I recently moved off Avast Free because it's becoming nagware and it's popularity is making it a target. Bit Defender is what MSE initially was before it became a standard part of Windows and it's detection rate went to shit. Solid protection with minimal user interaction.
Whether the implant records a person's thoughts is not material. A diary is not protected under the 5th even though it is a recording of private thoughts, so why should an implant that records thoughts be treated differently?
I think rgmoore has a point, the key is not that a device records thought, but when does device data become indistinguishable from private thought. If a person had brain damage and there was an implant that would effectively take the place of that damaged part of the brain, say memory, then I think it would become a legal issue.
There is also the issue of how easily the data could be retrieved. The court weighs the potential probative value of the evidence against the rights of the individual and that generally precludes procedures which endanger one's health, cause severe pain, or lasting trauma.
When looking for the WaPo article I linked to I noticed they had added a correction since I first read it:
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story mischaracterized the prescription drug overdose death rates. In aggregate, states with medical marijuana laws had higher death rates than those without, though the authors’ statistical analysis did find that the laws were in fact associated with overall decreases in overdose deaths.
Which means that the idea that legalized states had lower death rates is not true.
Using death certificates compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that the rate of prescription painkiller overdose deaths increased in all states from 1999 to 2010. But we also found that implementation of a medical marijuana law was associated with a 25 percent lower yearly rate of opioid painkiller overdose deaths, on average. In absolute terms, we estimated that states with a medical marijuana law had a total of about 1,700 fewer opioid painkiller overdose deaths in 2010 than would be expected based on trends before the laws were passed.
Since the author states that all states had increases in OD death rates, the summary's claim that legalization led to "a dramatic reduction in overdose fatalities" is also not true. The "reduction" in OD deaths was due to the difference between the statistically expected death rate in legalized states using the non-legalized state death rate trends compared to the observed death rate. In other words, and being very rough with the math, the non-legalized states had their OD death rates increase 4x, but the legalized states only had a 3x increase, therefore the legalized group had 25% fewer deaths than would be expected if they were following the non-legalized trend.
This study has been misreported nearly everywhere. The study didn't find states with legalized medical marijuana had fewer deaths than non-legal states. Legalized states continually had more deaths per capita, and both groups had dramatic increased in opiate OD deaths over the period covered by the study. The researchers found OD death rates in legalized states increased ~25% less than expected.
I don't have access to the full study, but this chart included in this Washington Post article shows both groups OD death rate increase dramatically over time. It's interesting to note the change from 2009-2010, which significantly narrowed the gap between the groups. Prior to that year both groups seemed to be on similar trend lines. That said, groups moved from the illegal to legalized group over the course of the study and I'm not sure if or how the chart was adjusted for those changes.
On the other hand if you're a Tor developer interested in disrupting the NSA unit assigned to hack your system why not just say you receive regular leaks from the NSA unit assigned to hack your system.
Really all 40k of them are "new students". This is a different group of kids, presumably taking a different test, perhaps with different prep methods, so it's not so easy to isolate the effects of the extra 8K students. If we were able to isolate the "new students" from the core 32K that would have taken the test anyway, and assume the core group would have gotten the same 68% pass rate we could estimate that the new group had around a 33% pass rate.
33% is a pretty poor pass rate, but on the other hand that represents 2600 students who passed that may not have taken the test at all. And taking the test is usually a no risk proposition as reporting the score is generally voluntary for college applications and many will be taking them after they have already been accepted to a school.
That said there is some risk to failing. The first is the hard to quantify effect on motivation to continue in the field. This kind of discouragement can negatively affect some, though it also can help guide students into a field that may be a better fit for them. Also, some high schools record AP scores in the student's transcript, and if a student does poorly on the exam it can be made exponentially worse if the admission board notices they did well in the AP class itself since it calls into question how rigorous the school's course work/grading system is.
So you are saying that Amazon has somehow found a way to actually ship items for free, to both the user and itself? Otherwise, whether they call it "free" or "covered" the cost of shipping is covered by the product purchase price.
The 5th absolutely protects the "contents of one's mind". The Supreme often uses those exact words in many cases affirming the notion. In fact, one common analogy the court uses in deciding these issues is that the government can force a suspect to produce the key to a safe, but it cannot force him/her to produce a combination for a safe.
The 5th does protect against coerced testimony, and that includes passwords or knowledge of physical evidence. However, once the government knows that physical evidence exists and is in the possession or under the control of the suspect they can compel the suspect to produce the evidence, whether that evidence be business records, personal papers or computer data. So while the suspect cannot be compelled to reveal his password, if the government knows an encrypted drive contains incriminating evidence it can compel him/her to produce the unencrypted data. That is why the suspect are not ordered to reveal the password, but to unlock the data for the police.
One key distinction here is that the government must have ‘reasonably particularity’ concerning the evidence it requests. They cannot merely suspect the evidence may exist. Cases where defendants are compelled to produce unencrypted drives usually have other factors such as U.S. v. Friscou where the government had recordings of the defendant talking about the incriminating contents of the encrypted data. Or, in re Boucher where police saw the unencrypted content of a laptop that was turned on, but then lost access when it was powered down.
In the safe analogy the police cannot compel a suspect to produce a combination, but if they have sufficient reason to believe the safe contains a incriminating accounting ledger, they can compel the suspect to open it and produce the ledger.
In the most likely scenario that the trunk is never damaged in an accident then at some point you are left with a very expensive carbon trunk lid with an embedded battery that no longer holds a charge.
"When critics of passenger-rail subsidies, such as Randal O’Toole of the Cato Institute, suggest that the highway costs are mostly covered by the gas tax, Lind counters with figures from a 2008 Federal Highway Administration paper: the FHA reports that highway user fees, including gas taxes, only cover 51 percent of costs. By contrast, Amtrak in 2010 covered 67 percent of its operating costs from ticket fares and other revenue."
That's BS. First, Amtrak's "Operating costs" are all inclusive, while the FHA's, or indeed all government highway spending, represent only a small fraction of the operational cost of the highway system. Add in a large part of the US auto industry (sales, parts and service, insurance, fuel, etc) and you will get a more accurate picture of the "operational costs" of the highway system.
"On average, highway users paid $1.91 per thousand passenger-miles to the federal government over their highway allocated cost during 1990-2002"
"Passenger rail received the largest subsidy per thousand passenger-miles, averaging $186.35 per thousand passenger-miles during."
In other words, if a highway user and a rail user both travel 1000 miles, the feds earn $2 from the highway user while they spend $186 on the rail user.
the next question is whether the "major purpose [of the organization] is involvement in campaign activity". If the answer is yes, then it is considered a political committee (see above).
It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory.
It's something their former golden girl Cindy Sheehan found out when she was considering running against a Democrat, and was (according to her last Kos post) warned to stop posting on the site if she did.
According to the report the average cost per mile was $2.281 and the average lifespan was 178,739 miles. That means the average cost is $408k per vehicle. According to Wikipedia there are approximately 250 million passenger vehicles in the US. That puts the total cost of all the cars in the US alone at $102 trillion dollars, or approximately the entire US Gross Domestic Product for the last 8 years.
DVD Decrypter is easy to find, but Lightning UK was forced to stop development and take down the original site because of legal threats. Fortunately he continued to develop the excellent burning portion of the program with ImgBurn. As a result of the legal threats DVD Decrypter itself is now outdated as it cannot handle the some of the latest copy protections without assistance. RipIt4Me is a much better option for the latest DVD releases.
The Family Entertainment and Copyright act of 2005 specifically addressed the issue of 'on the fly' edits. It exempts businesses and individuals from copyright violation for creating, selling and operating technology which allows a person to "make imperceptible" portions of a copyrighted work with the consent of the viewer. The exemption is void if a hard copy of the altered work is created. It also requires a disclaimer to be shown before the work to inform the viewers that the work is altered from the original.
This covers DVRs and also 'clean' DVD players and services that automatically censor content based on the user's criteria. However, services like Cleanflix are not covered because of the hard copy exception.
Would it be compliant, according to the FSF, if the MEPIS distributor said the code was available upon request, and if requested pointed the user to an upstream provider's (or really anyone providing identical source files) free public depository? This is of course assuming the files are available.
I can understand the requirement for the MEPIS destributor to be responsible for maintaining the source availability, but I don't think it is necessary to require the distributor to personally distribute the source if it is generally available. If the source were to become unavailble then the distributor would be obligated to fulfill request, otherwise it seems to be an undue burden.
I think you are right. It is largely about context. In this case, from what I have read from people who saw the full episode, the risque activities were shown to have grave negative consequences. Apparently the FCC thought that even with that message, the scene was too graphic or gratuitous.
Do you think an impressionable teen is more likely to engage in murder, rape or irresponsible sex?
Of course, violence and sexual activity are in two entirely different leagues. In fact, the difference is so obvious that most children have developed fairly robust moral guidelines regarding violence by the time they are adolescence. Sex is a more complicated issue and developing a responsible attitude towards sex requires a lot more maturity. Most parents, even the evil conservative ones, don't say sex is bad and should never occur. In fact, they are more likely to say it's a beautiful, wonderful thing, but can have serious unintended emotional and physical repercussions. It is a delicate process, and made more difficult when you have to contend with hormones, peer pressure and MTV.
I'm not a moralist, but I just think people who try to equate violence and sex on TV are missing the point. Yes, they are different. Even a child can see that.
Based on empirical measurements, there have been 7 astronauts killed by shuttles using the old foam system, and 7 killed by the new foam system. If there's any correlation to be drawn from these numbers, it's that the change in foam had no effect on astronaut death rates.
Look at the way you phrase it: 7 kill while using the old system, 7 killed by the new foam. Even in your defense you suggest the new foam is at fault.
Also, claiming the "death rate" is unchanged assumes the old and new foam were used on an equal number of missions.
I agree. A strawman article, if such a thing exists. Still, the anti-MS masses here will tear it apart and parade like champions with their hollow victory.
1. Purchased a 75GXP 2. Experienced HD failure 3. NOT received a non-75GXP replacement or refund from anyone (IBM, Retailer, ect) 4. NOT received a 75GXP replacement, unless that replacement failed and you did not received a replacement or refund for that drive 5. Have your HD failure on record at IBM tech support, the IBM RMA database, or the "IBM 75GXP" database maintained by the Sheller Ludwig & Badey law firm as of February 15, 2005.
So, basically you need to have had multiple 75GXP failures until you just gave up on the warrenty process, or had a failure outside of warrenty but decided to report it to IBM just for fun, or had a failure and somehow knew about this lawsuit and the "IBM 75GXP" database being compiled and got on the list before Feb. 15.
Otherwise you get door #2 for just having proof of purchase of a 75GXP:
1. 25 CD-R w/ Jewel cases OR 2. 15% off coupon for IBM products, max $300 off.
Nope, no real evidence. Unless you count his full name, Luke Skywalker, which is given well before the reveal. And this Luke Skywalker happens to be living with Owen and Beru, the same people Obi-wan is seen giving baby Luke Skywalker at the end of EpIII. And the fact that Obi-wan said he would watch over baby Luke and he just happens to live close to this other Luke. And he's about the right age, considering how much Obi has aged. And he doesn't know his father, except that he was a great pilot and jedi.
To prevent the companies from dumping unwanted inventory, lawyers for the states came up with a formula based on how much time artists spent on the Billboard charts, Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Eric Wilson said. But he conceded, "it may be hard to believe looking at the selections."
Slashdot Mirror
Searching for CryptoDefense mostly brings up references to a randsomware program.
No mod points, but +1 to parent comment.
I recently moved off Avast Free because it's becoming nagware and it's popularity is making it a target. Bit Defender is what MSE initially was before it became a standard part of Windows and it's detection rate went to shit. Solid protection with minimal user interaction.
Whether the implant records a person's thoughts is not material. A diary is not protected under the 5th even though it is a recording of private thoughts, so why should an implant that records thoughts be treated differently?
I think rgmoore has a point, the key is not that a device records thought, but when does device data become indistinguishable from private thought. If a person had brain damage and there was an implant that would effectively take the place of that damaged part of the brain, say memory, then I think it would become a legal issue.
There is also the issue of how easily the data could be retrieved. The court weighs the potential probative value of the evidence against the rights of the individual and that generally precludes procedures which endanger one's health, cause severe pain, or lasting trauma.
When looking for the WaPo article I linked to I noticed they had added a correction since I first read it:
Which means that the idea that legalized states had lower death rates is not true.
Also, the author of the study wrote a piece for the NY Times in which he said:
Since the author states that all states had increases in OD death rates, the summary's claim that legalization led to "a dramatic reduction in overdose fatalities" is also not true. The "reduction" in OD deaths was due to the difference between the statistically expected death rate in legalized states using the non-legalized state death rate trends compared to the observed death rate. In other words, and being very rough with the math, the non-legalized states had their OD death rates increase 4x, but the legalized states only had a 3x increase, therefore the legalized group had 25% fewer deaths than would be expected if they were following the non-legalized trend.
I meant to say states moved from the illegal to legalized group.
This study has been misreported nearly everywhere. The study didn't find states with legalized medical marijuana had fewer deaths than non-legal states. Legalized states continually had more deaths per capita, and both groups had dramatic increased in opiate OD deaths over the period covered by the study. The researchers found OD death rates in legalized states increased ~25% less than expected.
I don't have access to the full study, but this chart included in this Washington Post article shows both groups OD death rate increase dramatically over time. It's interesting to note the change from 2009-2010, which significantly narrowed the gap between the groups. Prior to that year both groups seemed to be on similar trend lines. That said, groups moved from the illegal to legalized group over the course of the study and I'm not sure if or how the chart was adjusted for those changes.
On the other hand if you're a Tor developer interested in disrupting the NSA unit assigned to hack your system why not just say you receive regular leaks from the NSA unit assigned to hack your system.
Really all 40k of them are "new students". This is a different group of kids, presumably taking a different test, perhaps with different prep methods, so it's not so easy to isolate the effects of the extra 8K students. If we were able to isolate the "new students" from the core 32K that would have taken the test anyway, and assume the core group would have gotten the same 68% pass rate we could estimate that the new group had around a 33% pass rate.
33% is a pretty poor pass rate, but on the other hand that represents 2600 students who passed that may not have taken the test at all. And taking the test is usually a no risk proposition as reporting the score is generally voluntary for college applications and many will be taking them after they have already been accepted to a school.
That said there is some risk to failing. The first is the hard to quantify effect on motivation to continue in the field. This kind of discouragement can negatively affect some, though it also can help guide students into a field that may be a better fit for them. Also, some high schools record AP scores in the student's transcript, and if a student does poorly on the exam it can be made exponentially worse if the admission board notices they did well in the AP class itself since it calls into question how rigorous the school's course work/grading system is.
So you are saying that Amazon has somehow found a way to actually ship items for free, to both the user and itself? Otherwise, whether they call it "free" or "covered" the cost of shipping is covered by the product purchase price.
Actually, you are incorrect.
The 5th absolutely protects the "contents of one's mind". The Supreme often uses those exact words in many cases affirming the notion. In fact, one common analogy the court uses in deciding these issues is that the government can force a suspect to produce the key to a safe, but it cannot force him/her to produce a combination for a safe.
The 5th does protect against coerced testimony, and that includes passwords or knowledge of physical evidence. However, once the government knows that physical evidence exists and is in the possession or under the control of the suspect they can compel the suspect to produce the evidence, whether that evidence be business records, personal papers or computer data. So while the suspect cannot be compelled to reveal his password, if the government knows an encrypted drive contains incriminating evidence it can compel him/her to produce the unencrypted data. That is why the suspect are not ordered to reveal the password, but to unlock the data for the police.
One key distinction here is that the government must have ‘reasonably particularity’ concerning the evidence it requests. They cannot merely suspect the evidence may exist. Cases where defendants are compelled to produce unencrypted drives usually have other factors such as U.S. v. Friscou where the government had recordings of the defendant talking about the incriminating contents of the encrypted data. Or, in re Boucher where police saw the unencrypted content of a laptop that was turned on, but then lost access when it was powered down.
In the safe analogy the police cannot compel a suspect to produce a combination, but if they have sufficient reason to believe the safe contains a incriminating accounting ledger, they can compel the suspect to open it and produce the ledger.
In the most likely scenario that the trunk is never damaged in an accident then at some point you are left with a very expensive carbon trunk lid with an embedded battery that no longer holds a charge.
To generate page views, of course.
"When critics of passenger-rail subsidies, such as Randal O’Toole of the Cato Institute, suggest that the highway costs are mostly covered by the gas tax, Lind counters with figures from a 2008 Federal Highway Administration paper: the FHA reports that highway user fees, including gas taxes, only cover 51 percent of costs. By contrast, Amtrak in 2010 covered 67 percent of its operating costs from ticket fares and other revenue."
That's BS. First, Amtrak's "Operating costs" are all inclusive, while the FHA's, or indeed all government highway spending, represent only a small fraction of the operational cost of the highway system. Add in a large part of the US auto industry (sales, parts and service, insurance, fuel, etc) and you will get a more accurate picture of the "operational costs" of the highway system.
Or simply compare the federal costs vs revenue by mode of transportation per passenger. Which is something the Bureau of Transportation Statistics did in 2004: http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/pdf/entire.pdf
They found:
"On average, highway users paid $1.91 per thousand passenger-miles to the federal government over their highway allocated cost during 1990-2002"
"Passenger rail received the largest subsidy per thousand passenger-miles, averaging $186.35 per thousand passenger-miles during."
In other words, if a highway user and a rail user both travel 1000 miles, the feds earn $2 from the highway user while they spend $186 on the rail user.
According to Kos himself:
It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory.It's something their former golden girl Cindy Sheehan found out when she was considering running against a Democrat, and was (according to her last Kos post) warned to stop posting on the site if she did.
According to the report the average cost per mile was $2.281 and the average lifespan was 178,739 miles. That means the average cost is $408k per vehicle. According to Wikipedia there are approximately 250 million passenger vehicles in the US. That puts the total cost of all the cars in the US alone at $102 trillion dollars, or approximately the entire US Gross Domestic Product for the last 8 years.
DVD Decrypter is easy to find, but Lightning UK was forced to stop development and take down the original site because of legal threats. Fortunately he continued to develop the excellent burning portion of the program with ImgBurn. As a result of the legal threats DVD Decrypter itself is now outdated as it cannot handle the some of the latest copy protections without assistance. RipIt4Me is a much better option for the latest DVD releases.
The Family Entertainment and Copyright act of 2005 specifically addressed the issue of 'on the fly' edits. It exempts businesses and individuals from copyright violation for creating, selling and operating technology which allows a person to "make imperceptible" portions of a copyrighted work with the consent of the viewer. The exemption is void if a hard copy of the altered work is created. It also requires a disclaimer to be shown before the work to inform the viewers that the work is altered from the original.
This covers DVRs and also 'clean' DVD players and services that automatically censor content based on the user's criteria. However, services like Cleanflix are not covered because of the hard copy exception.
Would it be compliant, according to the FSF, if the MEPIS distributor said the code was available upon request, and if requested pointed the user to an upstream provider's (or really anyone providing identical source files) free public depository? This is of course assuming the files are available.
I can understand the requirement for the MEPIS destributor to be responsible for maintaining the source availability, but I don't think it is necessary to require the distributor to personally distribute the source if it is generally available. If the source were to become unavailble then the distributor would be obligated to fulfill request, otherwise it seems to be an undue burden.
I think you are right. It is largely about context. In this case, from what I have read from people who saw the full episode, the risque activities were shown to have grave negative consequences. Apparently the FCC thought that even with that message, the scene was too graphic or gratuitous.
Do you think an impressionable teen is more likely to engage in murder, rape or irresponsible sex?
Of course, violence and sexual activity are in two entirely different leagues. In fact, the difference is so obvious that most children have developed fairly robust moral guidelines regarding violence by the time they are adolescence. Sex is a more complicated issue and developing a responsible attitude towards sex requires a lot more maturity. Most parents, even the evil conservative ones, don't say sex is bad and should never occur. In fact, they are more likely to say it's a beautiful, wonderful thing, but can have serious unintended emotional and physical repercussions. It is a delicate process, and made more difficult when you have to contend with hormones, peer pressure and MTV.
I'm not a moralist, but I just think people who try to equate violence and sex on TV are missing the point. Yes, they are different. Even a child can see that.
Look at the way you phrase it: 7 kill while using the old system, 7 killed by the new foam. Even in your defense you suggest the new foam is at fault.
Also, claiming the "death rate" is unchanged assumes the old and new foam were used on an equal number of missions.
I agree. A strawman article, if such a thing exists. Still, the anti-MS masses here will tear it apart and parade like champions with their hollow victory.
seems to be very difficult. The requirements:
1. Purchased a 75GXP
2. Experienced HD failure
3. NOT received a non-75GXP replacement or refund from anyone (IBM, Retailer, ect)
4. NOT received a 75GXP replacement, unless that replacement failed and you did not received a replacement or refund for that drive
5. Have your HD failure on record at IBM tech support, the IBM RMA database, or the "IBM 75GXP" database maintained by the Sheller Ludwig & Badey law firm as of February 15, 2005.
So, basically you need to have had multiple 75GXP failures until you just gave up on the warrenty process, or had a failure outside of warrenty but decided to report it to IBM just for fun, or had a failure and somehow knew about this lawsuit and the "IBM 75GXP" database being compiled and got on the list before Feb. 15.
Otherwise you get door #2 for just having proof of purchase of a 75GXP:
1. 25 CD-R w/ Jewel cases
OR
2. 15% off coupon for IBM products, max $300 off.
It's really all just circumstantial.
To prevent the companies from dumping unwanted inventory, lawyers for the states came up with a formula based on how much time artists spent on the Billboard charts, Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Eric Wilson said. But he conceded, "it may be hard to believe looking at the selections."