The problem with using anesthesia is that organizations (the largest of which is the EU) forbids selling anything used in executions. So states that use anesthetics to execute the condemned will find they may be then unable to purchase the same anesthetics for use in hospitals.
Which leads to an obvious question: Isn't the U.S. capable of producing its own anesthetics? At least the ones used for executions which should no longer be covered by patents?
Even if someone does deliver it to your door, you're still going to have to go to the depot anyway: they're going to claim to have attempted to deliver while you're not at home, as always.
Fixed that for you.
Since they generally leave a note on the door, I assume they actually did make a delivery attempt.
Does this only apply to cellphones which are regulated telecommunications devices? Or would it also apply to tablets, which are really personal computing devices? And if it applies to tablets, would it apply to other personal computing devices such as laptops and desktop PCs? And if so, does it only apply to encryption software sold with the device, or also to third-party supplied encryption software? And if it does apply to 3rd party software, does it only apply to commercial software, or free open source software as well? Are there 1st Amendment issues involved in regulating the distribution of free software, and if so do they apply only to compiled machine code, or to source code as well? The devil is in the details and I'm not really sure where dividing lines would be drawn.
So once again, the FBI entraps someone by convincing them to carry out an attack so that they can stop it and pretend to be heroes. How about actually stopping attacks that you haven't yourself created? Oh, right. That count is still at zero. And I guess you need to justify all your bullshit somehow.
Actually, stings like this may prevent actual attacks from occurring by providing a deterrent. Would you join such a conspiracy if your co-conspirators might be FBI agents? Operations like these send a message out to would-be terrorists: you're not safe planning attacks in this country.
What if you just have your phone turned off when you drive, or don't take it with you in the first place? Maybe the insurance savings are even substantial enough that you can get a second phone and only take the phone with this app on short trips and drive on those trips very carefully. When you want to do your street racing, you bring the other phone.
>Bell's so-called relevant ads program violates Canadian privacy law.
>Bell is refusing to comply with the ruling.
So who's going to jail?
No one yet. As the summary states, this finding was by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, not a court. The next step would be for the Canadian version of the Justice Department (probably a Crown Attorney's office) to decide if criminal laws were violated and if so whether they want to press charges. If they do, there would then be a trial. So we're a long way away from anyone going to jail. I'm not sure if the Privacy Commissioner has the power to levy fines, but if so, they could certainly be challenged in court.
I know this comment won't be popular on Slashdot, but the auto makers do have a valid point. Cars today must meet rigid safety, fuel efficiency, and emissions standards. The car's computer is an essential part of the system. A small modification to the software can be the difference between a car being in compliance with these regulations and falling well outside them. The danger is people might start "hot-rodding" their cars through changes to the software, allowing the car to go faster but at the expense of polluting more and burning more fuel. What makes this particularly dangerous is that it would be trivial to set the car back to its factory state when it's time to bring the car in for emissions checks and then back to its "hot-rod" state as soon as you get it home. So these concerns are not unwarranted.
Secondly, it's an important biomedical advancement made by citizen scientists. (The important part of that sentence is "by citizen scientists".)
Why is that important? Are most scientists non-citizens? Or does that just mean they're citizens of the country where the work is done as opposed to citizens of some other country?
Reminder that 'flame *throwers*' throw *napalm*, which, I'm pretty sure, is illegal even for governments to use since the Geneva convention.
I think you can make your own napalm-like substitute out of gasoline, styrofoam, and benzene. Apparently it works almost as well as the real thing, but I've never tried it myself.
Yep. And how much are these "behavior detection officers" making? 6 figures?
They have to be paid those high salaries. Cause otherwise, if they really have the skills it is claimed they have, they could be making a fortune on the World Poker Tour.
It's a UK article and the author seems to have found a source:
"Official figures confirm the picture she paints, with emergency admissions to child psychiatric wards doubling in four years, and those young adults hospitalised for self-harm up by 70 per cent in a decade."
But your quote says nothing about suicide. It only mentions an increase in admission to child psych wards, and it then talks about "self-harm" which isn't the same thing as suicide.
Because then you'll have shithead 20somethings on the road instead, with no parental supervision whatsoever.
The only way to learn to drive is to drive.
The difference is teens are much more shithead-like than 20-somethings (not that I haven't noticed the increasing prevalence of 20-something shitheads), and teens are often not held responsible (legally or financially) for their actions (further enabling shithead behavior).
Actually, numerous studies have shown that teen drivers are no worse than inexperienced drivers of any age. That's what prompted the gov't here in Ontario to change the licensing rules some time ago so that after your probationary period (the first 2-5 years that you have your license) you have to take a second road test, where they basically test how experienced you are (based on how you handle the car, etc.) to get your full license. The problem was in the past that many teens simply didn't drive during their probation period (many didn't have access to a car, for instance) and then they got their full unrestricted license with basically no driving experience whatsoever. They've now plugged that loophole and it is pretty much impossible to pass the second test without lots of driving experience.
[New Zealand] Customs said its counterparts in Australia, Canada, the United States and Britain had equivalent powers, though the department has so far been unable to substantiate that.
Is that true? Does anyone know the current law in those countries? I think it is true in the U.K. where you can be jailed for not handing over passwords and/or encryption keys, but I don't know about Australia, Canada, or the U.S. Can anyone shed some light on this?
And how do the authorities establish your total wealth? Income can be obtained by looking at your income tax return. But there's no government record of people's wealth (not yet, anyway). And penalizing people based on their wealth would only encourage people to store their wealth offshore.
It's not academic cheating if someone who has completed the exam discusses the questions in public and since they are minors they can't even sign a contract to enforce legal penalties.
There may not be legal penalties, but there could be academic penalties. Minors get caught and punished for cheating on school tests all the time.
I wouldn't dismiss the criminal aspect of this so quickly. There are plenty of laws on the books designed to prevent government agencies from using taxpayer resources on misinforming the public. If any of the edits were deliberately false, it's entirely possible it was a crime for the NYPD, even if it's not a crime for the jerk down the street.
Can you cite these laws please? If there are laws as you describe, every President of the United States should be in prison. Also, we don't know for a fact that taxpayer resources were used.
If we can get Aaron Swartz to kill himself over "Hacking" by downloading a bunch of easily available peer-reviewed journals, why can't we treat "tampering of community works" with the same, broad, over-reaching laws?
What happened to Aaron Schwartz was a tragedy, as it is any time someone takes their own life. But he broke into a Harvard networking closet (that's physical trespass), and rewired a router (that's computer trespass) in order to download the journal articles that he otherwise did not have access to (or at least not at the speed with which he downloaded them). That's hardly "easily available". Was the justice department wrong to lay charges in that case? If they were wrong to do so, was it because what he did wasn't a crime or because he was a suicide risk due to mental health issues? If the latter, do we allow anyone with mental health problems to get away with any crimes because they would be a suicide risk if arrested and charged?
Cyber warfare. Destroying or altering public records is likely a criminal offense.
First of all Wikipedia isn't "public records". Secondly, Wikipedia is set up that way. People can make edits. Other people can edit the edits. It's bad form to try to bias an article with opinions or to state facts without citations, but it's not illegal. These changes were caught by editors and presumably corrected if they were in error or introduced bias. That's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. This revelation might be embarrassing for the NYPD, but it is hardly criminal.
Of course it is. You can't use it unless you put a Google account on the device.
Right, but I have put a Google account on the device. I hope the device protection is still optional. Since I'm already using encryption, I'm not sure the device protection will add much security. Will a thief return my device when they discover they can't use it?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with using anesthesia is that organizations (the largest of which is the EU) forbids selling anything used in executions. So states that use anesthetics to execute the condemned will find they may be then unable to purchase the same anesthetics for use in hospitals.
Which leads to an obvious question: Isn't the U.S. capable of producing its own anesthetics? At least the ones used for executions which should no longer be covered by patents?
Even if someone does deliver it to your door, you're still going to have to go to the depot anyway: they're going to claim to have attempted to deliver while you're not at home, as always.
Fixed that for you.
Since they generally leave a note on the door, I assume they actually did make a delivery attempt.
This story was posted yesterday. http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
Does this only apply to cellphones which are regulated telecommunications devices? Or would it also apply to tablets, which are really personal computing devices? And if it applies to tablets, would it apply to other personal computing devices such as laptops and desktop PCs? And if so, does it only apply to encryption software sold with the device, or also to third-party supplied encryption software? And if it does apply to 3rd party software, does it only apply to commercial software, or free open source software as well? Are there 1st Amendment issues involved in regulating the distribution of free software, and if so do they apply only to compiled machine code, or to source code as well? The devil is in the details and I'm not really sure where dividing lines would be drawn.
So once again, the FBI entraps someone by convincing them to carry out an attack so that they can stop it and pretend to be heroes. How about actually stopping attacks that you haven't yourself created? Oh, right. That count is still at zero. And I guess you need to justify all your bullshit somehow.
Actually, stings like this may prevent actual attacks from occurring by providing a deterrent. Would you join such a conspiracy if your co-conspirators might be FBI agents? Operations like these send a message out to would-be terrorists: you're not safe planning attacks in this country.
What if you just have your phone turned off when you drive, or don't take it with you in the first place? Maybe the insurance savings are even substantial enough that you can get a second phone and only take the phone with this app on short trips and drive on those trips very carefully. When you want to do your street racing, you bring the other phone.
>Bell's so-called relevant ads program violates Canadian privacy law. >Bell is refusing to comply with the ruling.
So who's going to jail?
No one yet. As the summary states, this finding was by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, not a court. The next step would be for the Canadian version of the Justice Department (probably a Crown Attorney's office) to decide if criminal laws were violated and if so whether they want to press charges. If they do, there would then be a trial. So we're a long way away from anyone going to jail. I'm not sure if the Privacy Commissioner has the power to levy fines, but if so, they could certainly be challenged in court.
Ummm...that's already the case. Google reprogrammers.
Ummmm, that's kind of my point. This is exactly the sort of thing auto makers are trying to make illegal.
I know this comment won't be popular on Slashdot, but the auto makers do have a valid point. Cars today must meet rigid safety, fuel efficiency, and emissions standards. The car's computer is an essential part of the system. A small modification to the software can be the difference between a car being in compliance with these regulations and falling well outside them. The danger is people might start "hot-rodding" their cars through changes to the software, allowing the car to go faster but at the expense of polluting more and burning more fuel. What makes this particularly dangerous is that it would be trivial to set the car back to its factory state when it's time to bring the car in for emissions checks and then back to its "hot-rod" state as soon as you get it home. So these concerns are not unwarranted.
Secondly, it's an important biomedical advancement made by citizen scientists. (The important part of that sentence is "by citizen scientists".)
Why is that important? Are most scientists non-citizens? Or does that just mean they're citizens of the country where the work is done as opposed to citizens of some other country?
Reminder that 'flame *throwers*' throw *napalm*, which, I'm pretty sure, is illegal even for governments to use since the Geneva convention.
I think you can make your own napalm-like substitute out of gasoline, styrofoam, and benzene. Apparently it works almost as well as the real thing, but I've never tried it myself.
Yep. And how much are these "behavior detection officers" making? 6 figures?
They have to be paid those high salaries. Cause otherwise, if they really have the skills it is claimed they have, they could be making a fortune on the World Poker Tour.
It's a UK article and the author seems to have found a source: "Official figures confirm the picture she paints, with emergency admissions to child psychiatric wards doubling in four years, and those young adults hospitalised for self-harm up by 70 per cent in a decade."
But your quote says nothing about suicide. It only mentions an increase in admission to child psych wards, and it then talks about "self-harm" which isn't the same thing as suicide.
Because then you'll have shithead 20somethings on the road instead, with no parental supervision whatsoever.
The only way to learn to drive is to drive.
The difference is teens are much more shithead-like than 20-somethings (not that I haven't noticed the increasing prevalence of 20-something shitheads), and teens are often not held responsible (legally or financially) for their actions (further enabling shithead behavior).
Actually, numerous studies have shown that teen drivers are no worse than inexperienced drivers of any age. That's what prompted the gov't here in Ontario to change the licensing rules some time ago so that after your probationary period (the first 2-5 years that you have your license) you have to take a second road test, where they basically test how experienced you are (based on how you handle the car, etc.) to get your full license. The problem was in the past that many teens simply didn't drive during their probation period (many didn't have access to a car, for instance) and then they got their full unrestricted license with basically no driving experience whatsoever. They've now plugged that loophole and it is pretty much impossible to pass the second test without lots of driving experience.
[New Zealand] Customs said its counterparts in Australia, Canada, the United States and Britain had equivalent powers, though the department has so far been unable to substantiate that.
Is that true? Does anyone know the current law in those countries? I think it is true in the U.K. where you can be jailed for not handing over passwords and/or encryption keys, but I don't know about Australia, Canada, or the U.S. Can anyone shed some light on this?
After all, rich, old, retired people speed, too.
Stop laughing.
And how do the authorities establish your total wealth? Income can be obtained by looking at your income tax return. But there's no government record of people's wealth (not yet, anyway). And penalizing people based on their wealth would only encourage people to store their wealth offshore.
modern English grew out of Old English
Actually it grew out of a combination of Old English and Medieval French.
It's not academic cheating if someone who has completed the exam discusses the questions in public and since they are minors they can't even sign a contract to enforce legal penalties.
There may not be legal penalties, but there could be academic penalties. Minors get caught and punished for cheating on school tests all the time.
I wouldn't dismiss the criminal aspect of this so quickly. There are plenty of laws on the books designed to prevent government agencies from using taxpayer resources on misinforming the public. If any of the edits were deliberately false, it's entirely possible it was a crime for the NYPD, even if it's not a crime for the jerk down the street.
Can you cite these laws please? If there are laws as you describe, every President of the United States should be in prison. Also, we don't know for a fact that taxpayer resources were used.
If we can get Aaron Swartz to kill himself over "Hacking" by downloading a bunch of easily available peer-reviewed journals, why can't we treat "tampering of community works" with the same, broad, over-reaching laws?
What happened to Aaron Schwartz was a tragedy, as it is any time someone takes their own life. But he broke into a Harvard networking closet (that's physical trespass), and rewired a router (that's computer trespass) in order to download the journal articles that he otherwise did not have access to (or at least not at the speed with which he downloaded them). That's hardly "easily available". Was the justice department wrong to lay charges in that case? If they were wrong to do so, was it because what he did wasn't a crime or because he was a suicide risk due to mental health issues? If the latter, do we allow anyone with mental health problems to get away with any crimes because they would be a suicide risk if arrested and charged?
Cyber warfare. Destroying or altering public records is likely a criminal offense.
First of all Wikipedia isn't "public records". Secondly, Wikipedia is set up that way. People can make edits. Other people can edit the edits. It's bad form to try to bias an article with opinions or to state facts without citations, but it's not illegal. These changes were caught by editors and presumably corrected if they were in error or introduced bias. That's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. This revelation might be embarrassing for the NYPD, but it is hardly criminal.
I hope the Device Protection feature is optional.
Of course it is. You can't use it unless you put a Google account on the device.
Right, but I have put a Google account on the device. I hope the device protection is still optional. Since I'm already using encryption, I'm not sure the device protection will add much security. Will a thief return my device when they discover they can't use it?
I hope the Device Protection feature is optional. I'd hate to think my device gets bricked because I delete my Google account or forget the password.
Must be a slow news day. You can't patent algorithms
So, how do you explain the fact that the RSA public key encryption algorithm was patented for 20 years?
Latest news from CNN as I write this is that his son Ben Ford tweeted: "At the hospital. Dad is ok. Battered, but ok!"