That doesnt make it illegal under the law tho - processing the photo to generate biometric data does not fall under the auspices of what is controlled by the law in this case
This commonly comes up, but Enigma was a range of encryption systems dating from WW1, with progressive improvements both during the interwar period and throughout WW2. You could even buy a commercial version of it before the war - many people were involved in breaking many different versions of it.
Telling someone to grow up is not exactly an insult - if you have an issue with the BBC, discuss it like an adult rather than doing a fly by denunciation of the source without actually making any arguments to back up your issues. I dont care if you have issues with the BBC, but to denounce it when it is actually a pretty fair commentary on the governments new recommendations is ridiculous, and only points to you as the person with the problem.
Ans yes, I may be using "you" in the sense of the "Royal You", and I dont care.
If you can analyse what is essentially public knowledge, why should that ever be illegal?
As I said before, the law that covers this specifically says "scans of...", which to me means biometric data created specifically and directly - deriving the same information from an exempt source, namely a photograph, seems fine to me.
Its not illegal to take a photo of you. It should not be illegal to put a name to the contents of that photo, not should it be illegal to derive identifying data from that photo - your features are public knowledge, as is your name, do you dispute that.
I am 37 years old, and there is not ONE situation in my life which has made me wish I was carrying a firearm. Oh, they feel cool to have, are great to shoot etc, but I have yet to need one.
But I live in a country which doesnt have an inherent societal issue with itself.
The problem is, the law is worded as "scan of... face geometry" and then excludes photographs entirely. These services are deriving their own facial geometry from the photographs, they are not having scans of facial geometry submitted to them, so this should be quite easily defeated at trial.
You misunderstand - the primary mission each time SpaceX launch is to launch something. What they do after the payload is safe is unrelated to the primary mission.
NASA has *always* purchased launch services, they have never built a booster or vehicle themselves.
Investing in improvements to launcher knowledge and advancement of technology is 100% part of NASA's mission, just as improving knowledge and technology in the aviation sector is as well - which is why they still carry out experiments in both areas.
Its also worth noting that NASA is not a regulatory agency, its a development agency - it can rent stuff to SpaceX, it can buy services from SpaceX, but it cant do shit to enforce regulations or oversight on SpaceX.
SpaceX is renting the use of that property, what they do with it is none of NASA's business so long as they stay within the law.
They used the barge the first couple of times in order to demonstrate to the FAA they could aim for a small target, which they did. Landing those rockets would have been a bonus.
I'm not disputing that, but the point is that the SRB undergoes a lot more individual high impact events than the Falcon does - the Falcon gets a pretty good ride compared to what happens with the SRB and thus the re-use scenario is different.
Yes, they were definitely reused - infact, the skirt and the nose cone are the two parts which would be most suspect out of the stack, due to the vertical impact with the ocean that the SRBs underwent (the skirts take most of that impact, and the nose cones undergo their own impact, while the rest of the stack "bobs" more gently to a horizontal position).
The two things that are different between the Shuttles SRB situation and SpaceX's Falcon situation is that the SRBs underwent a significant impact with the ocean and a prolonged dip in salt water, so they literally needed to be stripped down, checked for stress issues etc etc, especially as there was a lot of rubber seals in there which are all suspect after that salt water bath. The Falcon undergoes none of that, so hopefully requires less stringent checks before it can be reused.
NASAs money is there as progress payments to fulfil NASA contracts, and the ability to land a booster is not part of NASA's contracts with SpaceX. As long as SpaceX is fulfilling the contracts, NASA cannot complain.
With all due respect, they can waste their money in whatever fashion they want to - the primary mission is to launch something, if they accomplish that and then want to land the next 100 boosters so Elon Musk can make his own private modern version of Stone Henge out of them, thats his affair.
Or, you simply realise that landing and reusing are only loosely linked, in that you cannot reuse until you land, but you don't have to reuse just because you land.
Its pretty reasonable to assume that if the Glorious Leader decides to launch his countries nuclear weapons against their southern rivals, his intention is to suffer a Glorious Death while dealing his rivals a devastating blow.
This style of attack would have been able to get an SSL cert from most cheap cert providers, as most of the cheap ones only require you to dump a particular file in the right place on the website for verification, so why the emphasis on "Lets Encrypt"? Because they are "cheaper than cheap"?
Harder than you think - the IRA did essentially what you are suggesting, only with home made mortars fired from a vehicle parked in a hotel carpark at London Heathrow. They didn't bring down an aircraft, and hardly impacted the operation of the airport.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesnt make it illegal under the law tho - processing the photo to generate biometric data does not fall under the auspices of what is controlled by the law in this case
This commonly comes up, but Enigma was a range of encryption systems dating from WW1, with progressive improvements both during the interwar period and throughout WW2. You could even buy a commercial version of it before the war - many people were involved in breaking many different versions of it.
Telling someone to grow up is not exactly an insult - if you have an issue with the BBC, discuss it like an adult rather than doing a fly by denunciation of the source without actually making any arguments to back up your issues. I dont care if you have issues with the BBC, but to denounce it when it is actually a pretty fair commentary on the governments new recommendations is ridiculous, and only points to you as the person with the problem.
Ans yes, I may be using "you" in the sense of the "Royal You", and I dont care.
Go back to kindergarten, where those insults actually matter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-3...
If you can analyse what is essentially public knowledge, why should that ever be illegal?
As I said before, the law that covers this specifically says "scans of...", which to me means biometric data created specifically and directly - deriving the same information from an exempt source, namely a photograph, seems fine to me.
Its not illegal to take a photo of you. It should not be illegal to put a name to the contents of that photo, not should it be illegal to derive identifying data from that photo - your features are public knowledge, as is your name, do you dispute that.
I am 37 years old, and there is not ONE situation in my life which has made me wish I was carrying a firearm. Oh, they feel cool to have, are great to shoot etc, but I have yet to need one.
But I live in a country which doesnt have an inherent societal issue with itself.
The problem is, the law is worded as "scan of ... face geometry" and then excludes photographs entirely. These services are deriving their own facial geometry from the photographs, they are not having scans of facial geometry submitted to them, so this should be quite easily defeated at trial.
You do realise that the Shuttle was operated by other companies for NASA right? NASA didnt operate it.
And NASA bought launch services all the time on third party launchers, the Shuttle was far from the only platform NASA used.
You misunderstand - the primary mission each time SpaceX launch is to launch something. What they do after the payload is safe is unrelated to the primary mission.
More than half of the 20 launches so far were either wholly non-NASA (the vast majority) or had a significant non-NASA secondary payload (minority).
Out of the 29 launches planned for 2016, 22 of them are wholly non-NASA.
Out of the 16 launches currently penciled in for 2017, 11 of them are wholly non-NASA.
I dont think SpaceX needs NASA, I think NASA needs SpaceX.
NASA has *always* purchased launch services, they have never built a booster or vehicle themselves.
Investing in improvements to launcher knowledge and advancement of technology is 100% part of NASA's mission, just as improving knowledge and technology in the aviation sector is as well - which is why they still carry out experiments in both areas.
Its also worth noting that NASA is not a regulatory agency, its a development agency - it can rent stuff to SpaceX, it can buy services from SpaceX, but it cant do shit to enforce regulations or oversight on SpaceX.
SpaceX comes under the remit of the FAA.
SpaceX is renting the use of that property, what they do with it is none of NASA's business so long as they stay within the law.
They used the barge the first couple of times in order to demonstrate to the FAA they could aim for a small target, which they did. Landing those rockets would have been a bonus.
I'm not disputing that, but the point is that the SRB undergoes a lot more individual high impact events than the Falcon does - the Falcon gets a pretty good ride compared to what happens with the SRB and thus the re-use scenario is different.
Yes, they were definitely reused - infact, the skirt and the nose cone are the two parts which would be most suspect out of the stack, due to the vertical impact with the ocean that the SRBs underwent (the skirts take most of that impact, and the nose cones undergo their own impact, while the rest of the stack "bobs" more gently to a horizontal position).
The two things that are different between the Shuttles SRB situation and SpaceX's Falcon situation is that the SRBs underwent a significant impact with the ocean and a prolonged dip in salt water, so they literally needed to be stripped down, checked for stress issues etc etc, especially as there was a lot of rubber seals in there which are all suspect after that salt water bath. The Falcon undergoes none of that, so hopefully requires less stringent checks before it can be reused.
NASAs money is there as progress payments to fulfil NASA contracts, and the ability to land a booster is not part of NASA's contracts with SpaceX. As long as SpaceX is fulfilling the contracts, NASA cannot complain.
With all due respect, they can waste their money in whatever fashion they want to - the primary mission is to launch something, if they accomplish that and then want to land the next 100 boosters so Elon Musk can make his own private modern version of Stone Henge out of them, thats his affair.
Or, you simply realise that landing and reusing are only loosely linked, in that you cannot reuse until you land, but you don't have to reuse just because you land.
The segments were refurbished, refuelled and assembled back into stacks for reuse.
Its pretty reasonable to assume that if the Glorious Leader decides to launch his countries nuclear weapons against their southern rivals, his intention is to suffer a Glorious Death while dealing his rivals a devastating blow.
This style of attack would have been able to get an SSL cert from most cheap cert providers, as most of the cheap ones only require you to dump a particular file in the right place on the website for verification, so why the emphasis on "Lets Encrypt"? Because they are "cheaper than cheap"?
Harder than you think - the IRA did essentially what you are suggesting, only with home made mortars fired from a vehicle parked in a hotel carpark at London Heathrow. They didn't bring down an aircraft, and hardly impacted the operation of the airport.
Your murder rate is still ridiculously high, even if this is an all time low...
I'm replying to someone elses comment, so why the hell does my comment have to do with Quigley at all?