... Also, it wouldn't solve a damn thing, as it would merely shift the focus from eavesdropping to more... direct methods of obtaining the required information, since a cypher is only as strong as the weakest point, in this case the carriers operating the networks between the human endpoints.
That is one part of the legacy of Enron. They lobbied hard for the free market system you have in Texas, it was the brilliantly intelligent part of what they did, the core business. The clever-but-incredibly-dumb part was the three-card monte debt hiding scheme they used to inflate their profits from loss-making projects: that was what brought them down and destroyed their employees' pension plans.
And it depends on their respective type of forming a solid object how much they actually weigh. A crystal of n atoms is a little lighter than n atoms of the same isotope as a fluid or a gas.
Lighter or has less mass? Fluid lead pretty much weighs nothing when it's in orbit.
Less mass.
Consider a sample of n particles as a crystal, and a sample of n similar particles as a fluid or gas. The atoms in the crystal have very little motion relative to each other, while the particles in the fluid (or gas) have a lot more motion. More motion means more mass, by a factor of 1/sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) times the rest mass (IIRC) for each particle. The sum over the sample for the crystal will be less than the sum over the sample for the fluid (or gas).
There's so much anti-tax rhetoric around here, it's a pleasure to read someone give a good argument that demonstrates why the rich should pay taxes, and the taxation system needs to be fixed so that they do.
All of this depends on your definition of "poor". According to some, if you make $50000 per year you are poor. According to others any household making under $100000 is poor.
The problem is that the Teabaggers and GOP appear to think that anyone making upwards of $250K is poor, and can't afford to pay taxes.
Do you really want to give corporations the ability to control what information is available? What do you do with freedom of speech if a corporation can disconnect you from a segment of your audience at will?
The FCC rules don't address this point right now, for wireless or "wireline", and that's why there is a push on the one hand (serving the public interest) for Network Neutrality to be formalized and administered by the FCC, and on the other (serving corporations), for the FCC to be kept out of making such rules at all.
Is the infrastructure for the wireless services created without any government subsidy, government tax break, government money?
This question attempts to frame the issue in a way which doesn't reflect the circumstances. The FCC was established to oversee the entities which licensed portions of the "public airwaves": the airwaves as a resource are a commons, and the licensees are allowed to exploit this commons for profit as long as they don't abuse the privilege.
What Google and Verizon are trying to do is to take this commons and enclose it, making private property of the public resource.
What do you not like about the idea of government for and by the people? Would you really prefer customers getting services from corporations that are bound to maximize shareholder value, with no checks and balances on their behavior?
I've asked the fire department official who was quoted asserting that the school's policies were violated to tell me what policy was violated, with that very link to the school's policy statement in the request.
The golden ratio turns up in anything that has a pentagon, so dodecahedrons, icosahedrons, and buckyballs all have it. It's not just the limit of the Fibonacci sequence.
I wish there was more geometry in the mathematics syllabus.
True. Though I agree that the Ninth allows that the Bill of Rights is not a complete enumeration of our Rights.
In your argument you do not refer to the whole of the Fourth Amendment, but only a part, in fact, just four words. Here are the rest of them:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There's a lot more here than just "unreasonable search and seizure." Yet you focus even more closely, on the distinction between unreasonable and reasonable alone, as though this were the only matter on which the Amendment turns. The Fourth Amendment is far more complex than you say, and taken as a whole, I read - and I think reasonably - that in general we should not be taken by surprise by a search or a seizure, but that if we are, there has to be a good reason, with specific details, given beforehand, to a judge, and that what can be seized, and where, must be incuded in the description to the judge. So what happens at airport security is a search with consent: there is no surprise. By way of contrast, what we know happened at AT&T's Fulsom St. CO and other sites round the country was a surprise, and seized personal effects in the shape of private communications addressed to parties that did not include the NSA, who had sought no warrant from any judge to seize anything in this manner.
You then seek to invalidate the notion that a Constitutional notion of privacy stands on the fourth amendment. I can only say that I disagree with your premises and your argument, and that I strongly recommend that you re-evaluate your view once you have read the French version of the Bill of Rights, Les Droits De l'Homme et du citoyen, written with the benefit of our Bill of Rights, but containing nothing that could be said to offer the reasonable expectation of privacy we enjoy that follows from "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." And, I argue, would not have but for the Fourth Amendment.
There is also the question of what is missing in your comments so far. I know this is slashdot, and there are plenty of things that I would like to say further on this subject, and I am sure you have had to compromise on what you can say; but I think it's important to note that you have said nothing about why there is a difference between warranted and warantless wiretaps at all, why the former are acceptable and the latter are not. To me, the distinction is clear and understandable.
It is pedantically true that there is no mention of wiretaps in the wording of the 4th Amendment - not surprising for a document written in 1789. But the first part of your "not factually wrong" conjunction (i.e. "Warrantless wiretapping infringes on our fundamental liberties") can only be true at all because of the 4th Amendment: there are other nations where it's not true at all.
I am astonished that you think that a police officer is in a better position to make a judgement of your rights than you. You are uniquely qualified to stand up for your rights: you are willfully abdicating your sovereignty over your self to any authority figure with a certificate or a uniform and an officious manner.
So, might I request that we all make it clear what our personal opinions are, but don't claim support of the Constitution if it doesn't actually say anything clear on the issue?
You may request it - and I for one won't agree to your request. If we can't say what our rights are, and insist that only qualified professionals should be able to talk about them; if we have no sense that we can speak of that our rights have been violated, we will end up with none at all.
The TL;DR is that Holder is trying to persuade Walker that there are ongoing surveillance programs that are (may be) legal which would be compromised, so please don't make the Administration explain why it violated the 4th Amendment Rights of everyone that made a phone call or sent an email, your honor.
Three years ago, boing boing reported that solar-powered WiFi networking was bringing Internet access to Tibet, where I understand there are some mountains higher than Timms Hill (elevation 595 m), and the wind and snow may be as bad as in Wisconsin.
It seems to me you could create your own community WiFi network and make an arrangement with a friendly neighbor in the next town where there is access to provide broadband for all at a very low monthly rate, and fairly low start-up costs.
Slashdot Mirror
... Also, it wouldn't solve a damn thing, as it would merely shift the focus from eavesdropping to more ... direct methods of obtaining the required information, since a cypher is only as strong as the weakest point, in this case the carriers operating the networks between the human endpoints.
FTFY.
That is one part of the legacy of Enron. They lobbied hard for the free market system you have in Texas, it was the brilliantly intelligent part of what they did, the core business. The clever-but-incredibly-dumb part was the three-card monte debt hiding scheme they used to inflate their profits from loss-making projects: that was what brought them down and destroyed their employees' pension plans.
This AC surely deserves an audience.
And it depends on their respective type of forming a solid object how much they actually weigh. A crystal of n atoms is a little lighter than n atoms of the same isotope as a fluid or a gas.
Lighter or has less mass? Fluid lead pretty much weighs nothing when it's in orbit.
Less mass.
Consider a sample of n particles as a crystal, and a sample of n similar particles as a fluid or gas. The atoms in the crystal have very little motion relative to each other, while the particles in the fluid (or gas) have a lot more motion. More motion means more mass, by a factor of 1/sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) times the rest mass (IIRC) for each particle. The sum over the sample for the crystal will be less than the sum over the sample for the fluid (or gas).
There's so much anti-tax rhetoric around here, it's a pleasure to read someone give a good argument that demonstrates why the rich should pay taxes, and the taxation system needs to be fixed so that they do.
All of this depends on your definition of "poor". According to some, if you make $50000 per year you are poor. According to others any household making under $100000 is poor.
The problem is that the Teabaggers and GOP appear to think that anyone making upwards of $250K is poor, and can't afford to pay taxes.
TFA has perchlorates.
Good thing for German workers.
There's no reason for that comment to be moderated off-topic to -1.
All good?
Do you really want to give corporations the ability to control what information is available? What do you do with freedom of speech if a corporation can disconnect you from a segment of your audience at will?
The FCC rules don't address this point right now, for wireless or "wireline", and that's why there is a push on the one hand (serving the public interest) for Network Neutrality to be formalized and administered by the FCC, and on the other (serving corporations), for the FCC to be kept out of making such rules at all.
Is the infrastructure for the wireless services created without any government subsidy, government tax break, government money?
This question attempts to frame the issue in a way which doesn't reflect the circumstances. The FCC was established to oversee the entities which licensed portions of the "public airwaves": the airwaves as a resource are a commons, and the licensees are allowed to exploit this commons for profit as long as they don't abuse the privilege.
What Google and Verizon are trying to do is to take this commons and enclose it, making private property of the public resource.
What do you not like about the idea of government for and by the people? Would you really prefer customers getting services from corporations that are bound to maximize shareholder value, with no checks and balances on their behavior?
FTFY.
It's been tried: we got Glenn Beck and Rahm Emmanuel for our pains.
You're invited to find any part of the policy that the student could have violated in any way with their motion detector project.
No reply yet.
just cause' you can't measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist
Oh? There's a slight problem with this assertion of yours. Here's a metric for a phenomenon that you claim can't be measured:
0: it doesn't exist.
1: it exists.
Now, give an example of a phenomenon which exists and can't be measured.
I wish there was more geometry in the mathematics syllabus.
True. Though I agree that the Ninth allows that the Bill of Rights is not a complete enumeration of our Rights.
In your argument you do not refer to the whole of the Fourth Amendment, but only a part, in fact, just four words. Here are the rest of them:
There's a lot more here than just "unreasonable search and seizure." Yet you focus even more closely, on the distinction between unreasonable and reasonable alone, as though this were the only matter on which the Amendment turns. The Fourth Amendment is far more complex than you say, and taken as a whole, I read - and I think reasonably - that in general we should not be taken by surprise by a search or a seizure, but that if we are, there has to be a good reason, with specific details, given beforehand, to a judge, and that what can be seized, and where, must be incuded in the description to the judge. So what happens at airport security is a search with consent: there is no surprise. By way of contrast, what we know happened at AT&T's Fulsom St. CO and other sites round the country was a surprise, and seized personal effects in the shape of private communications addressed to parties that did not include the NSA, who had sought no warrant from any judge to seize anything in this manner.
You then seek to invalidate the notion that a Constitutional notion of privacy stands on the fourth amendment. I can only say that I disagree with your premises and your argument, and that I strongly recommend that you re-evaluate your view once you have read the French version of the Bill of Rights, Les Droits De l'Homme et du citoyen, written with the benefit of our Bill of Rights, but containing nothing that could be said to offer the reasonable expectation of privacy we enjoy that follows from "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." And, I argue, would not have but for the Fourth Amendment.
There is also the question of what is missing in your comments so far. I know this is slashdot, and there are plenty of things that I would like to say further on this subject, and I am sure you have had to compromise on what you can say; but I think it's important to note that you have said nothing about why there is a difference between warranted and warantless wiretaps at all, why the former are acceptable and the latter are not. To me, the distinction is clear and understandable.
It is pedantically true that there is no mention of wiretaps in the wording of the 4th Amendment - not surprising for a document written in 1789. But the first part of your "not factually wrong" conjunction (i.e. "Warrantless wiretapping infringes on our fundamental liberties") can only be true at all because of the 4th Amendment: there are other nations where it's not true at all.
I am astonished that you think that a police officer is in a better position to make a judgement of your rights than you. You are uniquely qualified to stand up for your rights: you are willfully abdicating your sovereignty over your self to any authority figure with a certificate or a uniform and an officious manner.
That's not where liberty lies.
You may request it - and I for one won't agree to your request. If we can't say what our rights are, and insist that only qualified professionals should be able to talk about them; if we have no sense that we can speak of that our rights have been violated, we will end up with none at all.
The TL;DR is that Holder is trying to persuade Walker that there are ongoing surveillance programs that are (may be) legal which would be compromised, so please don't make the Administration explain why it violated the 4th Amendment Rights of everyone that made a phone call or sent an email, your honor.
Three years ago, boing boing reported that solar-powered WiFi networking was bringing Internet access to Tibet, where I understand there are some mountains higher than Timms Hill (elevation 595 m), and the wind and snow may be as bad as in Wisconsin.
It seems to me you could create your own community WiFi network and make an arrangement with a friendly neighbor in the next town where there is access to provide broadband for all at a very low monthly rate, and fairly low start-up costs.
The AC parent of this post deserves better than a 0.