Even if you don't sign up to Facebook, they are tracking you because of their little F icon and/or scripts/cookies are being loaded up by your web browser on any webpage you are visiting.
Nobody says you have to click the little F icon!
Really. Facebook is offering a free service here. No one is forcing you to sign up, and even if you do sign up, no one is forcing you to reveal personal details. If they can be charged under the federal wiretap statute, then really no website that uses cookies is safe. The best solution is just to not use Facebook, rather than ask the government to twist the law to fit what Facebook is doing.
I don't think I should have to disable my phone to prevent the authorities from high jacking it. After all I paid for the phone and I'm a citizen not a subject. If they can convince a judge they can get a warrant, otherwise hands off.
The advantage to taking out the battery, especially when doing something private, is it protects you even when the police DO have a warrant!
Unlike GPS devices covertly installed on your vehicle by police, cell phones are in the user's control. You don't have to leave it turned on all the time. In particular, if you are doing something private, like visiting your mistress, you can simply turn the phone off before driving to her apartment. And if you're afraid the phone will still leak location information while in standby or power-off mode, you can simply remove the battery.
which effectively means the control of the internet passes on to World Governments directly.
No it doesn't. Only if the US gives up control of assigned IP addresses and DNS tlds that it controls. Already each country controls their own two letter tld.
Oh, and also drew attention to the government's apparent imprisonment of innocent people for political reasons.
Then he's doing the government's work for them. They wanted to make an example of him, and by drawing attention to his case, he's helping them to succeed.
Ummm, go to any beach in Europe and knock yourself out.
We Americans are diseased in the head in many ways.
Ummm, the differences the people on those beaches are there by choice, and if they are topless, they are topless by choice. That's why the beaches are called clothing optional.
I second that. If you want to learn a new language now, Ruby is the way to go. It just makes it so easy to do object oriented programming properly. (In that sense it's the polar opposite of C++). So, Ruby is a great all purpose language, and for speed critical work, just use C.
This rule, mentioned in the summary has me wondering:
The rules also state that teachers have no expectation of privacy online, and that principals and other officials will inspect teachers' profiles.
Does this mean that teachers will be required to accept friend requests from principals or other superior school officials so they can inspect their Facebook profiles and examine their friends lists? I understand having no expectation of privacy online as far as publicly posted material goes, but will teachers be required to give their superiors special access? For my own Facebook profile, if you're not a friend, all you can see is my name and profile pic, nothing else. I'm curious if teachers would be required to make more available to their superiors under this rule.
You're probably talking about the fact that an ordered field with the least upper bound property is equivalent to the real numbers
True, the gp must be talking about a complete, ordered field, as there exist non-ordered fields (such as the complex numbers) whose members do not map neatly to points on a line, and some but not all ordered fields do: archimedian ordered fields, such as the rational and real numbers can be plotted on a line, but non-archimedian ordered fields, like the field of rational functions (ordered by the signs of the leading coefficient in the numerator when the leading coefficient in the denominator is positive) also do not fit neatly on a line as we understand it. A complete ordered field is necessarily archimedian, as it is isomorphic to the real number system.
True. According to this page this is X server software that runs on Windows. The article is a bit misleading, suggesting the software in question runs on a mainframe. This is unlikely as the claim is they need 6500+ licenses, and it is unlikely they have over 6500 mainframes! This is PC software that lets them access data on a mainframe, presumably through an X11 type interface. Given that they need so many licenses, it would seem to make more sense to use a free alternative, such as Cygwin/X.
Is anonymous communication really a right? It's a relatively new thing in human interaction, is it really necessary, or beneficial?
I guess that depends on what you mean by "relatively new thing", as Common Sense, the pamphlet distributed anonymously by Thomas Paine, who has been called the father of the American Revolution is more than 200 years old. As to whether or not such speech is beneficial or not, I suppose it depends, at least in part, on whether or not you think the American Revolution was a good idea.
Apologies for replying to my own post, but I must make a correction. The link I provided was not for the Pearson v Liu case, but rather for the current case mentioned in the article. I was therefore in error in stating that the Supreme Court allowed that ruling to stand. The more relevant case, as it has already reached the Supreme Court is Omega v Costco, a 9th Circuit Court opinion which held the same thing: the First Sale Doctrine does NOT apply to copyrighted goods manufactured abroad. This opinion was appealed to the Supreme Court, but Justice Kagan recused herself, as she had previously argued the case for the government. The result was a 4-4 decision, which meant that the 9th Circuit decision stood, but it doesn't set a national precedent. This present case might well settle that precedent once and for all.
I fail to understand how the first-sale doctrine does not apply just because the first sale was outside the US. I would understand completely if ICE was coming after him for not paying duties or tariffs, but what does copyright have to do with anything here? He didn't make copies. He simply resold books the publisher was already paid for.
The First Sale Doctrine doesn't apply to copyrighted good manufactured outside the U.S. The relevant case law is Pearson v. Liu, decided in the district court of the Southern District of New York. The case was appealed to the 2nd circuit court of appeals which affirmed the lower court's decision. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court which denied to hear the case, letting the decision of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to stand.
Obviously Google is not going to fight a $25,000 fine. That's just pocket change to them. This is just the FCC trying to save face, so they can come away from this saying they did accomplish something, when in fact, they accomplished nothing but wasting time and energy.
If you read the decision, you'll see two very important things.
First, the justices didn't say the concept of the law is unconstitutional. Because the provision only applies in exigent circumstances, where "an officer believes on reasonable grounds that the interception is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm, provided judicial authorization could not be obtained with reasonable diligence", the justices said the provision would be constitutional on those grounds. However they ruled it unconstitutional on the grounds there is no oversight provision built into statute, and therefore police could use it to silently intercept all sorts of communications and no one would be the wiser. Only if someone is charged criminally, would they be (1) made aware of the intercept and (2) be able to challenge it in court. The justices did say that if parliament added a notice provision to the statute, in which the intercepted party were notified after the fact then the statute would be constitutional.
Second, the court suspended the application of their judgement for 12 months to give Parliament the opportunity to amend the statute to bring in line with the constitution, which they will most likely do.
The first computer I ever programmed or had in my home was a Commodore PET model 2001 computer. My father was a teacher taking an 8 week course in microcomputers and he was able to bring a PET home with him for the duration of the course. That was in 1978. A few years later, the first computer I ever owned was a Commodore 64. In high school computer science class we used Commodore PET model 4032 computers with Waterloo Structured BASIC, until I introduced the teacher to COMAL, which ran on the new Commodore 64s the school had just acquired.
Did you ever use a Commodore PET computer? It certainly wasn't anywhere near as sexy as an Apple or an Atari.
Ummm, the first PET came out when all Atari offered was the 2600 video game console; their computers, the Atari 400 and 800 came out a few years later. And both the Atari and Apple computers (and the Atari 2600 console) used the 6502 chip, which was codesigned by Chuck Peddle, who designed the first PET computer. And soon after MOS Technologies developed the 6502 they were bought by Commodore.
Anyone can write any IP number in the sender field on any IP packet and send it to any other IP number.
Yeah, but you can't do any file sharing unless packets get sent back to you. Simply writing a fake IP address on a packet and sending it out won't accomplish anything. In fact, to even establish a TCP connection there has to be return packets. (The so-called three-way handshake: SYN, ACK/SYN, ACK). UDP doesn't require a return path, but again, using it to participate in file sharing would.
All that said, I do agree that an IP address is not enough to identify a user. Depending on the security settings of the ISP, people might be able to "steal" unused IP addresses on the same subnet, but I think in modern setups that wouldn't work. Customers are usually assigned an IP address based on the MAC address of their cable/DSL modem, and packets destined for a different IP address generally won't be routed there. So I don't think it's as easy as you've described above.
In this case, they apparently showed the victim a bunch of pictures of people who had "friended" the bar, got an ID based on that
Please read the article more carefully. It says no such thing. What the article says is " 'I was recently accused of assault and arrested based on a thumbnail photo from my profile pic on Facebook,' she wrote on the very same Facebook page. 'Please let this be an eye opener.' " Nowhere does it say the police were the ones that used Facebook to identify her. It could well have been the victim that did so. Also, it doesn't say anywhere that she friended the bar, as you assert.
Further on, the article says "She said she received an e-mail in January from a Toronto Police officer in 14 Division 'asking me to contact them about an incident that occurred at The Piston (on Bloor St. W., Nov. 19, 2011).' " Now this is just bizarre. Since when did the police e-mail suspects inviting them to come in and be arrested? And who in their right mind would accept such an invitation? I think there must be more to this story than we're seeing.
Police use photos all the time to get witnesses to ID suspects. What difference does it make if the photo comes from Facebook, a driver's license, a mugshot, or a candid shot taken by a police detective across the street? What does the fact that it happened to come from Facebook have to do with anything at all? It sounds like a routine witness identification. She'll still get a trial and can present her alibi there, and the jury will decide which side is more credible.
Slashdot Mirror
I love Perl, but I'm curious. Whatever happened to Perl 6? I remember hearing about it way back when I was in grad school, which was a long time ago.
Even if you don't sign up to Facebook, they are tracking you because of their little F icon and/or scripts/cookies are being loaded up by your web browser on any webpage you are visiting.
Nobody says you have to click the little F icon!
Really. Facebook is offering a free service here. No one is forcing you to sign up, and even if you do sign up, no one is forcing you to reveal personal details. If they can be charged under the federal wiretap statute, then really no website that uses cookies is safe. The best solution is just to not use Facebook, rather than ask the government to twist the law to fit what Facebook is doing.
I don't think I should have to disable my phone to prevent the authorities from high jacking it. After all I paid for the phone and I'm a citizen not a subject. If they can convince a judge they can get a warrant, otherwise hands off.
The advantage to taking out the battery, especially when doing something private, is it protects you even when the police DO have a warrant!
There is an APP for th.... oh wait. You can't simply remove the battery on the iPhones.
Sounds like a damn good reason not to buy an iPhone then.
Unlike GPS devices covertly installed on your vehicle by police, cell phones are in the user's control. You don't have to leave it turned on all the time. In particular, if you are doing something private, like visiting your mistress, you can simply turn the phone off before driving to her apartment. And if you're afraid the phone will still leak location information while in standby or power-off mode, you can simply remove the battery.
which effectively means the control of the internet passes on to World Governments directly.
No it doesn't. Only if the US gives up control of assigned IP addresses and DNS tlds that it controls. Already each country controls their own two letter tld.
Oh, and also drew attention to the government's apparent imprisonment of innocent people for political reasons.
Then he's doing the government's work for them. They wanted to make an example of him, and by drawing attention to his case, he's helping them to succeed.
Ummm, go to any beach in Europe and knock yourself out.
We Americans are diseased in the head in many ways.
Ummm, the differences the people on those beaches are there by choice, and if they are topless, they are topless by choice. That's why the beaches are called clothing optional.
I second that. If you want to learn a new language now, Ruby is the way to go. It just makes it so easy to do object oriented programming properly. (In that sense it's the polar opposite of C++). So, Ruby is a great all purpose language, and for speed critical work, just use C.
The rules also state that teachers have no expectation of privacy online, and that principals and other officials will inspect teachers' profiles.
Does this mean that teachers will be required to accept friend requests from principals or other superior school officials so they can inspect their Facebook profiles and examine their friends lists? I understand having no expectation of privacy online as far as publicly posted material goes, but will teachers be required to give their superiors special access? For my own Facebook profile, if you're not a friend, all you can see is my name and profile pic, nothing else. I'm curious if teachers would be required to make more available to their superiors under this rule.
You're probably talking about the fact that an ordered field with the least upper bound property is equivalent to the real numbers
True, the gp must be talking about a complete, ordered field, as there exist non-ordered fields (such as the complex numbers) whose members do not map neatly to points on a line, and some but not all ordered fields do: archimedian ordered fields, such as the rational and real numbers can be plotted on a line, but non-archimedian ordered fields, like the field of rational functions (ordered by the signs of the leading coefficient in the numerator when the leading coefficient in the denominator is positive) also do not fit neatly on a line as we understand it. A complete ordered field is necessarily archimedian, as it is isomorphic to the real number system.
True. According to this page this is X server software that runs on Windows. The article is a bit misleading, suggesting the software in question runs on a mainframe. This is unlikely as the claim is they need 6500+ licenses, and it is unlikely they have over 6500 mainframes! This is PC software that lets them access data on a mainframe, presumably through an X11 type interface. Given that they need so many licenses, it would seem to make more sense to use a free alternative, such as Cygwin/X.
Is anonymous communication really a right? It's a relatively new thing in human interaction, is it really necessary, or beneficial?
I guess that depends on what you mean by "relatively new thing", as Common Sense, the pamphlet distributed anonymously by Thomas Paine, who has been called the father of the American Revolution is more than 200 years old. As to whether or not such speech is beneficial or not, I suppose it depends, at least in part, on whether or not you think the American Revolution was a good idea.
Anonymous payment systems are not good because they let you evade the government,
Well, that's a matter of opinion.
Apologies for replying to my own post, but I must make a correction. The link I provided was not for the Pearson v Liu case, but rather for the current case mentioned in the article. I was therefore in error in stating that the Supreme Court allowed that ruling to stand. The more relevant case, as it has already reached the Supreme Court is Omega v Costco, a 9th Circuit Court opinion which held the same thing: the First Sale Doctrine does NOT apply to copyrighted goods manufactured abroad. This opinion was appealed to the Supreme Court, but Justice Kagan recused herself, as she had previously argued the case for the government. The result was a 4-4 decision, which meant that the 9th Circuit decision stood, but it doesn't set a national precedent. This present case might well settle that precedent once and for all.
I fail to understand how the first-sale doctrine does not apply just because the first sale was outside the US. I would understand completely if ICE was coming after him for not paying duties or tariffs, but what does copyright have to do with anything here? He didn't make copies. He simply resold books the publisher was already paid for.
The First Sale Doctrine doesn't apply to copyrighted good manufactured outside the U.S. The relevant case law is Pearson v. Liu, decided in the district court of the Southern District of New York. The case was appealed to the 2nd circuit court of appeals which affirmed the lower court's decision. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court which denied to hear the case, letting the decision of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to stand.
Obviously Google is not going to fight a $25,000 fine. That's just pocket change to them. This is just the FCC trying to save face, so they can come away from this saying they did accomplish something, when in fact, they accomplished nothing but wasting time and energy.
If you read the decision, you'll see two very important things.
First, the justices didn't say the concept of the law is unconstitutional. Because the provision only applies in exigent circumstances, where "an officer believes on reasonable grounds that the interception is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm, provided judicial authorization could not be obtained with reasonable diligence", the justices said the provision would be constitutional on those grounds. However they ruled it unconstitutional on the grounds there is no oversight provision built into statute, and therefore police could use it to silently intercept all sorts of communications and no one would be the wiser. Only if someone is charged criminally, would they be (1) made aware of the intercept and (2) be able to challenge it in court. The justices did say that if parliament added a notice provision to the statute, in which the intercepted party were notified after the fact then the statute would be constitutional.
Second, the court suspended the application of their judgement for 12 months to give Parliament the opportunity to amend the statute to bring in line with the constitution, which they will most likely do.
Love it or hate it, PayPal has become a de facto standard for Internet payments. What would this service offer that PayPal didn't?
The first computer I ever programmed or had in my home was a Commodore PET model 2001 computer. My father was a teacher taking an 8 week course in microcomputers and he was able to bring a PET home with him for the duration of the course. That was in 1978. A few years later, the first computer I ever owned was a Commodore 64. In high school computer science class we used Commodore PET model 4032 computers with Waterloo Structured BASIC, until I introduced the teacher to COMAL, which ran on the new Commodore 64s the school had just acquired.
Did you ever use a Commodore PET computer? It certainly wasn't anywhere near as sexy as an Apple or an Atari.
Ummm, the first PET came out when all Atari offered was the 2600 video game console; their computers, the Atari 400 and 800 came out a few years later. And both the Atari and Apple computers (and the Atari 2600 console) used the 6502 chip, which was codesigned by Chuck Peddle, who designed the first PET computer. And soon after MOS Technologies developed the 6502 they were bought by Commodore.
Anyone can write any IP number in the sender field on any IP packet and send it to any other IP number.
Yeah, but you can't do any file sharing unless packets get sent back to you. Simply writing a fake IP address on a packet and sending it out won't accomplish anything. In fact, to even establish a TCP connection there has to be return packets. (The so-called three-way handshake: SYN, ACK/SYN, ACK). UDP doesn't require a return path, but again, using it to participate in file sharing would.
All that said, I do agree that an IP address is not enough to identify a user. Depending on the security settings of the ISP, people might be able to "steal" unused IP addresses on the same subnet, but I think in modern setups that wouldn't work. Customers are usually assigned an IP address based on the MAC address of their cable/DSL modem, and packets destined for a different IP address generally won't be routed there. So I don't think it's as easy as you've described above.
In this case, they apparently showed the victim a bunch of pictures of people who had "friended" the bar, got an ID based on that
Please read the article more carefully. It says no such thing. What the article says is " 'I was recently accused of assault and arrested based on a thumbnail photo from my profile pic on Facebook,' she wrote on the very same Facebook page. 'Please let this be an eye opener.' " Nowhere does it say the police were the ones that used Facebook to identify her. It could well have been the victim that did so. Also, it doesn't say anywhere that she friended the bar, as you assert.
Further on, the article says "She said she received an e-mail in January from a Toronto Police officer in 14 Division 'asking me to contact them about an incident that occurred at The Piston (on Bloor St. W., Nov. 19, 2011).' " Now this is just bizarre. Since when did the police e-mail suspects inviting them to come in and be arrested? And who in their right mind would accept such an invitation? I think there must be more to this story than we're seeing.
Police use photos all the time to get witnesses to ID suspects. What difference does it make if the photo comes from Facebook, a driver's license, a mugshot, or a candid shot taken by a police detective across the street? What does the fact that it happened to come from Facebook have to do with anything at all? It sounds like a routine witness identification. She'll still get a trial and can present her alibi there, and the jury will decide which side is more credible.
Did you just suggest boycotting Arizona? As a Tucson resident, that ticks me off. I'm calling the cops.
I for one will no longer drink Arizona Iced Tea.