Since the patriot act was passed, probable cause was not required for wiretaps. In fact, even reasonable suspicion is not required.
Yes, I'm aware that the Patriot Act violates the US Constitution, thank you.
The intelligence agencies also never needed reasonable suspicion to make efforts to tap into a conversation crossing US borders or taking place outside the US.
Which might not have been unconstitutional back before they started sharing information with law enforcement agencies, who then made false trails (not involving the NSA) leading to discovery of the information. Once they did that, their "it's for foreign intelligence purposes, not law enforcement purposes" excuse vanished in a puff of smoke.
No statute of limitations for most crimes in South Carolina. Failure to return rental property of a value of less than $2000 is a misdemeanor carrying up to a $1000 fine and/or 30 days in jail. Probably a few bonus months for failure to appear back in 2005. And she gets to forever in the future check that box "I have been convicted of a crime" and therefore no good jobs for her, and since it's an FDIC disqualifying crime (larceny), she's forever barred from having a job in the financial industry.
And you know what most people will have to say about that? "Well, she should have thought of that before she stole that videotape".
Is about material provided in confidence that cannot be used in court.
There's no reason the appropriate authorities can't listen in, if there is reasonable suspicion that the lawyer may be complicit in a future criminal act.
Reasonable suspicion? Rather a low bar, considering that "probable cause" is the constitutional requirement for any search. In any case, the use of "parallel construction" means that a bar to using the material in court but not to collecting it in the first place is ineffective.
Or do the manufacturers have to prove that they're safe, in order to put them into the environment in the first place?
Well, if we adopt the precautionary principle, industrial and technological civilization ends and we all die. So I'm going to have to go with they have to be proved dangerous first.
Sadistic - I just did a lecture on whale-hunting. First-person POV, with the intention of making people angry, sick and upset in order to ram home the message about how awful that is to do to animals, especially a self-aware one with all those extra miles of pain circuits to deal with, and knowledge of what is happening to it.
A one-man show of Moby Dick is NOT a lecture on whale hunting. It is quite sadistic though.
Some states (I only know SPECIFICALLY of California, but I have heard of this being a problem elsewhere) prohibit the buying of NEW out-of-state vehicles, even ones that pass all emissions standards and such. California prevents registering any out-of-state vehicle with less than 7500 miles on it, meaning the only way you can bring in an out-of-state car is to register it somewhere else (good luck with that if you live in California) until it's officially a used car.
California's various attempts at this have usually been shot down by the courts as a (blatant) violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
(And yes I realize to irony of polluting industries moving to China because of our regulations but if something can't be produced without all that pollution then maybe it's not worth producing in the first place.)
Hooray for hair-shirt environmentalism. We won't choke to death, we'll just starve to death in the cold and dark (because agriculture, heat, and light all result in a lot of pollution)
When one produces a draconian bill to solve a problem that did not exist in the first place, placing new burdens on an regulator that the party has made it quite clear they with to see dismantled, yes, I think it is reasonable to assume that the bill is not good for environmental protection. If it was good for the environment, by their own planks, they would not have introduced it.
Basically they're regulating the regulators. As regulators choke industries to death with regulations, this bill would choke the EPA to death with meta-regulations.
Agree that a hypersonic missile would work against a fixed target.
Unless, of course, you made sure that you could see any hypersonic missile coming (they're not stealth) long before it got near your fixed target. Then you could throw countermeasures in its path.
This will be both misused by malicious entities, and misused by the malicious entities we call governments.
It seems like every time people try to legislate solutions to these kinds of problems they just create more problems due to their stunning lack of understanding of the technology.
No. The expected misuse by government is mostly due to someone understanding the technology, and desiring the misuse.
The reason we're still writing text-based code is because it works and it works well, unlike, say, Slashdot Beta. Other things have been tried; most sucked, no one used them, and they went away. Others (e.g. LabView) found a niche and stayed there.
Shouldn't there be a simpler, more robust way to translate an algorithm into something a computer can understand? One that's language agnostic and without all the cryptic jargon?
How are you going to describe this algorithm? As far as I can tell, any meaningful answer to that question IS a programming language.
We can come up with better, more specific feedback than "omg it sucks!", can't we?
Yes. And many have. The problem with such detailed comments on such a proto-coprolite is that it invites the designers to make minor changes which address the specific issues mentioned in a half-assed way, and then say "all fixed, what are you whining about now"? Even if you manage to polish a turd, it's still a turd.
UX is the HCI equivalent of homoeopathy. A horrible pseudo-science that kills.
Not really. It's like astronomy and astrology, or chemistry and alchemy. There's a real science and a pseudoscience. It's just that there's no convenient way to distinguish them; both call themselves UX.
That these new web designers must be ass burger thalidomide kids with ADD who design ui's with their flippers.
No, they're douchebag extravert hipsters who think their shit doesn't stink. They're making all of the mistakes of the past (made by people just like themselves -- but if they know about these failures, they think everything is different now), adding some new ones of their own, and swearing that the genius of their aesthetic design makes up for all the practical failures. Except that the site is ugly too. I've run into the type before. You can't reason with them. You can't use data to show them they're wrong, and you can't quote authorities in their own field. Even forcing them to use their own sites doesn't work.
No, the only thing that works is continual beatings, and even then they don't change their mind, but it does make you feel better. Business types love them because they can kiss ass like pros, so they get their way even when it's gloriously and spectacularly wrong.
There's not all that much honking in NYC since Adolf Giuliani had all the honkers arrested and sent to the South Bronx. But if I had a car accident every time I've honked my horn when someone was moving their car into the space my car occupied, I'd be pretty upset.
I'm actually surprised that she missed / didn't mention this, considering her experience with signals analysis and demodulation. This is pretty much as basic as telemetry data modulation gets! Then again, as a reverse engineer myself, sometimes we get caught up doing deep analysis of something that later turns out to be totally trivial:)
Yeah, I was hoping the article would turn out to be about how the telemetry ended up cross-modulated into the audio feed or something, rather than being standard information deliberately sent. Would have been cooler.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha ha. The RGGI states just get their power from non-RGGI states and Canada.
Book is probably written by a selfish asshole trying to convince the rest of us to be pushovers to his advantage.
No, Just-Worlder, there might not be.
Or maybe he's just an asshole.
And maybe he did, or maybe he just said he did to get a warrant issued.
Only for civil matters, not for crimes.
Yes, I'm aware that the Patriot Act violates the US Constitution, thank you.
Which might not have been unconstitutional back before they started sharing information with law enforcement agencies, who then made false trails (not involving the NSA) leading to discovery of the information. Once they did that, their "it's for foreign intelligence purposes, not law enforcement purposes" excuse vanished in a puff of smoke.
No statute of limitations for most crimes in South Carolina. Failure to return rental property of a value of less than $2000 is a misdemeanor carrying up to a $1000 fine and/or 30 days in jail. Probably a few bonus months for failure to appear back in 2005. And she gets to forever in the future check that box "I have been convicted of a crime" and therefore no good jobs for her, and since it's an FDIC disqualifying crime (larceny), she's forever barred from having a job in the financial industry.
And you know what most people will have to say about that? "Well, she should have thought of that before she stole that videotape".
(IANAL, and certainly IANAL in South Carolina)
Reasonable suspicion? Rather a low bar, considering that "probable cause" is the constitutional requirement for any search. In any case, the use of "parallel construction" means that a bar to using the material in court but not to collecting it in the first place is ineffective.
Well, if we adopt the precautionary principle, industrial and technological civilization ends and we all die. So I'm going to have to go with they have to be proved dangerous first.
A one-man show of Moby Dick is NOT a lecture on whale hunting. It is quite sadistic though.
I'm married and still a loner. In fact, I'm sitting here on Slashdot while my wife watches the Olympics.
Not the female gymnasts.
California's various attempts at this have usually been shot down by the courts as a (blatant) violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
About 3900 of the laser strikes were actually cops and criminals using their laser-equipped firearms in Newark and Camden.
Hooray for hair-shirt environmentalism. We won't choke to death, we'll just starve to death in the cold and dark (because agriculture, heat, and light all result in a lot of pollution)
Basically they're regulating the regulators. As regulators choke industries to death with regulations, this bill would choke the EPA to death with meta-regulations.
Unless, of course, you made sure that you could see any hypersonic missile coming (they're not stealth) long before it got near your fixed target. Then you could throw countermeasures in its path.
History? They're ignorant of current events.
No. The expected misuse by government is mostly due to someone understanding the technology, and desiring the misuse.
The reason we're still writing text-based code is because it works and it works well, unlike, say, Slashdot Beta. Other things have been tried; most sucked, no one used them, and they went away. Others (e.g. LabView) found a niche and stayed there.
How are you going to describe this algorithm? As far as I can tell, any meaningful answer to that question IS a programming language.
You aren't disputing my statement, you are simply agreeing with the results -- the industries are blocked.
When regulators "get ahead" of an industry, it is only to put barriers in front of it. Regulations don't "pave the way", they block it.
Yes. And many have. The problem with such detailed comments on such a proto-coprolite is that it invites the designers to make minor changes which address the specific issues mentioned in a half-assed way, and then say "all fixed, what are you whining about now"? Even if you manage to polish a turd, it's still a turd.
Not really. It's like astronomy and astrology, or chemistry and alchemy. There's a real science and a pseudoscience. It's just that there's no convenient way to distinguish them; both call themselves UX.
No, they're douchebag extravert hipsters who think their shit doesn't stink. They're making all of the mistakes of the past (made by people just like themselves -- but if they know about these failures, they think everything is different now), adding some new ones of their own, and swearing that the genius of their aesthetic design makes up for all the practical failures. Except that the site is ugly too. I've run into the type before. You can't reason with them. You can't use data to show them they're wrong, and you can't quote authorities in their own field. Even forcing them to use their own sites doesn't work.
No, the only thing that works is continual beatings, and even then they don't change their mind, but it does make you feel better. Business types love them because they can kiss ass like pros, so they get their way even when it's gloriously and spectacularly wrong.
There's not all that much honking in NYC since Adolf Giuliani had all the honkers arrested and sent to the South Bronx. But if I had a car accident every time I've honked my horn when someone was moving their car into the space my car occupied, I'd be pretty upset.
Yeah, I was hoping the article would turn out to be about how the telemetry ended up cross-modulated into the audio feed or something, rather than being standard information deliberately sent. Would have been cooler.