Install this thing in congress and train it to watch for corruption. It would probably fill up a massive disk array in a couple hours with positive hits.
I understand it can only detect abnormal events. Now in many parliaments wouldn't that mean: alert to exceptionally rare cases of non-corruption? You know Professor Lessig changed his focus of research for a reason. Whatever the scene may look like to an "intelligent" camera, "Lobbyist walks into lawmakers' offices and leaves without the two black suitcases s/he brought" is probably not an instance of someone planting bombs (at least unless the pictures make it to the pages of the Post).
To quote Ambrose Bierce:
politics, n.: The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
(Others have explained the word as a composite of poly and ticks...)
Or as Bismarck once said:
The people sleep better at night if they do not know how laws and sausages are made.
Who, under video surveillance, tend to act rather irresponsibly:
Feeling safe(r) when and where they are not, because of the false promise of BB to be watching (over) them.
Mostly turning a blind eye on crime (and its victims), as the all-seeing eye of BB and/or "someone (else)" will surely take care of it.
Having learned from an early age to show only herd mentality out of preference falsification in their desperate attempts to try and please the watchmen and be seen to obey "like every other good citizen".
In the rare instances of courage, not fleeing insurmountable dangers out of the feeling that someone has got to be watching and will send backup any moment now.
Interestingly in Europe after a series of dreadful incidents on live video, this is finally being debated on the eve of general elections: http://www.piratenpartei.de/node/920/29268#comment-29268 - as at the other end of the line, in a situation room (that may be on the next floor or station, and yet too) far away, officers will have to watch events unfold and wish in vain to finally be out there with a gun again (or have sufficient forces to dispatch), e.g. to stop that attacker they can only videotape and helplessly watch wreak havoc on screen.
Would libpng have been written, if not for the LZW patent? How about all of xiph's codecs? We wouldn't have Vorbis if it weren't for the MP3 patents. [...]
Saying patents fuel software development (both free and proprietary, since both types are actually harmed by patents) may be a distortion, because it (misleadingly) implies that the patents help the overall situation, but on its face, the statement is literally true.
...but only in the same twisted sense as calling plagues a good thing just because they are a challenge to bring medicine forward.
That kind of spin quite deservedly gets chided (as by your own hurricane allusion), for it flies in the face of all research demonstrating the harmful effects of an overzealous patent system in particular on small scale and open source development:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Papers
Audio (and everything else) sent by skype is encrypted.
[...]
Because they chose the trojan route, you can be reasonably assured that breaking the encryption is harder and more troublesome than sneaking into your house and installing a trojan or tricking you into installing it for them.
For some of them. Unless users have a way to exchange their public keys in a reliable PKI through a secure channel (and not involving the provider at least as far as the private ones are concerned, which moreover have to be immune even to physical access to local storage), they can't be sure that nobody else will ever compromise their conversations.
The French coined "informatique" (which the Germans adopted with a k for last letter) so as not to have to say anything like "Computer Science" (they also called their TV "System Essentially Contrary to American Method" for a reason, you see;-)).
To assimilate this word back into English which already has a common(-sense) name for the field would probably have made the founding father of Computer Science wonder if he was right about the first part of his famous statement:
What's in your hands, I think and hope, is intelligence:
the ability to see the machine as more than when you were first led up to it, that you can make it more.
Alan J. Perlis
Then again, the use of "Olympiad" (where -cs would finally have been indicated instead) is probably just as questionable.
For some reason, most reporting just covers the less scary and farther-fetched scenarios such as this:
an attacker wouldn't need the name of a card holder to cause harm. In the case of employee access cards, a chip that contained only the employee's card number could still be cloned to allow someone to impersonate the employee
The real danger is that the RFIDs scanned on persons in one location might be further abused to assault, abduct or even assassinate their bearers in another place where these might be much more vulnerable to attack.
It diverts attention of competition authorities from a self-proclaimed "do no evil" search giant earning its money through rather unobtrusive advertising (and which has now even been given a reinvigorated major competitor), to a company that is no stranger to antitrust crosshairs and with a body of Findings of Fact from earlier proceedings against it.
BTW, Stallman (RMS pour les initiés) just had some interesting things to say about these and a DRM "Swindle": http://www.linux-magazin.de/NEWS/Video-Stallman-ueber-DRM-Patente-und-C
(interview on video in English of course - free from a famous Spanish holiday resort, beats rainy Redmond/WA;-))
a gathering to which this section applies
such a gathering
are defined by this very same section as quoted in the grandparent. I.e. to paraphrase, to be a rave by law it has to be "something big" or to look like "something big brewing"...
How could any superintendent "reasonably believe" that a 100+ attendance for playing distressingly loud music is imminent at the sight of a BBQ-munching dozen seeking shelter from the rain and offering to hand over the power cord just to finish their burgers?
(Reason in English law at least is a term of art, making disproportionate crackdowns illegal. TINLA YMMV)
how would a newspaper or media outlet gain by breaking the story? It'll just instantly lose all its government contacts, but not gain any new readership
How would it deserve keeping its present government contacts (while putting them to no use, let alone snitching whistleblowers to them!) and readers by holding back The News?! (Assuming a residual journalistic ethos defines the latter as more than "just the stuff to fill the space between the ads", as allegedly a Fleet Street media baron once put it...)
Even with an anti-terror spin (and possibly actual arrests), e.g. of eavesdropping only on the bad guys (and "inevitably" listening in on everyone else in the process as well), the founders considered this issue important enough to merit a Fourth Amendment, which doesn't leave much leeway (or should we say: "weasel way"?) for a paper (especially with the profession's self-image of a Fourth Estate as part of democracy's "checks and balances") to decide on making it "non-news".
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
Klein: I really was panicking because [...] the government knew everything and probably knew my name, but I didn't have any publicity.
IDGNS: The media merit a full chapter (entitled: 'Going Public vs. Media Chickens'). What happened there?
Klein: [...] They were the first entity I'd given all the documents to. Then they talked to the government about it, and it turned out they were talking to not only the NSA director, but the director of national intelligence
That much for the sad state of "the Fourth Estate, more important than them all" (Edmund Burke)...
It is a newspaper's duty to print the news and raise hell.
And it is not for any kind of music festivals... No, no, no, only raves: "playing amplified music wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats during the night.
No, it would be a rather vague blunkett authorisation (most spellings intentional;-} though this section may already have been on the statute books in 2001) to crack down even on non-disturbing events, as that definition alone matches pretty much any playback of all but the most experimental recordings.
However, the respective section "applies to a gathering on land in the open air of 100 or more persons (whether or not trespassers)" and continues regarding the music "(with or without intermissions) and is such as, by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played, is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality". Does not exactly look like the definition of an average birthday party, no matter whether the "kids'" friends were invited by way of (as opposed to the event being advertised on) the apparently suspicion-generating Evilnet.
But the pirate party has little choice in that matter. As long as he hans't been
convicted, he is free to join any party of his choice. And his publicly stated opinions on Internet topics were very close to the pirate party lines.
The "gut feeling" and "knee-jerk reaction" of most people will be "How could they possibly listen to this guy (in spite of guilt by mere accusation of a crime of witchcraft in the lynch court of public opinion)?" However, at a closer look one has to realize the Pirates did the right thing by resisting to chime in to a chant of "burn! burn! burn!":
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1276159&cid=28409757
Or how about we have people making computer laws who have never even used a computer for more than 2 minutes!
This, however, seems to have been the sad reality in nearly every assembly - where even the second meaning of the term escapes the increasingly less represantative "representatives" who have long seen the Internet as something that gets sent by some strange set of highways or tubes, and placed on their desks printed out by their assistants.
Conveniently, the lobbyist of Evil Corp., their main campaign donor, brings ready-made drafts with all their favorite catchwords each time he invites them to five-star dinners , so they can leave those technicalities to the experts and fully focus on truly bringing the nation forward.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Install this thing in congress and train it to watch for corruption. It would probably fill up a massive disk array in a couple hours with positive hits.
I understand it can only detect abnormal events. Now in many parliaments wouldn't that mean: alert to exceptionally rare cases of non-corruption? You know Professor Lessig changed his focus of research for a reason.
Whatever the scene may look like to an "intelligent" camera, "Lobbyist walks into lawmakers' offices and leaves without the two black suitcases s/he brought" is probably not an instance of someone planting bombs (at least unless the pictures make it to the pages of the Post).
To quote Ambrose Bierce:
politics, n.: The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
(Others have explained the word as a composite of poly and ticks...)
Or as Bismarck once said:
The people sleep better at night if they do not know how laws and sausages are made.
Interestingly in Europe after a series of dreadful incidents on live video, this is finally being debated on the eve of general elections: http://www.piratenpartei.de/node/920/29268#comment-29268 - as at the other end of the line, in a situation room (that may be on the next floor or station, and yet too) far away, officers will have to watch events unfold and wish in vain to finally be out there with a gun again (or have sufficient forces to dispatch), e.g. to stop that attacker they can only videotape and helplessly watch wreak havoc on screen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick
You mean as in:
Seriously ;-) still a great read: The Microsoft Memo
Would libpng have been written, if not for the LZW patent? How about all of xiph's codecs? We wouldn't have Vorbis if it weren't for the MP3 patents. [...]
Saying patents fuel software development (both free and proprietary, since both types are actually harmed by patents) may be a distortion, because it (misleadingly) implies that the patents help the overall situation, but on its face, the statement is literally true.
...but only in the same twisted sense as calling plagues a good thing just because they are a challenge to bring medicine forward.
That kind of spin quite deservedly gets chided (as by your own hurricane allusion), for it flies in the face of all research demonstrating the harmful effects of an overzealous patent system in particular on small scale and open source development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Papers
Audio (and everything else) sent by skype is encrypted.
[...]
Because they chose the trojan route, you can be reasonably assured that breaking the encryption is harder and more troublesome than sneaking into your house and installing a trojan or tricking you into installing it for them.
For some of them. Unless users have a way to exchange their public keys in a reliable PKI through a secure channel (and not involving the provider at least as far as the private ones are concerned, which moreover have to be immune even to physical access to local storage), they can't be sure that nobody else will ever compromise their conversations.
Clear plastic enclosure protects clock from you and you from clock
...cluster of these. ;-/
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/18/ps3-slim-sized-up-smaller-deeper-no-linux-or-ps2-compatibilit/
And hopefully no longer requiring new power plants for every quarter that has had a few of them under the trees.
To assimilate this word back into English which already has a common(-sense) name for the field would probably have made the founding father of Computer Science wonder if he was right about the first part of his famous statement:
Then again, the use of "Olympiad" (where -cs would finally have been indicated instead) is probably just as questionable.
wait for smart bombs that target by RFID
For some reason, most reporting just covers the less scary and farther-fetched scenarios such as this:
The real danger is that the RFIDs scanned on persons in one location might be further abused to assault, abduct or even assassinate their bearers in another place where these might be much more vulnerable to attack.
Could you give some details on where it would have done so (as to the facts rather than points of law) in spite of the standard of deference?
Hasn't it only vacated the District Court's remedies decree?
It diverts attention of competition authorities from a self-proclaimed "do no evil" search giant earning its money through rather unobtrusive advertising (and which has now even been given a reinvigorated major competitor), to a company that is no stranger to antitrust crosshairs and with a body of Findings of Fact from earlier proceedings against it.
Special guest: RMS himself
Theme: "Hasta la Vista! - Taking flash mobs to the next level..."
14:3 International Journal of Law and Information Technology 257
;-))
BTW, Stallman (RMS pour les initiés) just had some interesting things to say about these and a DRM "Swindle":
http://www.linux-magazin.de/NEWS/Video-Stallman-ueber-DRM-Patente-und-C
(interview on video in English of course - free from a famous Spanish holiday resort, beats rainy Redmond/WA
are defined by this very same section as quoted in the grandparent.
I.e. to paraphrase, to be a rave by law it has to be "something big" or to look like "something big brewing"...
How could any superintendent "reasonably believe" that a 100+ attendance for playing distressingly loud music is imminent at the sight of a BBQ-munching dozen seeking shelter from the rain and offering to hand over the power cord just to finish their burgers?
(Reason in English law at least is a term of art, making disproportionate crackdowns illegal. TINLA YMMV)
How would it deserve keeping its present government contacts (while putting them to no use, let alone snitching whistleblowers to them!) and readers by holding back The News?!
(Assuming a residual journalistic ethos defines the latter as more than "just the stuff to fill the space between the ads", as allegedly a Fleet Street media baron once put it...)
Even with an anti-terror spin (and possibly actual arrests), e.g. of eavesdropping only on the bad guys (and "inevitably" listening in on everyone else in the process as well), the founders considered this issue important enough to merit a Fourth Amendment, which doesn't leave much leeway (or should we say: "weasel way"?) for a paper (especially with the profession's self-image of a Fourth Estate as part of democracy's "checks and balances") to decide on making it "non-news".
Henry Louis Mencken
That much for the sad state of "the Fourth Estate, more important than them all" (Edmund Burke) ...
Wilbur F. Storey, 1861
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200310/Police-raid-30th-birthday-barbecue-man-used-Facebook-invite-friends.html http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1686735360/nm0000246
Rather than busting a rave, did they just stumble upon the secret shooting of Die Hard 5 ?
No, it would be a rather vague blunkett authorisation (most spellings intentional ;-} though this section may already have been on the statute books in 2001) to crack down even on non-disturbing events, as that definition alone matches pretty much any playback of all but the most experimental recordings.
However, the respective section "applies to a gathering on land in the open air of 100 or more persons (whether or not trespassers)" and continues regarding the music "(with or without intermissions) and is such as, by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played, is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality".
Does not exactly look like the definition of an average birthday party, no matter whether the "kids'" friends were invited by way of (as opposed to the event being advertised on) the apparently suspicion-generating Evilnet.
Remember, remember that Diesel commercial:
"If we put all (30-year) young people in jail today, we will have no criminals tomorrow!"
The "gut feeling" and "knee-jerk reaction" of most people will be "How could they possibly listen to this guy (in spite of guilt by mere accusation of a crime of witchcraft in the lynch court of public opinion)?"
However, at a closer look one has to realize the Pirates did the right thing by resisting to chime in to a chant of "burn! burn! burn!": http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1276159&cid=28409757
This, however, seems to have been the sad reality in nearly every assembly - where even the second meaning of the term escapes the increasingly less represantative "representatives" who have long seen the Internet as something that gets sent by some strange set of highways or tubes, and placed on their desks printed out by their assistants.
;-)
Conveniently, the lobbyist of Evil Corp., their main campaign donor, brings ready-made drafts with all their favorite catchwords each time he invites them to five-star dinners , so they can leave those technicalities to the experts and fully focus on truly bringing the nation forward.