Funny thing is many US cards are blocked by default outside the US due to extensive fraud. You have to call the bank and let them know where you are going so they can white list you in those countries.
And the numbers on the cards are no longer embossed anymore but just printed flat to make it so that dishonest persons can't just do a quick pencil rubbing to get the card number for later dishonest use.
Don't forget that when Viacom spun blockbuster off as an independent, it not only lost that special supply source, but was also given all of Viacom's corporate debts to pay off as well.
Convenience killed the Rental store. Yes the selection was far more limited, but when on average you can find two or three red-boxes at every intersection. I used to live close to one major intersection where there were no less than eight boxes. Needless to say the video rental store in one of the strip malls at that same intersection quickly died.
It is a tragedy, because no kiosk can ever hope to have the wide selection those stores held, and since Redbox diveded the movies between DVD and Blu-ray and added games the available selection drops even further. Kiosks are convenient and they were cheaper, most your rental places were wanting up to $5 per video. Yes you could keep it for up to five days, but I'd rather pay a $1 for one day than $5 for five days when I'll probably only watch the movie once anyway.
So box cutters should now be kept locked up at all times? Purchase restricted to those who pass a background check and so on. Your ignoring the comparison does not detract from it's validity. Two teachers were killed last week: one with a gun = immediate calls for more gun control and condemnation of parents for not locking up the gun. One with a box cutter = oh how tragic and too bad. But not a single call for box cutter control (remember these weapons of mass destruction were also the primary weapons used in the 9/11 attacks) nor for mandating blade locks or secure storage for all box cutters.
You can walk into any Walmart plop down your cash and walk out with a box cutter regardless of age.
Also why must guns be kept locked up? Because holophobes are afraid of them? Many across this country have grown up with firearms in the home, firearms that until the last couple decades were most commonly stored unsecured. The kids knew how to use the firearms and where they and their ammo were stored, but the kids were also taught firearm safety and knew not to play or touch them. It was like that in my parents home, not one of those firearms was ever used to harm anyone, we knew they were not toys and that we were not to touch them without permission.
Can camping and survival skills not be considered Hacking/making. I go into the woods with just my knife and hatchet and make a shelter, I make a fire, I get some rope and make a bridge across the river. I use my knife to carve out all kinds of stuff. Indeed scouting involves a great deal of using available resources to accomplish your goals and needs. Why do hackers/makers make stuff?
You have it backwards, one party consent laws are designed to protect the public from inadvertent violation of wiretapping laws. Want to record the professor's lecture to help with your notes and study, make sure you get written approval from not only the prof but also from everybody who enters or exits the room while your recorder is running.
Oh and Government is not allowed to be one of the consenting parties. If they want to record someone they need a warrant. One party is actually better if you understand how it really works.
How close were they? Sounds like they were on the ship. Can this attack be performed by technologically unskilled "terrorists" from a distance or might the captain get suspicious of the small ship following at less than 100 meters. Or will the pirates have to board the ship to do this. Just because it can be done by highly educated professional researchers who do nothing but try to find ways to do this does not mean terrorists can do it. Yes the Iranians did it with a drone but do we know exactly how they did it, did they have to fly in close proximity to it? Or build a network of vastly overpowered GPS ground stations to overpower the satellite signals?
They seem to do fine in the many areas of the nation where they have curbside or cluster delivery already. Including in areas that also get large amounts of snow in the winter.
To further counter that idiotic Buffalo argument: The Residents can't walk 30 feet through the snow once a day to get their mail, but the mail carriers can walk from door to door to door through the same snow and cold with no problems? Curbside works great in many areas, cluster boxes are the new norm. It sounds like a good idea, but then so did cutting to only 5 day a week delivery but congress was bought off by the unions or someone and blocked that good idea as well.
As to the Hwy 89 edit I don't know how quickly OSM reacted to it. I was mostly checking to see when I started getting alternate routing instructions via Mapquest, Google Nav and Waze (and even that watching was mostly just cursory checks)
As to the parent post, OSM doesn't drive the navigation instructions on my smart phone. If it did, then it would get my time. I started editing to make the local roads work better, I kept editing because it was fun to do, and fun to see my efforts make a difference. Perhaps if OSM's maps weren't so restrictively open I would edit there. But I see the results of my efforts on a daily basis with Waze, I got real edits denied by someone from the other side of the world in Google, Bing takes months to implement user suggested edits and TomTom takes months if not years to implements user suggested edits. Waze implements edits on a near daily basis now (wasn't always that way last year we once went over six weeks between map updates).
Waze does allow users to directly edit, similar to OSM, they chose not to use OSM's map data as they did want to retain control over the data for commercial purposes, something that OSM's license would not allow. While at times an approval or verification system is nice, in Waze if a road is sensitive in nature or critical infrastructure needing protection editing abilities can be locked to higher level, more experienced editors (most interstates are so locked).
The problem with Google's system is in the approval. I made a critical edit necessary due to new construction, and it was denied by some idiot in South Africa because the aerial imagery didn't show the new construction. With Waze any user can make edits, if wrong other users will quickly correct them. It does leave some vulnerability to vandalism but is mostly self correcting.
Glad your first use was so positive. Next log into the website and take a look at the editor.
Waze's maps on initial import from official sources are poor. But are rapidly exceeding the quality of the maps of services (including Google) which are built entirely by paid employees. Even Google's adoption of user editing has still lacked in the rapid update ability of Waze.
When there are active editors in an area (a key criteria) the maps are accurate and update to match new construction far more quickly. When something significant happens (for example the Hwy 89 landslide in AZ back in Feb, or the bridge collapse in WA). Waze's maps are updated within minutes of the news being reported. Google was quick on the AZ slide but still trailed by a couple days. Waze had the road disconnect, implemented and updated into the live map within 24 hours, changing the routing instructions users received to take them on one of the alternate routes. (I know, I made the edits in Waze.)
When I started with Waze I immediately liked it because of two new commuter routes that had been recently built, my Tom Tom still didn't have the older of the two routes even though it had been in existence for two years by then. Google had that one but another one that opened up just a couple weeks before was already mapped into Waze and Google didn't have it yet. Waze's maps are good, and if an area has active editors are more accurate than even Google's maps and overhead images.
I do grant that in many areas there is still much to be done, but Waze's maps even in the areas needing work are improving faster than Googles.
There are even countries with entirely user built road networks that are not only more complete but more accurate than what Google or anyone else has. Waze is NOT a one trick pony, live traffic reporting and on the fly re-routing is the primary reason for it's creation, but it has progressed beyond that point.
You should be right on being able to fall silent. But you can't pick and choose your silence. If you choose to be silent, you must stay silent. This guy tried to be silent on the one damning question and play cooperative on other non-relevant questions. His selective silence effectively waived his earlier choice to be silent. Had he remained silent the fact that he chose to go silent at that question would not have been admissible. But by trying to play the conversation, his action became a statement that was admissible. There was no pressure, he chose to go in and cooperatively talk with the police, he was not in a state of detention, thus the onus was on him to know when and how to invoke his rights. Once an officer tells you that you are not free to leave the Miranda protections are much stronger, they must advise you of your rights, but until they tell you that no such obligation exists and you cooperate at your own risk.
You must also recognize that this (Roberts Court) and the prior (Rehnquist) court have not been friendly to a strong Miranda protection. They have repeatedly weakened the protections given in the Miranda ruling. Simply put, you have the right to remain silent, best to invoke it early and then stay silent. If you choose to cooperate at all you do so at your own risk. The police are not your friends, their job is to find evidence of a crime, talking to them if you have any guilt is not in your best interest. And even if innocent of the crime they are investigating it's not in your best interest to cooperate because anything you say or do can be used against you, so if you admit any wrong doing it can result in charges, and as you are their voluntarily you are responsible to know that you shouldn't incriminate yourself.
No but once he chose to remain silent he should have remained silent. His choice to resume answering other questions made it admissible. Anything you say or do will be used against you in a court of law. Talk freely but once you decide to clam up, do so and remain clammed up. Or had he fully implemented his rights by calling for a Lawyer the interview would have had to stop until he had representation.
It would be BS had he chosen to simply stop answering questions period, but by selectively answering then not and then answering other questions he made a statement as clear as if he'd blurted out his guilt. If you claim the right to remain silent, do so, shut up and stop talking period. If you speak again, your selective silence is a clear statement. If anything it looks to me like this guy was trying to taint the entire interview. I think there is really no other way to rule on this. He was willingly answering questions, he could have claimed the right without speaking by simply shutting up, but as seen again those who break the law often lack the ability to remain silent, even though they have the right.
Had he shut up at the uncomfortable question and remained silent his silence would not be admissible, but by then continuing to answer questions has has by his actions if not statement waived his rights.
I thought I preferred the real thing. Until a trip to Cambodia resulted in me reading 6 of the eight books I had on the flight over (I just couldn't sleep), leaving me trying to stretch two books over the remaining 14 days plus the flight home. That was an extreme example but any lengthy trip can result in not having sufficient reading material for the duration if you are a fast reader. At least with most trips I find myself in places where I can replenish, but Cambodia was an exception.
With my nook I never have less than a hundred unread books ready and waiting to be read, it lasts weeks without a charge and can charge anywhere I can find a USB socket and my laptop battery can charge it a couple times if I don't use it for anything else.
I like owning books, but haven't cracked a physical book in months.
You know that a "stun grenade" is a concussion grenade that will disorient you as much as any assailant. If you are in the same room you and the perp are both going to be stunned, deaf and possibly bleeding from burst ear-drums. As well as any family members that happen to also be in the room. Tazers don't always work, they miss have one back-up shot and people have been known to fight through multiple rides. Two in the chest and one in the head always works, but you might need multiple shots to achieve that goal so the idiot claiming nine shots is enough for any use is truly an idiot.
Now go back to your fantasy realm where an illusionist can cast a dazzle spell and disable an opponent. No non-lethal tool is always effective, even a firearm isn't always effective but it's mere presence and following use is more effective than a "stun grenade". Even military and Swat teams that use concussion grenades know that they gain them at most a few seconds of disorientation by the perps. Even actual frag grenades are only expected to give you a few seconds of disoriented opponents.
If a truck bumps a bridge support and justs drive away, that indicates the structure was NOT structurally sound. Structurally sound indicates it should be able to tolerate a minor accident that doesn't event stop the vehicle involved from continuing on.
Agreed, our roadways are in desparate need of repairs (ask the folks no longer to drive the I-5 bridge that just collapsed about that) and the last thing we need to do is waste limited highway maintenance funds on re-signing our entire road system. Further, miles works just fine there is no advantage to a switch. In science and engineering sure go ahead and switch but I don't think those calling for converting our hwy system really understand exactly how many signs would need to be replaced. More than just a couple.
Undeniable positive results? Like skyrocketing violent crime rates (many times higher than the US violent crime rate), a homicide rate that did drop for a few years but has resumed an upward climb, home invasions going through the roof and so on. There has even been one mass shooting since the one that inspired their ban. The one positive result was the near total disappearance of suicide by firearm, but... ...Suicides in total did not drop one bit but instead spiked the two immediately following years and then returned to exactly where they had been before the spike. Meaning those killing themselves with guns simply found another way to do it.
As long as it wasn't full auto capable doing that was absolutely legal. As long as the weapon is not an NFA class firearm, you can make any weapon for your own use. Federal firearm laws are based on the commerce clause, if the weapon you make does not enter interstate commerce (I.e. you keep it for yourself), the feds are limited in their ability to control it. That is the biggest draw of the print your gun movement. If we can just print reliable firearms with NO record, then no attempt to ban them will ever be successful.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny thing is many US cards are blocked by default outside the US due to extensive fraud. You have to call the bank and let them know where you are going so they can white list you in those countries.
And the numbers on the cards are no longer embossed anymore but just printed flat to make it so that dishonest persons can't just do a quick pencil rubbing to get the card number for later dishonest use.
Don't forget that when Viacom spun blockbuster off as an independent, it not only lost that special supply source, but was also given all of Viacom's corporate debts to pay off as well.
True but what really killed Blockbuster, was when Viacom spun it off as an independent company, but saddled it with all of Viacom's debts.
Convenience killed the Rental store. Yes the selection was far more limited, but when on average you can find two or three red-boxes at every intersection. I used to live close to one major intersection where there were no less than eight boxes. Needless to say the video rental store in one of the strip malls at that same intersection quickly died.
It is a tragedy, because no kiosk can ever hope to have the wide selection those stores held, and since Redbox diveded the movies between DVD and Blu-ray and added games the available selection drops even further. Kiosks are convenient and they were cheaper, most your rental places were wanting up to $5 per video. Yes you could keep it for up to five days, but I'd rather pay a $1 for one day than $5 for five days when I'll probably only watch the movie once anyway.
So box cutters should now be kept locked up at all times? Purchase restricted to those who pass a background check and so on. Your ignoring the comparison does not detract from it's validity. Two teachers were killed last week: one with a gun = immediate calls for more gun control and condemnation of parents for not locking up the gun. One with a box cutter = oh how tragic and too bad. But not a single call for box cutter control (remember these weapons of mass destruction were also the primary weapons used in the 9/11 attacks) nor for mandating blade locks or secure storage for all box cutters.
You can walk into any Walmart plop down your cash and walk out with a box cutter regardless of age.
Also why must guns be kept locked up? Because holophobes are afraid of them? Many across this country have grown up with firearms in the home, firearms that until the last couple decades were most commonly stored unsecured. The kids knew how to use the firearms and where they and their ammo were stored, but the kids were also taught firearm safety and knew not to play or touch them. It was like that in my parents home, not one of those firearms was ever used to harm anyone, we knew they were not toys and that we were not to touch them without permission.
Can camping and survival skills not be considered Hacking/making. I go into the woods with just my knife and hatchet and make a shelter, I make a fire, I get some rope and make a bridge across the river. I use my knife to carve out all kinds of stuff. Indeed scouting involves a great deal of using available resources to accomplish your goals and needs. Why do hackers/makers make stuff?
You have it backwards, one party consent laws are designed to protect the public from inadvertent violation of wiretapping laws. Want to record the professor's lecture to help with your notes and study, make sure you get written approval from not only the prof but also from everybody who enters or exits the room while your recorder is running.
Oh and Government is not allowed to be one of the consenting parties. If they want to record someone they need a warrant. One party is actually better if you understand how it really works.
How close were they? Sounds like they were on the ship. Can this attack be performed by technologically unskilled "terrorists" from a distance or might the captain get suspicious of the small ship following at less than 100 meters. Or will the pirates have to board the ship to do this. Just because it can be done by highly educated professional researchers who do nothing but try to find ways to do this does not mean terrorists can do it. Yes the Iranians did it with a drone but do we know exactly how they did it, did they have to fly in close proximity to it? Or build a network of vastly overpowered GPS ground stations to overpower the satellite signals?
They seem to do fine in the many areas of the nation where they have curbside or cluster delivery already. Including in areas that also get large amounts of snow in the winter.
Then just convince the mailman to only deliver the actual mail and drop all the bulk crap directly into the recycling container.
To further counter that idiotic Buffalo argument: The Residents can't walk 30 feet through the snow once a day to get their mail, but the mail carriers can walk from door to door to door through the same snow and cold with no problems? Curbside works great in many areas, cluster boxes are the new norm. It sounds like a good idea, but then so did cutting to only 5 day a week delivery but congress was bought off by the unions or someone and blocked that good idea as well.
As to the Hwy 89 edit I don't know how quickly OSM reacted to it. I was mostly checking to see when I started getting alternate routing instructions via Mapquest, Google Nav and Waze (and even that watching was mostly just cursory checks)
As to the parent post, OSM doesn't drive the navigation instructions on my smart phone. If it did, then it would get my time. I started editing to make the local roads work better, I kept editing because it was fun to do, and fun to see my efforts make a difference. Perhaps if OSM's maps weren't so restrictively open I would edit there. But I see the results of my efforts on a daily basis with Waze, I got real edits denied by someone from the other side of the world in Google, Bing takes months to implement user suggested edits and TomTom takes months if not years to implements user suggested edits. Waze implements edits on a near daily basis now (wasn't always that way last year we once went over six weeks between map updates).
Waze does allow users to directly edit, similar to OSM, they chose not to use OSM's map data as they did want to retain control over the data for commercial purposes, something that OSM's license would not allow. While at times an approval or verification system is nice, in Waze if a road is sensitive in nature or critical infrastructure needing protection editing abilities can be locked to higher level, more experienced editors (most interstates are so locked).
The problem with Google's system is in the approval. I made a critical edit necessary due to new construction, and it was denied by some idiot in South Africa because the aerial imagery didn't show the new construction. With Waze any user can make edits, if wrong other users will quickly correct them. It does leave some vulnerability to vandalism but is mostly self correcting.
Glad your first use was so positive. Next log into the website and take a look at the editor.
You miss-understood me, I was saying Google, and the other services rely heavily on paid map-makers. Waze relies almost entirely on users.
Waze's maps on initial import from official sources are poor. But are rapidly exceeding the quality of the maps of services (including Google) which are built entirely by paid employees. Even Google's adoption of user editing has still lacked in the rapid update ability of Waze.
When there are active editors in an area (a key criteria) the maps are accurate and update to match new construction far more quickly. When something significant happens (for example the Hwy 89 landslide in AZ back in Feb, or the bridge collapse in WA). Waze's maps are updated within minutes of the news being reported. Google was quick on the AZ slide but still trailed by a couple days. Waze had the road disconnect, implemented and updated into the live map within 24 hours, changing the routing instructions users received to take them on one of the alternate routes. (I know, I made the edits in Waze.)
When I started with Waze I immediately liked it because of two new commuter routes that had been recently built, my Tom Tom still didn't have the older of the two routes even though it had been in existence for two years by then. Google had that one but another one that opened up just a couple weeks before was already mapped into Waze and Google didn't have it yet. Waze's maps are good, and if an area has active editors are more accurate than even Google's maps and overhead images.
I do grant that in many areas there is still much to be done, but Waze's maps even in the areas needing work are improving faster than Googles.
There are even countries with entirely user built road networks that are not only more complete but more accurate than what Google or anyone else has. Waze is NOT a one trick pony, live traffic reporting and on the fly re-routing is the primary reason for it's creation, but it has progressed beyond that point.
You should be right on being able to fall silent. But you can't pick and choose your silence. If you choose to be silent, you must stay silent. This guy tried to be silent on the one damning question and play cooperative on other non-relevant questions. His selective silence effectively waived his earlier choice to be silent. Had he remained silent the fact that he chose to go silent at that question would not have been admissible. But by trying to play the conversation, his action became a statement that was admissible. There was no pressure, he chose to go in and cooperatively talk with the police, he was not in a state of detention, thus the onus was on him to know when and how to invoke his rights. Once an officer tells you that you are not free to leave the Miranda protections are much stronger, they must advise you of your rights, but until they tell you that no such obligation exists and you cooperate at your own risk.
You must also recognize that this (Roberts Court) and the prior (Rehnquist) court have not been friendly to a strong Miranda protection. They have repeatedly weakened the protections given in the Miranda ruling. Simply put, you have the right to remain silent, best to invoke it early and then stay silent. If you choose to cooperate at all you do so at your own risk. The police are not your friends, their job is to find evidence of a crime, talking to them if you have any guilt is not in your best interest. And even if innocent of the crime they are investigating it's not in your best interest to cooperate because anything you say or do can be used against you, so if you admit any wrong doing it can result in charges, and as you are their voluntarily you are responsible to know that you shouldn't incriminate yourself.
No but once he chose to remain silent he should have remained silent. His choice to resume answering other questions made it admissible. Anything you say or do will be used against you in a court of law. Talk freely but once you decide to clam up, do so and remain clammed up. Or had he fully implemented his rights by calling for a Lawyer the interview would have had to stop until he had representation.
It would be BS had he chosen to simply stop answering questions period, but by selectively answering then not and then answering other questions he made a statement as clear as if he'd blurted out his guilt. If you claim the right to remain silent, do so, shut up and stop talking period. If you speak again, your selective silence is a clear statement. If anything it looks to me like this guy was trying to taint the entire interview. I think there is really no other way to rule on this. He was willingly answering questions, he could have claimed the right without speaking by simply shutting up, but as seen again those who break the law often lack the ability to remain silent, even though they have the right.
Had he shut up at the uncomfortable question and remained silent his silence would not be admissible, but by then continuing to answer questions has has by his actions if not statement waived his rights.
I thought I preferred the real thing. Until a trip to Cambodia resulted in me reading 6 of the eight books I had on the flight over (I just couldn't sleep), leaving me trying to stretch two books over the remaining 14 days plus the flight home. That was an extreme example but any lengthy trip can result in not having sufficient reading material for the duration if you are a fast reader. At least with most trips I find myself in places where I can replenish, but Cambodia was an exception.
With my nook I never have less than a hundred unread books ready and waiting to be read, it lasts weeks without a charge and can charge anywhere I can find a USB socket and my laptop battery can charge it a couple times if I don't use it for anything else. I like owning books, but haven't cracked a physical book in months.
You know that a "stun grenade" is a concussion grenade that will disorient you as much as any assailant. If you are in the same room you and the perp are both going to be stunned, deaf and possibly bleeding from burst ear-drums. As well as any family members that happen to also be in the room. Tazers don't always work, they miss have one back-up shot and people have been known to fight through multiple rides. Two in the chest and one in the head always works, but you might need multiple shots to achieve that goal so the idiot claiming nine shots is enough for any use is truly an idiot.
Now go back to your fantasy realm where an illusionist can cast a dazzle spell and disable an opponent. No non-lethal tool is always effective, even a firearm isn't always effective but it's mere presence and following use is more effective than a "stun grenade". Even military and Swat teams that use concussion grenades know that they gain them at most a few seconds of disorientation by the perps. Even actual frag grenades are only expected to give you a few seconds of disoriented opponents.
If a truck bumps a bridge support and justs drive away, that indicates the structure was NOT structurally sound. Structurally sound indicates it should be able to tolerate a minor accident that doesn't event stop the vehicle involved from continuing on.
Agreed, our roadways are in desparate need of repairs (ask the folks no longer to drive the I-5 bridge that just collapsed about that) and the last thing we need to do is waste limited highway maintenance funds on re-signing our entire road system. Further, miles works just fine there is no advantage to a switch. In science and engineering sure go ahead and switch but I don't think those calling for converting our hwy system really understand exactly how many signs would need to be replaced. More than just a couple.
Undeniable positive results? Like skyrocketing violent crime rates (many times higher than the US violent crime rate), a homicide rate that did drop for a few years but has resumed an upward climb, home invasions going through the roof and so on. There has even been one mass shooting since the one that inspired their ban. The one positive result was the near total disappearance of suicide by firearm, but...
...Suicides in total did not drop one bit but instead spiked the two immediately following years and then returned to exactly where they had been before the spike. Meaning those killing themselves with guns simply found another way to do it.
As long as it wasn't full auto capable doing that was absolutely legal. As long as the weapon is not an NFA class firearm, you can make any weapon for your own use. Federal firearm laws are based on the commerce clause, if the weapon you make does not enter interstate commerce (I.e. you keep it for yourself), the feds are limited in their ability to control it. That is the biggest draw of the print your gun movement. If we can just print reliable firearms with NO record, then no attempt to ban them will ever be successful.