You kid, but in all seriousness, SWEET-16 probably does qualify as prior art for a few dozen currently litigated patent claims. Except you couldn't really call the Apple II "mobile". You could fairly call it a "limited resource computing device", though (a phrase found in one of Apple's iPod patents)
For MRI, anything that might be even remotely magnetic is a no-go. Medical MRI systems start at 1.5 T and go up to 3 T, so anything in, on or near your body that can be affected by a magnetic field, will be.
There are multiple effects. Anything ferromagnetic is going to be subject to the multi-T static field you mention, but the implants themselves could (and should) be non-magnetic surgical stainless steel. Obviously the magnets screwed into the top would have to be removed. The other effects are the heating and vibration from the currents induced in anything conductive by the RF coil. This would probably preclude scanning the area with the implant itself, because it might heat up enough to burn the skin, but I'm not sure how far outside the active area the implant would have to be to avoid that effect.
The combination of backing up everything, encrypting everything, and insurance that other posters have mentioned should work. One thing to make sure of, though, is that you can get access to all your data back. If you're using a password manager, make sure the encrypted file is backed up to somewhere you'll have access to without the briefcase. Make sure the master key is backed up somewhere else -- like a USB drive kept in your apartment or a safety deposit box. Along with that you'll probably want to keep passwords and information you'll need quickly; your main email account password and your backup service password for instance.
We do? I'm a libertarian and I like the GPL v2. I like the GPL v3 tivoization clause, too -- and I wish they hadn't limited it to consumer devices. I have objections to other parts of the GPLv3 (though I admit I've forgotten what they are), but not because I hate GNU.
Also, no coredumps/automated bug reports will make it out alive because "who knows what's in them".
Less idiomatically, the problem is that a lot of things can be in them which shouldn't be distributed outside the company. Two broad categories would be proprietary company data and proprietary user data. I don't think users of Google products would be happy if we were sending out core dumps containing proprietary user data whenever some program crashed while that data was in core. So we don't.
Just exactly how do you expect the police to catch the terrorist with a nuke if not deploying such devices?
I don't. I expect once the terrorist has a nuke, he's going to be able to set it off. If you catch him short of his target, you just get a nuclear detonation in a less populated place. If you catch him in New York Harbor, you're already totally fucked.
Basically they think because Hoover and Stalin and World Leader In History X created and used the states security apparatus to attack their own people , then it's inevitable any country will follow suit given enough time and power.
And it is. As Lord Acton (yes, a Liberal) pointed out, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And you need merely look at what government does with power when it gets it to see that any power will be abused. Special wiretapping laws supposed to be used only for terrorism get used for totally unrelated investigations 90% of the time. The NSA teams up with AT&T and other phone companies to monitor everything. The TSA... just about anything the TSA does. The government has the power to do border checkpoints... so they set them up dozens of miles from the border and claim they get 100 miles of rights-free zones. Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech become "free speech zones" surrounded by chain-link fences. The list goes on...
Which brings me to my counter-narrative to the Police State Is Coming meme. The reason you're free as in freedom is mainly because other members of society actually DO value freedom as much as you do.
The police state is HERE. Most people don't value freedom at all, happily (or at worst grouchily) submit to any demand the state has, and think something is wrong with YOU if you object.
Somali pirates probably grew up in a relatively quiet environment with no amplified music louder than a boom box; the chattering of an AK-47 their loudest percussion. European and American troublemakers grew up with rock and rap concerts with massive amplifiers all turned up to 11, parties with the loudest amps technology can offer, personal music devices with headphones set so loud they could deafen the person next to them.
A loud noise like this will not stop them. Unless, perhaps, they can figure a way to play Barry Manilow at full volume.
The level playing field for carbon neutrality is a sham designed to do nothing more than transfer wealth from first-world economies to third-world economies.
To certain third-world economies. Africa will be left out of the wealth, as usual.
He seems to think that pretty much all expression should have First Amendment protection. It's almost as if he takes that "inalienable rights" and "Congress shall make no law" stuff seriously.
1. Go do a web search for the words "low dose imaging" and poke around. This is very much a hot topic among manufacturers.
Indeed, and it has been for years. Manufacturers have long been looking for ways to cut the dose. Nobody wants unnecessarily high doses; equipment-induced cancer makes for bad headlines if nothing else. Which is another reason to be puzzled: Why does the FDA think it has to step in? Are they just bored and need something to regulate?
3. I really, really can't see manufacturers labeling all their devices as not for pediatric use. It's not totally out of the question - "intended use" is a very well defined area in this line of business for exactly this reason. But it's more likely that a manufacturer would word the intended use in such a way to exclude excessive dosage.
Yeah, that's kind of a worst-case scenario if the regulations are so bad that the manufacturers can't comply without compromising the device's usefulness. A more likely bad scenario would be my second one, where the FDA simply sets dosage limits (for pediatric protocols) which are too low for effective imaging. Manufacturers would comply, but word would get around and radiologists would order a higher dose anyway (unless things have changed a lot, the technologist can always override the scan parameters). I suspect this would lead to higher doses overall. And a study which has to be redone because the images were no good is a dose for no benefit.
Only poor people would do that. Rich people don't pay taxes, they collect them.
Poor people barter informally (and don't consider reporting it) and work for cash "under the table". They're rarely caught. Rich people have loopholes written for them. Only those in the middle have to pay. If a plumber barters for services an electrician, the IRS will never find out. If a lawyer does with his accountant, BAM!
(I guess the distinction is more blue-collar verus white than poor versus middle; plenty of plumbers have more money than plenty of accountants)
If they got paid 2x a day to use those cars, I don't think they'd have a problem covering the cost.
Depends on how much they are paid. Each car must, daily, make enough money to cover its total amortized cost for that day. If most of the cars are being used twice a day and sitting around waiting for a fare most of the time, that means that commuters will have to pay almost the entire cost for the car they're riding. Which means it won't make economic sense to do so.
This comment shows just how effective Fox News' propaganda is at making people truly believe they aren't actively voting against their interests.
I'm afraid that it's not necessary to be a gun-toting gay-bashing flag-worshipping Tea-Partying Fox News watcher to object to any given government program. Nice strawman though.
Do you make more than $1 million per year? If not then I'm so sorry you've been living under a lie and a false dream.
It's not necessary to make more than $1 million a year to have a problem with taxes; it's only necessary to be someone who is paying them.
A good point... a fleet of driverless cars could pick up a person, take them to work, then go ferry around other people when your own car would just be sitting in a lot unused.
Would be nice, but doesn't work, because there are times ("rush hour") where everyone is trying to use their vehicle at once. Given that, either the fleet companies would need to have enough cars to cover the peak (which would be prohibitively expensive), or you'd find you couldn't get a car when you wanted one (which, after it occurred a few times, would set you shopping for a personal vehicle).
Phone batteries usually aren't big enough to be a problem, but as battery sizes move up from "small" to "medium" (laptop batteries) the restrictions get tougher.
Yes, but those were the old restrictions. The new restrictions are "No international shipments of primary or secondary lithium batteries. At all." A watch containing a lithium button cell is forbidden for international shipment under the new rules.
These are different than the ones you're talking about. It seems they've caught on to the workaround of "put the disk in, go make some popcorn / get a beer / take a piss, come back and press 'play movie'". So these will appear after you press 'play movie'. Even more obnoxious. If I were running the pirate bay I'd send them a nice thank-you letter.
Exactly. The speed of the elevator will be limited to the motor power. Now you could do something dangerous like waiting until 5 seconds after the door opens and then drop the elevator 10 feet. I don't know about the particular designs to know if there is a mechanical interrupt when the doors are open.
There is. Doesn't help when somebody bypasses it, but at least that has to be done on site.
The FDA can regulate medical equipment, but it can't regulate the practice of medicine. So if these rules are too onerous, medical equipment manufactures will just label the machines as not for use on children (and likely take out any canned child-specific protocols), and doctors will continue to use the machines on children. In the middle ground, if the rules aren't too hard for the manufacturers to follow, but they cause the images to be poor, doctors and technologists will modify the protocols or use adult protocols on children. And if they're no different than what is done now, what's the point?
If there's really a problem with the protocols being such that the dose to children is higher than necessary to make good images, both manufacturers AND radiologists have to be involved in the solution.
The only way you were able to get the education and have the upbringing necessary to facilitate you getting a good job in the first place was through the taxes paid by those that came before you. Your upbringing was just as subsidized by the state as anyone else's in this country.
So anyone who has received a dollar of state money, directly or indirectly, is forever obligated to support any and all taxes on themselves and subsidies to other people?
Suppose I was able to demonstrate that my upbringing was in fact not subsidized on a net basis? Would I then be permitted to hold the opinion that a particular new subsidy was unwarranted?
If you're going to claim that everyone's upbringing is net subsidized, I have to wonder where the government is getting any money at all.
Granting a license to something does not negate your proprietary interest in that something.
May I take this to mean that you also support restrictive EULA's which give the "owner" ultimate control over what you may or may not do with the software, books, music, etc. that you create using their tools?
No; I take the position that this is what EULAs are intended to do, but that the EULAs for most products are not valid in general because (among other reasons) there in fact has been a transfer of title (of a copy, not the copyright itself).
After all, if I grant you an unrestricted, royalty-free license to use something, that doesn't mean I no longer 'own' the thing I've given you the license for, so it's absolutely okay for me to come along and tell you you can only install / use it on certain systems, you can't resell it, you can't share it, and you can't do anything I don't otherwise approve of with it.
No, because that would actually violate the license (which you specified was "unrestricted") even if it were valid. Just because a license grantor retains ownership does not mean they get to retroactively change the terms of the license.
It's been around forever. Humanity in general is a bunch fo selfish greedy pricks, and when given the opportunity, many will complain about paying to help others.
I see. So when someone else demands some of my money to pay for their expenses, that's OK. But if I object and want to keep the money to pay my own expenses, that's greed. Interesting system you have there.
Democrats blocked that bill because Republicans attached an amendment at the last minute that defines legal sexual relations as being only between couples who are heterosexual, married, and Christian.
ROTFL. Of course, this is a lie. The Republicans are not that crazy.
Granting a license to something does not negate your proprietary interest in that something. Just the opposite -- you grant a license rather than transferring title if you want to retain a proprietary interest.
I don't think twitter's second argument has much merit; I don't think a Fourth Amendment claim against the government obtaining information which had once been made public will stand up. But Harris should at least get the chance to make it the argument.
Slashdot Mirror
You kid, but in all seriousness, SWEET-16 probably does qualify as prior art for a few dozen currently litigated patent claims. Except you couldn't really call the Apple II "mobile". You could fairly call it a "limited resource computing device", though (a phrase found in one of Apple's iPod patents)
There are multiple effects. Anything ferromagnetic is going to be subject to the multi-T static field you mention, but the implants themselves could (and should) be non-magnetic surgical stainless steel. Obviously the magnets screwed into the top would have to be removed. The other effects are the heating and vibration from the currents induced in anything conductive by the RF coil. This would probably preclude scanning the area with the implant itself, because it might heat up enough to burn the skin, but I'm not sure how far outside the active area the implant would have to be to avoid that effect.
The combination of backing up everything, encrypting everything, and insurance that other posters have mentioned should work. One thing to make sure of, though, is that you can get access to all your data back. If you're using a password manager, make sure the encrypted file is backed up to somewhere you'll have access to without the briefcase. Make sure the master key is backed up somewhere else -- like a USB drive kept in your apartment or a safety deposit box. Along with that you'll probably want to keep passwords and information you'll need quickly; your main email account password and your backup service password for instance.
We do? I'm a libertarian and I like the GPL v2. I like the GPL v3 tivoization clause, too -- and I wish they hadn't limited it to consumer devices. I have objections to other parts of the GPLv3 (though I admit I've forgotten what they are), but not because I hate GNU.
Tivo did exactly what RMS started the Free Software Foundation to prevent (The Printer Story). What did you expect would happen?
I, for one, welcome the FBI surveillance efforts going dark.
Less idiomatically, the problem is that a lot of things can be in them which shouldn't be distributed outside the company. Two broad categories would be proprietary company data and proprietary user data. I don't think users of Google products would be happy if we were sending out core dumps containing proprietary user data whenever some program crashed while that data was in core. So we don't.
I don't. I expect once the terrorist has a nuke, he's going to be able to set it off. If you catch him short of his target, you just get a nuclear detonation in a less populated place. If you catch him in New York Harbor, you're already totally fucked.
And it is. As Lord Acton (yes, a Liberal) pointed out, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And you need merely look at what government does with power when it gets it to see that any power will be abused. Special wiretapping laws supposed to be used only for terrorism get used for totally unrelated investigations 90% of the time. The NSA teams up with AT&T and other phone companies to monitor everything. The TSA... just about anything the TSA does. The government has the power to do border checkpoints... so they set them up dozens of miles from the border and claim they get 100 miles of rights-free zones. Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech become "free speech zones" surrounded by chain-link fences. The list goes on...
The police state is HERE. Most people don't value freedom at all, happily (or at worst grouchily) submit to any demand the state has, and think something is wrong with YOU if you object.
Somali pirates probably grew up in a relatively quiet environment with no amplified music louder than a boom box; the chattering of an AK-47 their loudest percussion. European and American troublemakers grew up with rock and rap concerts with massive amplifiers all turned up to 11, parties with the loudest amps technology can offer, personal music devices with headphones set so loud they could deafen the person next to them.
A loud noise like this will not stop them. Unless, perhaps, they can figure a way to play Barry Manilow at full volume.
To certain third-world economies. Africa will be left out of the wealth, as usual.
He seems to think that pretty much all expression should have First Amendment protection. It's almost as if he takes that "inalienable rights" and "Congress shall make no law" stuff seriously.
Indeed, and it has been for years. Manufacturers have long been looking for ways to cut the dose. Nobody wants unnecessarily high doses; equipment-induced cancer makes for bad headlines if nothing else. Which is another reason to be puzzled: Why does the FDA think it has to step in? Are they just bored and need something to regulate?
Yeah, that's kind of a worst-case scenario if the regulations are so bad that the manufacturers can't comply without compromising the device's usefulness. A more likely bad scenario would be my second one, where the FDA simply sets dosage limits (for pediatric protocols) which are too low for effective imaging. Manufacturers would comply, but word would get around and radiologists would order a higher dose anyway (unless things have changed a lot, the technologist can always override the scan parameters). I suspect this would lead to higher doses overall. And a study which has to be redone because the images were no good is a dose for no benefit.
Poor people barter informally (and don't consider reporting it) and work for cash "under the table". They're rarely caught. Rich people have loopholes written for them. Only those in the middle have to pay. If a plumber barters for services an electrician, the IRS will never find out. If a lawyer does with his accountant, BAM!
(I guess the distinction is more blue-collar verus white than poor versus middle; plenty of plumbers have more money than plenty of accountants)
Depends on how much they are paid. Each car must, daily, make enough money to cover its total amortized cost for that day. If most of the cars are being used twice a day and sitting around waiting for a fare most of the time, that means that commuters will have to pay almost the entire cost for the car they're riding. Which means it won't make economic sense to do so.
I'm afraid that it's not necessary to be a gun-toting gay-bashing flag-worshipping Tea-Partying Fox News watcher to object to any given government program. Nice strawman though.
It's not necessary to make more than $1 million a year to have a problem with taxes; it's only necessary to be someone who is paying them.
Would be nice, but doesn't work, because there are times ("rush hour") where everyone is trying to use their vehicle at once. Given that, either the fleet companies would need to have enough cars to cover the peak (which would be prohibitively expensive), or you'd find you couldn't get a car when you wanted one (which, after it occurred a few times, would set you shopping for a personal vehicle).
Yes, but those were the old restrictions. The new restrictions are "No international shipments of primary or secondary lithium batteries. At all." A watch containing a lithium button cell is forbidden for international shipment under the new rules.
These are different than the ones you're talking about. It seems they've caught on to the workaround of "put the disk in, go make some popcorn / get a beer / take a piss, come back and press 'play movie'". So these will appear after you press 'play movie'. Even more obnoxious. If I were running the pirate bay I'd send them a nice thank-you letter.
There is. Doesn't help when somebody bypasses it, but at least that has to be done on site.
The FDA can regulate medical equipment, but it can't regulate the practice of medicine. So if these rules are too onerous, medical equipment manufactures will just label the machines as not for use on children (and likely take out any canned child-specific protocols), and doctors will continue to use the machines on children. In the middle ground, if the rules aren't too hard for the manufacturers to follow, but they cause the images to be poor, doctors and technologists will modify the protocols or use adult protocols on children. And if they're no different than what is done now, what's the point?
If there's really a problem with the protocols being such that the dose to children is higher than necessary to make good images, both manufacturers AND radiologists have to be involved in the solution.
So anyone who has received a dollar of state money, directly or indirectly, is forever obligated to support any and all taxes on themselves and subsidies to other people?
Suppose I was able to demonstrate that my upbringing was in fact not subsidized on a net basis? Would I then be permitted to hold the opinion that a particular new subsidy was unwarranted?
If you're going to claim that everyone's upbringing is net subsidized, I have to wonder where the government is getting any money at all.
No; I take the position that this is what EULAs are intended to do, but that the EULAs for most products are not valid in general because (among other reasons) there in fact has been a transfer of title (of a copy, not the copyright itself).
No, because that would actually violate the license (which you specified was "unrestricted") even if it were valid. Just because a license grantor retains ownership does not mean they get to retroactively change the terms of the license.
I see. So when someone else demands some of my money to pay for their expenses, that's OK. But if I object and want to keep the money to pay my own expenses, that's greed. Interesting system you have there.
ROTFL. Of course, this is a lie. The Republicans are not that crazy.
Granting a license to something does not negate your proprietary interest in that something. Just the opposite -- you grant a license rather than transferring title if you want to retain a proprietary interest.
I don't think twitter's second argument has much merit; I don't think a Fourth Amendment claim against the government obtaining information which had once been made public will stand up. But Harris should at least get the chance to make it the argument.