage name and logo, and has Vonage ads on it.
Just because a site uses the official name and logo doesn't mean that it is operated by those people, especially if they have a notice saying that they aren't. Advertising also does not equal ownership. Vonage puts ads on a lot of sites that they don't own, operate, or control.
6. The whole Vonage IPO stock fiasco: not surprising if you noticed item #1.
I read the prospectus, and it was rather clear from the information provided that it would not do all that well. That is the fault of the people who either bought the stock without reading the prospectus, or who bought it in spite of all of the warnings. Those who made legal commitments to purchase stock but then wanted to back out after seeing the drop in price still have that legal obligation to purchase the stock.
Of the items you listed, you have at most one valid point. Perhaps you might reconsider a lot of your position.
Except that it is completely unfeasible for them to censor everything, and if they let anything through, they are liable for it.
In that sort of framework, it is very much in the interests of the telecoms to not censor anything, and simply do what they are supposed to do: pass data back and forth.
After all, isn't the whole idea of degrading or blocking some of the data based upon arbitrary factors a form of censorship? If they want the right to censor my internet connection (by degrading my access to sites that don't pay up the fees), then they need to face the liability that comes with practicing that level of control.
In my opinion, many advocates have been going about this fight the wrong way. The telecoms are spending a lot of money to fram this debate as a fight over the infrastructure (and the idea of limited bandwidth). Currently, we're losing that debate, both due to funds, but also due to poor communication.
However, if we frame this in reference to the existing concept of common carriers, we should go a lot farther. Quite simply, the telecoms want to control what is sent over their networks. If they want to care about what data is passed over their network, then they need to take full responsibility for that data. If someone is transporting child pornography, then the carrier should be liable, because they are intimately involved with monitoring the data being passed back and forth (how else would they be enforcing their charges against big sites?).
We already have laws on the books that provide common carrier protections for some companies in exchange for certain guarantees. By framing the debate in terms of common carrier status, we should be able to force a similar exchange.
Actually, this is a civil case because it is between the EFF and AT&T.
However, even if one party were the government, it would still be a civil case. Criminal prosecutions can only be brought by the government. Even if the government violates your rights, your only recourse in court is through a civil case.
Whether you like it or not, there are different rules that apply between civil and criminal cases. The government doesn't need to have a criminal case dismissed on the basis of national security, because the government is the only entity that can prosecute criminal cases (and so they can just drop the case).
There's a difference between a civil case (which is what the EFF case is) and a criminal investigation (which is what Watergate was). States Secrets Privilege applies mostly to civil cases, regardless of whether the government is a party to the case or not.
Actually, the Secret Service Uniformed Division has been around for decades (it adopted that name in 1977). It has long had the power within the District of Columbia to conduct warrantless arrests for crimes that they witness. For example, if they witness a mugging in front of the White House, or an embassy (which the SSUD has responsibility over), then they have the authority to arrest the criminal without a warrant, just like any other police officer can do within their jurisdiction.
The provision in question simply extends that jurisdiction for the SSUD to cover the entire US, rather than just DC.
You know, that's quite a condescending attitude to take. Yes, there are many different kinds of charities out there, but you shouldn't be insisting that one charity give up its proceeds to another type of charity, just because you think that the other charity is a better choice. All of those kinds of charities fill specific needs.
Is the Make a Wish Foundation not a worthy cause because they focus their efforts on bringing cheer to the lives of children with cancer? They bring in millions of dollars a year for much the same purpose as Child's Play. Should they instead be giving their proceeds to The American Institute for Cancer Research?
The charities that provide fresh water to villages in Africa, or help provide vaccines to third-world countries are needed, as are the ones that provide funds for research. At the same time, the charities that focus on bringing a little joy into the lives of those who are suffering are also needed.
This McDonalds still has the N64 display there. My parents used to live nearby, and it was a good place to stop when my then-girlfriend (now wife) wanted some fries.
It doesn't say that it would be a crime to not acknowledge God. It says that the courts are blocked from having jurisdiction over matters concerning a government entity or representative expressing that view (that God is the source of our laws and/or rights, something that is at least partially expressed in the Declaration of Independence).
Similarly, the title of the bill is appropriate for the rest of the contents. Look at it again. It instructs the courts that they cannot look to foreign rulings, treaties, etc. The only exception to that is to look to our own legal historical tradition (i.e. US legal rulings back to the founding of the US, and English rulings predating that).
Any other source of interpretation would be extra-jurisdictional. That actually makes sense. Why? If you want to know what a law means in Virginia, you don't look to the laws in California. You look to the history of Virginia to see the context in which it was passed, and what the language was understood to mean.
Except, that the processing required isn't all that much (we only have to analyze around 25 feet per second). What kills us are the bottlenecks with interrupt handling. That is the area where dual processors would come in handy.
Right now, we use a rack-mount system, but that takes up a lot of space in the back seat (half of the back), and can be difficult to remove for maintenance or to temporarily mount on our clients' trains. A mini-ITX form factor could greatly reduce the space that it takes, allowing us to have more room for other equipment or even a second operator.
Something like this could be useful for where I work.
We do railroad track geometry testing, and use a modified pickup truck to carry our equipment. A dual processor system would be better for us than our current setup. It would allow us to use one machine for data collection (especially the interrupt handling) and realtime analysis of the data. Additionally, the smaller form factor would allow us to have a lot more room in the back seat of our truck.
2 1GHz processors would be more than enough for our needs. We only have a 800MHz PIII right now.
Depending on what department, it can vary greatly. In our ECE department, we have a Solaris server (cpe01.gmu.edu). The main server for the school is an old Alpha (named osf1.gmu.edu). However, from what I've heard around campus, this one was probably a Windows server that didn't have all of the patches applied. Many of the different offices operate as a Windows only shop.
Here are the two emails that they've sent to students about the incident:
To: Mason Community
From: Joy Hughes, Vice President for Information Technology
Subject: Illegal Intrusion into University Database
The university server containing the information relating to Mason's ID cards was illegally entered by computer hackers. The server contained the names, photos, social security numbers and G numbers of all members of the Mason community who have identification cards.
The intruder installed tools on the ID server that allowed other campus servers to be probed. An Information Technology Unit staff member noticed the attack while reviewing system files as part of the university's internal controls procedures, and traced it back to the ID server. The compromised ID server was disconnected from the network and is no longer accessible. The police are currently investigating the break-in. The university is subject to dozens of probes and attacks each day.
There is no evidence that any of the data available on the Mason ID server has yet been used illegally. It appears that the hackers were looking for access to other campus systems rather than specific data. However, it is possible that the data on the server could be used for identity theft.
Following are steps each of us should take to minimize the likelihood of ID theft from this, or any other similar incident.
- Contact any of the three major credit bureaus to place a fraud alert on your credit file. The fraud alert advises new and potential creditors that they should contact you before opening any new accounts in your name. Additionally your existing creditors are advised that they should contact you prior to making any changes (e.g. credit limit change) in your account. Once you notify one credit bureau, the fraud alert will be sent automatically to the other two. All three bureaus will send you credit reports free of charge once they receive the fraud alert. The three credit bureaus can be contacted as follows:
Transunion
1-800-680-7289
www.transunion.com
Equifax
1-800-525-6285
www.equifax.com
Experian
1-888-397-3742
www.experian.com
- Continue to check all your accounts on a regular basis for unusual activity.
- The Federal Trade Commission Identity Theft Hotline gives a good overview of what to do when you think your information may have been stolen but have no evidence that it is being used. The number is 1-877-438-4338. Press #3. The Federal Trade Commission also has a website with extensive information about identity theft at www.ftc.gov/idtheft.
If you have further questions, please call 3-8116. The university's IT Security Coordinator Cathy Hubbs is monitoring this line and will ensure that your message is immediately forwarded to the most appropriate person.
We understand that taking these steps is inconvenient, and regret that the server attack makes it necessary. While it seems unlikely from the evidence currently available that identity theft has occurred, it is important to take these protective actions. We will share any further information about the intrusion and its effects as soon as it becomes available.
and
To: Mason Community
From: Joy Hughes, Vice President for Information Technology Subject: Computer Break-In Information Website Now Established
A new website giving information regarding the illegal intrusion into the university's ID database server is now on line at http://www.gmu.edu/intrusion. The page can also be accessed through links on the Student and Faculty and Staff resource pages on the home page. Due to the large number of calls we have received on the information line, we are noting your questions and providing the information on this page.
We will regularly update the page as more information becomes avail
The scientist's job is to discover *FACTS* about the natural world, not truth. There's a difference. Interpreting those facts may give you some insight into an underlying truth, but that requires a human insight, something beyond the application of the scientific method to an investigation.
The problem is that today, scientists don't just stick to the observed facts when dealing with the media. Everyone adds their own interpretations, projections, and biases to the information reported.
For example, consider the discussions here about global warming. The fact is that the record shows an average temperature increase over the past several decades.
However, is it a fact that CO2 is causing this, or is that simply an interpretation of the observations? Is it a fact that it will continue to rise, or is that simply a guess based on the data available? Is it a fact that it is simply part of a natural process (coming out of a mini ice age), or is that simply another guess for the cause of the increase?
Science today has a mixture of fact and interpretation. It is the latter that can really cause problems.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your post but there's a small detail I want to correct. In your example, if you are a customer of Verizon, they might not be able to legally give your emails to the police without a warrant. That depends on the contract they have with you (most likely the TOS). But it is likely the TOS does not include such protections for you.
They could still legally give your emails to the police, but then they would be in breach of contract. At that point, you would have to file a civil case against them. The emails would still be considered admissible evidence in a criminal case against you.
That makes no sense, however. I don't own the phone network once it leaves my house (more precisely, the NID), but I have a right to privacy as defined by quite a bit of legislation.
That right there is the key. There is quite a bit of legislation protecting phone conversations. There isn't similar legislation in the case of emails.
In addition to that, the police do not need a warrant if they have permission from the owner. For example, if you get pulled over by the police, they don't need a warrant to search your car if they ask you for permission and you say "yes". Similarly, if they ask Verizon for the emails in a user's account, and Verizon gives it to them, it is perfectly legal without a warrant. The theory is that if the owner does not object to the search/seizure, then it must not be unreasonable.
Well, the GPL is a distribution license, so it would only affect B if they are distributing the software.
If they don't have the key from A to distribute, they still have the option of getting the source (we are talking about GPL'd software, after all) and signing it themselves with their own key, then distributing that key with it.
In short, your example is pretty bad overall.
I fully agree. Like I said, that's one of Debian's biggest strengths. It is a wonderful general distribution, and that is the reason why it is the starting point for so many other distributions (like Ubuntu, Knoppix, and Linspire). It is extremely versitile and customizable (sp?).
There's absolutely no reason for there to be any antagonism between Debian and any of the Debian-derived distributions. Debian can't be everything for everyone, but it certainly provides a wonderful starting point for others to build upon. It's the foundation stones, but you can build many different buildings on the same foundation.
I posted this first to Mark's blog, but I'll repeat it here:
This is a very well-written summation of the issues.
To paraphrase a comment from a message board I visit, "[Debian|Ubuntu] can't be everything to everyone."
Debian provides a wonderful base for many other distributions, not just Ubuntu, and it is a rock-solid platform for servers. It runs on many different architectures, and can be used on machines from a handheld up to a massive server. This is one of its greatest strengths, but also one of its greatest weaknesses.
Ubuntu, on the other hand, is far more focused than Debian is. Starting with the general base (the plateau, as Mark called it), it builds a strong distribution targeted to only 3-4 architectures (counting SPARC), which opens many more options. This is no different than many other distributions have done. For example, Knoppix is another version of Debian with customizations on top of it for a specific platform (or platforms).
Ubuntu can't be everything to everyone, because everyone has different needs and goals, and Ubuntu has a specific focus. Similarly, Debian can't be everything to everyone, because it is a more general distribution, a jack of all trades (and master of none).
By that argument, you should be paying SCO $699 per CPU to license Linux. Why? Many of their alleged copyright violations involve header files.
Remember, the header file defines the interface, and the interface itself isn't protected by copyright.
Actually, it's from First Lensman.
One of my favorite lines in literature.
(And yes, my name is a form of "Gray Lensman".)
I didn't say it was the user's fault, I asked whether they have some responsibility or not. That is a big difference.
In situations like this, there's usually more than enough blame to spread around. Sure, it's easy to just say that AOL was completely in the wrong and should have to pay for it, but that doesn't reflect the whole truth, does it?
Think of it this way, there are quite a few people who would never think of putting their own personal information into a search engine (I didn't, until this incident happened, and I still wouldn't put my credit card or SSN into any search engine). Yes, I've searched for my name, but I've found about a dozen others around the world with my same name (where are the privacy implications in that?).
Out of the tens of thousands of searches that they released, there were, what, about 100 or so numbers that may have been SSNs? We're talking about an infintesimal proportion of the data.
At what point would it have been acceptable? If there was only one possible SSN? Or do you insist on perfection?
If you are insisting on perfection, then I would suggest that your problem isn't with the privacy data, but with any data being released. If that's the case, don't lie and make it seem like it's just the privacy data that you are up in arms about.
Ultimately, it does fall to the users to remember that any information that they give to another party becomes the property of that party (except as otherwise defined by law, or negotiated in a legal agreement or contract). At that point, they can do what they wish with that information.
But the important question is, is it AOL's responsibility for what users decide to search for?
How is AOL supposed to know if a subset of data includes privacy data? A 9-digit number could be a SSN, but it could also be a phone number (not all countries use 10 or 7 digits), an ISBN (minus the check digit), or any number of other numbers. A 16-digit number (or 15 digits) isn't necessarily a credit card number. Just because someone puts an address into a search engine doesn't mean that it's their own address.
Don't the users have some responsibility for their own private data?
But then, I'll probably be modded down (like what happened in the last discussion) for not being slashdotically correct, or something.
Among other things, the complaint asks AOL to notify all users affected by the data disclosure via certified mail and provide free credit monitoring for a year.
Why should AOL have to provide free credit monitoring? Did the search information include Social Secuirity Numbers, home addresses, mother's maiden name (and identifiable as such), PINs, or some other sort of data that could be used to affect someone's credit report? If not, then what reason is there to ask for credit monitoring?
They sold you a device designed to work with their service. What law requires them to provide support to you in using that device outside of hte parameters for which it was designed and sold? You are free to modify your device all you want, but they are not responsible for helping you or fixing it if you make it unusable.
It was sold for the purpose of connecting to the Vongage service, and no representation was made that it can be connected to other services (at least, I can't find any in the materials I got with my adapter). If anything, they are up front about it. You are still free to modify it if you want, but they are not required to help you, nor are they required to make it easy for you. If you want an unlocked adapter, you need to search out and buy an unlocked adapter.
This one may have some merit, but in order to really prosecute it, you would need to establish that it is company policy, not simply the actions of individual customer service reps.
Just because a site uses the official name and logo doesn't mean that it is operated by those people, especially if they have a notice saying that they aren't. Advertising also does not equal ownership. Vonage puts ads on a lot of sites that they don't own, operate, or control.
I read the prospectus, and it was rather clear from the information provided that it would not do all that well. That is the fault of the people who either bought the stock without reading the prospectus, or who bought it in spite of all of the warnings. Those who made legal commitments to purchase stock but then wanted to back out after seeing the drop in price still have that legal obligation to purchase the stock.
Of the items you listed, you have at most one valid point. Perhaps you might reconsider a lot of your position.
Except that it is completely unfeasible for them to censor everything, and if they let anything through, they are liable for it.
In that sort of framework, it is very much in the interests of the telecoms to not censor anything, and simply do what they are supposed to do: pass data back and forth.
After all, isn't the whole idea of degrading or blocking some of the data based upon arbitrary factors a form of censorship? If they want the right to censor my internet connection (by degrading my access to sites that don't pay up the fees), then they need to face the liability that comes with practicing that level of control.
In my opinion, many advocates have been going about this fight the wrong way. The telecoms are spending a lot of money to fram this debate as a fight over the infrastructure (and the idea of limited bandwidth). Currently, we're losing that debate, both due to funds, but also due to poor communication.
However, if we frame this in reference to the existing concept of common carriers, we should go a lot farther. Quite simply, the telecoms want to control what is sent over their networks. If they want to care about what data is passed over their network, then they need to take full responsibility for that data. If someone is transporting child pornography, then the carrier should be liable, because they are intimately involved with monitoring the data being passed back and forth (how else would they be enforcing their charges against big sites?).
We already have laws on the books that provide common carrier protections for some companies in exchange for certain guarantees. By framing the debate in terms of common carrier status, we should be able to force a similar exchange.
Mentor passed on to the next plane of existence. You need to see Kit about your Lens needs now.
Yes, my username stands for "Gray Lensman".
Actually, this is a civil case because it is between the EFF and AT&T.
However, even if one party were the government, it would still be a civil case. Criminal prosecutions can only be brought by the government. Even if the government violates your rights, your only recourse in court is through a civil case.
Whether you like it or not, there are different rules that apply between civil and criminal cases. The government doesn't need to have a criminal case dismissed on the basis of national security, because the government is the only entity that can prosecute criminal cases (and so they can just drop the case).
There's a difference between a civil case (which is what the EFF case is) and a criminal investigation (which is what Watergate was). States Secrets Privilege applies mostly to civil cases, regardless of whether the government is a party to the case or not.
Actually, the Secret Service Uniformed Division has been around for decades (it adopted that name in 1977). It has long had the power within the District of Columbia to conduct warrantless arrests for crimes that they witness. For example, if they witness a mugging in front of the White House, or an embassy (which the SSUD has responsibility over), then they have the authority to arrest the criminal without a warrant, just like any other police officer can do within their jurisdiction.
The provision in question simply extends that jurisdiction for the SSUD to cover the entire US, rather than just DC.
You know, that's quite a condescending attitude to take. Yes, there are many different kinds of charities out there, but you shouldn't be insisting that one charity give up its proceeds to another type of charity, just because you think that the other charity is a better choice. All of those kinds of charities fill specific needs.
Is the Make a Wish Foundation not a worthy cause because they focus their efforts on bringing cheer to the lives of children with cancer? They bring in millions of dollars a year for much the same purpose as Child's Play. Should they instead be giving their proceeds to The American Institute for Cancer Research?
The charities that provide fresh water to villages in Africa, or help provide vaccines to third-world countries are needed, as are the ones that provide funds for research. At the same time, the charities that focus on bringing a little joy into the lives of those who are suffering are also needed.
This McDonalds still has the N64 display there. My parents used to live nearby, and it was a good place to stop when my then-girlfriend (now wife) wanted some fries.
Try rereading that bill that you quoted.
It doesn't say that it would be a crime to not acknowledge God. It says that the courts are blocked from having jurisdiction over matters concerning a government entity or representative expressing that view (that God is the source of our laws and/or rights, something that is at least partially expressed in the Declaration of Independence).
Similarly, the title of the bill is appropriate for the rest of the contents. Look at it again. It instructs the courts that they cannot look to foreign rulings, treaties, etc. The only exception to that is to look to our own legal historical tradition (i.e. US legal rulings back to the founding of the US, and English rulings predating that).
Any other source of interpretation would be extra-jurisdictional. That actually makes sense. Why? If you want to know what a law means in Virginia, you don't look to the laws in California. You look to the history of Virginia to see the context in which it was passed, and what the language was understood to mean.
Except, that the processing required isn't all that much (we only have to analyze around 25 feet per second). What kills us are the bottlenecks with interrupt handling. That is the area where dual processors would come in handy.
Right now, we use a rack-mount system, but that takes up a lot of space in the back seat (half of the back), and can be difficult to remove for maintenance or to temporarily mount on our clients' trains. A mini-ITX form factor could greatly reduce the space that it takes, allowing us to have more room for other equipment or even a second operator.
Something like this could be useful for where I work.
We do railroad track geometry testing, and use a modified pickup truck to carry our equipment. A dual processor system would be better for us than our current setup. It would allow us to use one machine for data collection (especially the interrupt handling) and realtime analysis of the data. Additionally, the smaller form factor would allow us to have a lot more room in the back seat of our truck.
2 1GHz processors would be more than enough for our needs. We only have a 800MHz PIII right now.
Depending on what department, it can vary greatly. In our ECE department, we have a Solaris server (cpe01.gmu.edu). The main server for the school is an old Alpha (named osf1.gmu.edu). However, from what I've heard around campus, this one was probably a Windows server that didn't have all of the patches applied. Many of the different offices operate as a Windows only shop.
and
The scientist's job is to discover *FACTS* about the natural world, not truth. There's a difference. Interpreting those facts may give you some insight into an underlying truth, but that requires a human insight, something beyond the application of the scientific method to an investigation.
The problem is that today, scientists don't just stick to the observed facts when dealing with the media. Everyone adds their own interpretations, projections, and biases to the information reported.
For example, consider the discussions here about global warming. The fact is that the record shows an average temperature increase over the past several decades.
However, is it a fact that CO2 is causing this, or is that simply an interpretation of the observations? Is it a fact that it will continue to rise, or is that simply a guess based on the data available? Is it a fact that it is simply part of a natural process (coming out of a mini ice age), or is that simply another guess for the cause of the increase?
Science today has a mixture of fact and interpretation. It is the latter that can really cause problems.