The real reason is that we Americans don't think problems should be solved. We think if there is a problem then people deserve to have that problem because they are sinful.
That's just nonsense and you know it. You're unhappy that other people don't see the same things as problems that you do, so when they don't think anything needs to be done about it you pretend that they aren't willing to fix problems.
I can't recall the last time there was a discussion about pasteurizing milk, except for the people who want to be able to buy unpasteurized milk for themselves and think the government should not prohibit it. They certainly aren't railing against all processing because "God wants babies to die" or anything even remotely like that.
My governor turned down federal money build a modern train system because he thought federal money must be some kind of trick from President Blackenstein.
Citation required. Actual quote or it didn't happen. The only references to that name I find are linked to Bill Maher. Is he the governor of Wisconsin now?
On the other hand, after getting past the racist reference you just tossed out, you apparently don't realize that ALL federal money comes with strings attached. Many times it's matching money, almost always it comes with rules and regulations about how what you use the money for can be used. Not just how to use the money, but how what you build with it can be used. It's not a bad thing for a governor to consider all the details when accepting a handout from the feds. Some deals really are too good to be true.
Don't compare "socialist" Europe to "capitalist" US. It just ain't fair.
Don't compare relatively densely packed Europe to relatively spacious US, it just ain't fair.
The issue is not socialism or capitalism, it's the fact that large parts of the US just don't have the population density to support rail travel of any kind, much less the high speed modern stuff.
Let's put it this way, using cell as an analogy. Or driving. Or both. I just made a cross country trip on a major interstate highway. I was using my cell GPS for navigation. (Very boring. "Stay on I80 for 857 miles...". But a good experiment.) I was out of the central timezone for almost a day and a half before my cellphone picked up a signal and adjusted to mountain time automatically. There just aren't enough people in that region of the country for T-Mobile to bother providing service. They aren't making a lot of high-speed rail commutes, even if they ship all their grain and cows by rail.
The second that ABC called my number they were in violation of the DNC legislation. That makes them liable.
Prosecute enough of these innocent "lead buyers" who are paying people who create phone spam and people will stop paying phone spammers. Phone spammers don't work for free, so they'll eventually stop when nobody buys their services.
The same policy can work for email spammers. If nobody paid Constant Contact to spam potential or current customers, Constant Contact wouldn't spam anyone.
Food delivery service is popular with a population of people which generally don't own cars or have the equipment, utensils and/or time to cook their own meals? Its shocking that they figured this out all on their own.
Except it isn't food delivery, it's food ordering. The delivery is still the responsibility of the restaurant. They've simply added a layer to the front end of the process that means that the restaurant doesn't have to pay someone to talk on the phone taking orders. Clean, simple. Fewer errors. Quick. Win win win.
It seems their in as good a position as... well, Domino's and all the other services that offer pretty much the same thing.
The closest Dominos comes to this is what little they copy from Little Caesar's. I think Dominos does this now, but Little Caesar's had learned that they can make money by stocking pre-made pizza in two styles. People walk in, and instead of a five minute ordering process ("what would you like on that, would you like extra cheese, what kind of crust yada yada yada") and a ten minute wait to bake it, the customer says "pepperoni" and the guy behind the counter hands him one. Done done done.
Although, LC has started to fall back to it's old habits and is slowing the process down. "Would you like crazy bread..." Don't want. Didn't ask for. Gimme pizza. I go.
It's only a requirement in the US, and it doesn't use GPS.
It is a requirement in the US, but whether it is a requirement anyplace else I don't know, and don't care. For the latter, you're wrong.
GPS would be a waste of time for this, because it would either need to be on all the time
Sorry, wrong again. You can turn a GPS off and it will still find itself when you turn it on later. There is no need for it to be on all the time, just when you dial 911. It isn't the same GPS receiver that the apps use, it's a special chip that doesn't take as long to get a fix. You can read more about it here and here and here. Note that the last link is from 2002 -- 11 years ago.
or only enabled in response to an emergency call and need a good ten minutes to get a lock from cold.
Well, yes it is enabled when you dial 911, but it certainly doesn't require anything like ten minutes to get a fix. If your GPS takes ten minutes to get a fix, then you are using a very very very old GPS unit. The last time I turned my Garmin 60CSx on (two days ago) it had a fix in less than a minute and a good fix in two. That was after sitting idle for six months. Remember, the first part of the problem is getting the time, and cell phones get good time info from the cell system.
Why would GPS be "mandatory" on a phone? It's only in the past two or three years that GPS receivers have got small and low-power enough to fit to phones,
You haven't been paying attention. It's called e911 and it is a requirement so that a caller can be located when calling 911 from a cell phone. The wire system provided that information for a long time, and now the cell system does too.
It's not just so they can track you, but so that when you are calling in an emergency situation they don't have to rely on your potentially faulty identification of your own location to be able to send help. You may be perfectly coherent and not panicky, but you may also not be familiar with the area and cannot identify where you are well enough for the ambulance to appear.
The number of search and rescue callouts in this area has gone down dramatically simply because those lost mushroom hunters can call 911 and the dispatch center can send a patrol car out to pick them up based solely on the cellphone GPS information. It's certainly not anywhere close to useless.
Perfection is hard, but beating a human operator is not. Humans constantly crash vehicles, but we just accept it as a matter of course.
I don't, and I don't. The failure of your argument comes when you realize that you would be replacing a large number of independent operators, most of whom do not "constantly crash vehicles", with a unified system that, when it fails, can potentially crash many of them.
I don't crash my car very often (once rear-ended at a stoplight). I also don't hand my keys over to someone I don't trust to drive my car. By using an automated driving system, I would be replacing a known quantity that has a proven track record with an unknown potentially disasterous quantity that obeys the laws that appear in Risks Digest.
And what the fuck with the high gravity so we break falling just a few feet?"
Would you rather break a leg by being a clumsy oaf or have everyone die from breathing vacuum? (Gravity is a prerequisite for an atmosphere, you know.)
Would you agree that stress has been implicated in many serious conditions from ulcers to heart related?
If a placebo reduces stress, then how can it not improve conditions that are created by that stress? Yes, it is tricking someone into reducing that stress level, but isn't tricking someone into eating their healty vegetables still getting them to eat healthy vegetables?
It's the entire premise of the 5th Amendment. The searching physical things isn't myself doing the incrimination, the stuff itself is either incriminating or not; it's just stuff.
I keep a diary of all my crimes, including names of fences I use and dollar amounts I make from each. The victim, the goods, everything. I hide that under a floorboard in my house.
How is being forced to allow people to look for this diary not a violation of the 5th Amendment, then? They are going to turn my record keeping system into incriminating evidence -- and I kept those records.
Whether it 'would' incriminate you or not is irrelevant - if there's a likelihood that providing the code could lead to incrimination you aren't required to aid in that prosecution.
Then I shoujld not be required to allow people to search for my diary. Why am I required to aid one prosecution but not another?
It's the fundamental purpose of the 5th Amendment.
Then shouldn't it cover every means of self-incrimination? Why is writing it down different than keeping it in my head?
Knowing the manufacturer won't help if the data is properly encrypted.
Yes, it will. It will tell the investigator that the SD contains data of some kind and not just random remnants of old files. They will be able to determine the file structure and suss out any unencrypted but hidden information, if any. They'll know there is something being hidden there and that a warrant could be productive.
That's different than a roll-your-own system that results in random looking bytes with no known structure.
The 5th Amendment would tend to disagree with you, at least in the US. Now if they grant you immunity, then yes you have to decrypt it,
I don't think you are correct in this. After all, they can subpoena or get search warrants for all kinds of documents that can be used against you, so clearly the prohibition against incriminating oneself does not extend to things that have been written down. Once you've written it down (or stored it on an SD card) it would appear that it's open to search. How is forcing you to allow them to search your entire house/property/etc significantly different in a self-incrimination context than forcing you to allow them to search the SD (by providing the decryption key)?
It implies nothing more than I don't want other people to see it without my permission.
What you intended to imply and what they will think you are implying (aka "infer") are going to be two different things. "A sign of a guilty mind" is how it will be viewed. Until encryption of video in an in-car camera becomes the norm, the abnormal action of doing so will mean more than "I don't want you to see it".
If the police are searching his car and seizing SD cards, I don't think they are going to casually steal the card and format it.
If the police are searching the car, then everything they remove will go into an evidence bag for later examination, including the camera and the SD card. Before examination, the SD card will certainly be duplicated so that any changes that accessing the card while studying it can be accounted for, and an exact duplicate can be provided to the defense if necessary.
If the camera is a commercial product, then the police will contact the manufacturer to find out what the data format is when they cannot read it from the SD card. They'll know the manufacturer because it will be on the data plate that is required based on FCC certification data for part 15 compliance.
Only if the system is home-brew will there be a possibility that the police won't be able to find out the data format or think that the card is empty because the home-brew software was carefully crafted to make it look like it is.
Now, if the sole goal of the police is to get rid of evidence, then encrypting the data won't help. They'll just flex the SD a bit too much when they handle it and it will become a broken SD card. Or lose it altogether. Very small, got lost. Sorry.
So your niche market isn't niche at all -- it would already be out there, if not for the authoritarian governments of the world (I'm looking at you "free" western society).
No, the niche market truly is niche, otherwise it would be available. There are three reasons it is not, and only one of them has anything to do with any government.
Munitions regulations. Anyone selling strong encryption devices needs to worry about export/import. This makes the market smaller automatically, since it can no longer be a worldwide device, it must either be limited in scope or multiple versions must be sold.
"Dear, what was the password we put on the pictures of the grandkids again? What do you mean you forgot?" The vast majority of users won't want the hassle of having to keep track of encryption keys, and one experience with losing the keys to family vacation snaps will push them back into clear text systems.
Cost. While the hardware to do this is reasonably cheap nowadays, it is still more expensive than not having that hardware in the first place. Companies that are trying to woo consumers to their brand of cameras are not going to be overbuilding the hardware so that it can do pictures AND encryption. They're aiming at just enough processing to do the job and spending more to put in more processing is going to push their model higher in price than the other guy's.
Face it. The intersection of 'technologically literate' and 'socially/politically paranoid' is not a very large number compared to the population as a whole. That's why Facebook and gmail and all those other rapers of privacy are so successful. Most people don't care. Many people who do care a bit don't care enough to get in the way of the convenience. (My calendar on my tablet syncs with Google so any changes there show up on my phone. That's convenient. It's also a privacy concern.)
A few people have stuff that they really need to have encrypted, but the inconvenience of forgetting a key is a major issue. I've got a CD full of stuff I saved in a CFS filesystem a dozen years ago. I haven't been able to access it for ten years because I forgot the passphrase that I tought was really obvious.
A few people do care enough to say "never", but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the rest.
I expect that this content would only be available on Netflix.
Then any concern that it might show up on that dastardly cable is moot, and the OP needn't worry. I don't know why this would be limited to Netflix, though, since that automatically limits the money that can be made from it.
Since he is worried, I thought I'd point out that if it does appear free OTA then that dastardly cable must carry it, which means he is specifically saying that he hopes it never appears OTA where many people can watch it for free. That sounds pretty selfish to me.
"All good as long as cable companies do not make a cent of it)
You do realize that if it makes it to free OTA it must also be carried by cable systems, don't you? So what you're saying is that you don't want it to be free to everyone via broadcast, but Netflix or some other network streaming company making money from it is ok?
No. making a profit means they can stay in business.
You missed my comment that the quotes were there for a reason. It's is not unbridled greed to want to stay in business, it is a basic rule of capitalism. That's why calling wanting to stay in business "unbridled greed" is both patently absurd and a reason to put that phrase in scare quotes. Calling it "unbridled greed" every time any company wants to make a profit is just ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time, but it makes those who rant about evil capitalism feel good.
Please arrive home late on Thursday night so I can shoot you and take your car. THAT is 'unbridled greed'
What a stupid analogy. Nobody shot anyone to force them to accept an ARM or to take out a mortgage they couldn't pay for. Those people voluntarily signed a contract that said they'd pay back the loan and had the house as collateral. (That means they knowingly and voluntarily said "if we don't pay, you can take the house back".) Those contracts for ARM said what the rate was going to be and what and when the balloon was. There WERE laws that forced banks to make those loans if they wanted to stay in business, which you are calling "unbridled greed". Frank and Dodd were prime architects of these laws, and prime obstacles to getting things fixed. When banking regulators judge bank performance on how many loans they make and not on the quality of those loans, you create exactly this bubble.
As the movie 'Inside job' reveals, Goldman-Sachs created loans they knew
would go bad then insured those multiple times.
Yes, the banks knew the loans they were being forced to make were going to go bad. That's common knowledge. It's an easily predictable consequence of making loans to people with little or no income and little or no ability to pay back the money. You wouldn't loan money to your deadbeat cousin who has no job and no way
to repay you, would you? Not if you were in the business of making loans with other people's money you wouldn't.
Of course the banks did what they legally could to protect themselves while staying in business. Had they not been forced to make those loans, the problem would not have existed. Like I said, Billy Jo and Bobby Lou not being able to buy a house they cannot afford is not a problem, but when they buy a house they can't and then don't pay the money back, it is. When there are enough BJ and BL defaulting on loans they cannot afford, it becomes a problem for the rest of us.
I bought the house I own under the social engineering rules. The bank couldn't require much in the way of proof I'd pay them back, or much of a down payment. They offered me a wonderful ARM, though. The contract was clear on the initial rates and when they were going to balloon. We even discussed how this would be a great deal -- if I was going to stick around for only five years. They didn't once shoot me, or even point a gun at my head, to force me to accept it. I simply said "I want a fixed" and they said "ok".
Actually, he likely has a low threshold for killing someone and so likely will do it again.
Actually he probably has a high threshold and there will be little or no motive for him to kill others. "You were sexually abusive when I was 8 and were attacking my sister..." Nope. "You put too tight a curfew on..." Nope. "You were a drunk that repeatedly battered Mom..." Nope. The motive is gone. He won't do it again, and certainly he cannot kill his parents more than once so technically he cannot do it again if he wanted to.
On the other hand, let's say that somehow, you are absolutely certain that a person who killed his parents will never kill again. What is your actual justification for imprisoning him?
That question is absurd on its face and I need make no further argument. You're actually trying to claim it is ok not to put a double murderer in jail at all. You've missed the point entirely.
Green pointers, which rely on frequency-doubling optics, also emitted âoeunacceptableâ levels of infrared light, reported the team led by NIST Laser Safety Officer Joshua Hadler.
In October of 2010, Optics and Photonics News published an article "A Red Light for Green Laser Pointers" that described a simple way to detect the IR from a green laser pointer using a CD as a refracting element, a TV remote control as a standard emitter, and a web or other digital camera as a detector. The basics are you use the CD to refract the source (green laser or TV remote) and a digital camera (most are sensitive to IR) as a detector to see where the pure IR (TV remote) and mixed IR/green (laser) dots show up.
It's a paywalled article so linking to it wouldn't be worthwhile.
You are clearly doing your best to dodge the matter. Sure the parent killer can't kill his parents again, but the problem is that he killed SOMEONE and he certainly could do that again. But you knew that, right?
He probably has little to none of the same motive to kill anyone besides his parents, so the statement stands: he is unlikely to do it again even if you never put him in jail. Were the sole goal of laws to prevent recidivism, then 1) they are a complete failure based on existing recidivism rates and 2) someone who kills his parents should not go to jail.
That's not dodging the matter, that's called "reductio ad absurdum". "Likelyhood of doing it again" is not a good basis to determine punishment. The sole goal of punishment is not just to prevent repeat offending but to deter others. 30 months in prison for someone who assaults a police officer and tried to blind a pilot carrying passengers is not outrageous.
They certainly do act as if that is the case,
In your imagination, perhaps, but not the real world.
Someone who murders their parents should not be put in jail for very long, if at all, under the "make sure he won't do it again" rule since it is very unlikely that he'd murder his parents a second time.
The goal of this specific exercise is to get the word out so one Bubba will say to the other Bubba who is holding a laser pointer "did you hear about the guy who went to prison for 30 months for doing what you are about to do?"
Prison is not supposed to be about letting sadists get a vicarious thrill at the expense of minor criminals.
Yeah, because everyone involved in the prosecution is just sitting at home drooling about putting this guy in prison. Sure. I hate to break it to you, but putting people in jail for doing stupid illegal things is not sadism by any stretch of the imagination. It is sad that stupid people do stupid things that break the law, but it is their choice to do the stupid thing. Maybe you could call this masochism if there were some sexual pleasure that the stupid people get, but that's doubtful.
What's certain is that if carriers dedicated a little of the energy they plough into maintaining these anachronistic, valueless (to their customers, that is) premium SMS 'services'
If customers find them valueless, why do they sign up for them? They are optional. So optional, I've never heard of them even after being a ten year customer of T-Mobile.
Slashdot Mirror
The real reason is that we Americans don't think problems should be solved. We think if there is a problem then people deserve to have that problem because they are sinful.
That's just nonsense and you know it. You're unhappy that other people don't see the same things as problems that you do, so when they don't think anything needs to be done about it you pretend that they aren't willing to fix problems.
I can't recall the last time there was a discussion about pasteurizing milk, except for the people who want to be able to buy unpasteurized milk for themselves and think the government should not prohibit it. They certainly aren't railing against all processing because "God wants babies to die" or anything even remotely like that.
My governor turned down federal money build a modern train system because he thought federal money must be some kind of trick from President Blackenstein.
Citation required. Actual quote or it didn't happen. The only references to that name I find are linked to Bill Maher. Is he the governor of Wisconsin now?
On the other hand, after getting past the racist reference you just tossed out, you apparently don't realize that ALL federal money comes with strings attached. Many times it's matching money, almost always it comes with rules and regulations about how what you use the money for can be used. Not just how to use the money, but how what you build with it can be used. It's not a bad thing for a governor to consider all the details when accepting a handout from the feds. Some deals really are too good to be true.
Don't compare "socialist" Europe to "capitalist" US. It just ain't fair.
Don't compare relatively densely packed Europe to relatively spacious US, it just ain't fair.
The issue is not socialism or capitalism, it's the fact that large parts of the US just don't have the population density to support rail travel of any kind, much less the high speed modern stuff.
Let's put it this way, using cell as an analogy. Or driving. Or both. I just made a cross country trip on a major interstate highway. I was using my cell GPS for navigation. (Very boring. "Stay on I80 for 857 miles...". But a good experiment.) I was out of the central timezone for almost a day and a half before my cellphone picked up a signal and adjusted to mountain time automatically. There just aren't enough people in that region of the country for T-Mobile to bother providing service. They aren't making a lot of high-speed rail commutes, even if they ship all their grain and cows by rail.
So ABC didn't make the calls, and isn't liable.
The second that ABC called my number they were in violation of the DNC legislation. That makes them liable.
Prosecute enough of these innocent "lead buyers" who are paying people who create phone spam and people will stop paying phone spammers. Phone spammers don't work for free, so they'll eventually stop when nobody buys their services.
The same policy can work for email spammers. If nobody paid Constant Contact to spam potential or current customers, Constant Contact wouldn't spam anyone.
Still, sorry to hear CID is only an option instead of a standard, included feature in the UK.
It's not a standard, included feature in the US, either, mate. I just checked my bill and "caller ID name and number" is a $10/month option.
Food delivery service is popular with a population of people which generally don't own cars or have the equipment, utensils and/or time to cook their own meals? Its shocking that they figured this out all on their own.
Except it isn't food delivery, it's food ordering. The delivery is still the responsibility of the restaurant. They've simply added a layer to the front end of the process that means that the restaurant doesn't have to pay someone to talk on the phone taking orders. Clean, simple. Fewer errors. Quick. Win win win.
It seems their in as good a position as ... well, Domino's and all the other services that offer pretty much the same thing.
The closest Dominos comes to this is what little they copy from Little Caesar's. I think Dominos does this now, but Little Caesar's had learned that they can make money by stocking pre-made pizza in two styles. People walk in, and instead of a five minute ordering process ("what would you like on that, would you like extra cheese, what kind of crust yada yada yada") and a ten minute wait to bake it, the customer says "pepperoni" and the guy behind the counter hands him one. Done done done.
Although, LC has started to fall back to it's old habits and is slowing the process down. "Would you like crazy bread..." Don't want. Didn't ask for. Gimme pizza. I go.
It's only a requirement in the US, and it doesn't use GPS.
It is a requirement in the US, but whether it is a requirement anyplace else I don't know, and don't care. For the latter, you're wrong.
GPS would be a waste of time for this, because it would either need to be on all the time
Sorry, wrong again. You can turn a GPS off and it will still find itself when you turn it on later. There is no need for it to be on all the time, just when you dial 911. It isn't the same GPS receiver that the apps use, it's a special chip that doesn't take as long to get a fix. You can read more about it here and here and here. Note that the last link is from 2002 -- 11 years ago.
or only enabled in response to an emergency call and need a good ten minutes to get a lock from cold.
Well, yes it is enabled when you dial 911, but it certainly doesn't require anything like ten minutes to get a fix. If your GPS takes ten minutes to get a fix, then you are using a very very very old GPS unit. The last time I turned my Garmin 60CSx on (two days ago) it had a fix in less than a minute and a good fix in two. That was after sitting idle for six months. Remember, the first part of the problem is getting the time, and cell phones get good time info from the cell system.
Why would GPS be "mandatory" on a phone? It's only in the past two or three years that GPS receivers have got small and low-power enough to fit to phones,
You haven't been paying attention. It's called e911 and it is a requirement so that a caller can be located when calling 911 from a cell phone. The wire system provided that information for a long time, and now the cell system does too.
It's not just so they can track you, but so that when you are calling in an emergency situation they don't have to rely on your potentially faulty identification of your own location to be able to send help. You may be perfectly coherent and not panicky, but you may also not be familiar with the area and cannot identify where you are well enough for the ambulance to appear.
The number of search and rescue callouts in this area has gone down dramatically simply because those lost mushroom hunters can call 911 and the dispatch center can send a patrol car out to pick them up based solely on the cellphone GPS information. It's certainly not anywhere close to useless.
This expansion of federal authority started under the Washington administration and has continued under the Adams administration.
There, fixed that for 'ya. To think that every thing bad the government does started with Bush is just lunacy.
Perfection is hard, but beating a human operator is not. Humans constantly crash vehicles, but we just accept it as a matter of course.
I don't, and I don't. The failure of your argument comes when you realize that you would be replacing a large number of independent operators, most of whom do not "constantly crash vehicles", with a unified system that, when it fails, can potentially crash many of them.
I don't crash my car very often (once rear-ended at a stoplight). I also don't hand my keys over to someone I don't trust to drive my car. By using an automated driving system, I would be replacing a known quantity that has a proven track record with an unknown potentially disasterous quantity that obeys the laws that appear in Risks Digest.
And what the fuck with the high gravity so we break falling just a few feet?"
Would you rather break a leg by being a clumsy oaf or have everyone die from breathing vacuum? (Gravity is a prerequisite for an atmosphere, you know.)
If a placebo reduces stress, then how can it not improve conditions that are created by that stress? Yes, it is tricking someone into reducing that stress level, but isn't tricking someone into eating their healty vegetables still getting them to eat healthy vegetables?
It's the entire premise of the 5th Amendment. The searching physical things isn't myself doing the incrimination, the stuff itself is either incriminating or not; it's just stuff.
I keep a diary of all my crimes, including names of fences I use and dollar amounts I make from each. The victim, the goods, everything. I hide that under a floorboard in my house. How is being forced to allow people to look for this diary not a violation of the 5th Amendment, then? They are going to turn my record keeping system into incriminating evidence -- and I kept those records.
Whether it 'would' incriminate you or not is irrelevant - if there's a likelihood that providing the code could lead to incrimination you aren't required to aid in that prosecution.
Then I shoujld not be required to allow people to search for my diary. Why am I required to aid one prosecution but not another?
It's the fundamental purpose of the 5th Amendment.
Then shouldn't it cover every means of self-incrimination? Why is writing it down different than keeping it in my head?
Knowing the manufacturer won't help if the data is properly encrypted.
Yes, it will. It will tell the investigator that the SD contains data of some kind and not just random remnants of old files. They will be able to determine the file structure and suss out any unencrypted but hidden information, if any. They'll know there is something being hidden there and that a warrant could be productive.
That's different than a roll-your-own system that results in random looking bytes with no known structure.
The 5th Amendment would tend to disagree with you, at least in the US. Now if they grant you immunity, then yes you have to decrypt it,
I don't think you are correct in this. After all, they can subpoena or get search warrants for all kinds of documents that can be used against you, so clearly the prohibition against incriminating oneself does not extend to things that have been written down. Once you've written it down (or stored it on an SD card) it would appear that it's open to search. How is forcing you to allow them to search your entire house/property/etc significantly different in a self-incrimination context than forcing you to allow them to search the SD (by providing the decryption key)?
It implies nothing more than I don't want other people to see it without my permission.
What you intended to imply and what they will think you are implying (aka "infer") are going to be two different things. "A sign of a guilty mind" is how it will be viewed. Until encryption of video in an in-car camera becomes the norm, the abnormal action of doing so will mean more than "I don't want you to see it".
If the police are searching his car and seizing SD cards, I don't think they are going to casually steal the card and format it.
If the police are searching the car, then everything they remove will go into an evidence bag for later examination, including the camera and the SD card. Before examination, the SD card will certainly be duplicated so that any changes that accessing the card while studying it can be accounted for, and an exact duplicate can be provided to the defense if necessary.
If the camera is a commercial product, then the police will contact the manufacturer to find out what the data format is when they cannot read it from the SD card. They'll know the manufacturer because it will be on the data plate that is required based on FCC certification data for part 15 compliance.
Only if the system is home-brew will there be a possibility that the police won't be able to find out the data format or think that the card is empty because the home-brew software was carefully crafted to make it look like it is.
Now, if the sole goal of the police is to get rid of evidence, then encrypting the data won't help. They'll just flex the SD a bit too much when they handle it and it will become a broken SD card. Or lose it altogether. Very small, got lost. Sorry.
So your niche market isn't niche at all -- it would already be out there, if not for the authoritarian governments of the world (I'm looking at you "free" western society).
No, the niche market truly is niche, otherwise it would be available. There are three reasons it is not, and only one of them has anything to do with any government.
Face it. The intersection of 'technologically literate' and 'socially/politically paranoid' is not a very large number compared to the population as a whole. That's why Facebook and gmail and all those other rapers of privacy are so successful. Most people don't care. Many people who do care a bit don't care enough to get in the way of the convenience. (My calendar on my tablet syncs with Google so any changes there show up on my phone. That's convenient. It's also a privacy concern.)
A few people have stuff that they really need to have encrypted, but the inconvenience of forgetting a key is a major issue. I've got a CD full of stuff I saved in a CFS filesystem a dozen years ago. I haven't been able to access it for ten years because I forgot the passphrase that I tought was really obvious.
A few people do care enough to say "never", but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the rest.
How is something on Netflix "free OTA" ??
It isn't, and nobody said it was.
I expect that this content would only be available on Netflix.
Then any concern that it might show up on that dastardly cable is moot, and the OP needn't worry. I don't know why this would be limited to Netflix, though, since that automatically limits the money that can be made from it.
Since he is worried, I thought I'd point out that if it does appear free OTA then that dastardly cable must carry it, which means he is specifically saying that he hopes it never appears OTA where many people can watch it for free. That sounds pretty selfish to me.
"All good as long as cable companies do not make a cent of it)
You do realize that if it makes it to free OTA it must also be carried by cable systems, don't you? So what you're saying is that you don't want it to be free to everyone via broadcast, but Netflix or some other network streaming company making money from it is ok?
No. making a profit means they can stay in business.
You missed my comment that the quotes were there for a reason. It's is not unbridled greed to want to stay in business, it is a basic rule of capitalism. That's why calling wanting to stay in business "unbridled greed" is both patently absurd and a reason to put that phrase in scare quotes. Calling it "unbridled greed" every time any company wants to make a profit is just ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time, but it makes those who rant about evil capitalism feel good.
Please arrive home late on Thursday night so I can shoot you and take your car. THAT is 'unbridled greed'
What a stupid analogy. Nobody shot anyone to force them to accept an ARM or to take out a mortgage they couldn't pay for. Those people voluntarily signed a contract that said they'd pay back the loan and had the house as collateral. (That means they knowingly and voluntarily said "if we don't pay, you can take the house back".) Those contracts for ARM said what the rate was going to be and what and when the balloon was. There WERE laws that forced banks to make those loans if they wanted to stay in business, which you are calling "unbridled greed". Frank and Dodd were prime architects of these laws, and prime obstacles to getting things fixed. When banking regulators judge bank performance on how many loans they make and not on the quality of those loans, you create exactly this bubble.
As the movie 'Inside job' reveals, Goldman-Sachs created loans they knew would go bad then insured those multiple times.
Yes, the banks knew the loans they were being forced to make were going to go bad. That's common knowledge. It's an easily predictable consequence of making loans to people with little or no income and little or no ability to pay back the money. You wouldn't loan money to your deadbeat cousin who has no job and no way to repay you, would you? Not if you were in the business of making loans with other people's money you wouldn't.
Of course the banks did what they legally could to protect themselves while staying in business. Had they not been forced to make those loans, the problem would not have existed. Like I said, Billy Jo and Bobby Lou not being able to buy a house they cannot afford is not a problem, but when they buy a house they can't and then don't pay the money back, it is. When there are enough BJ and BL defaulting on loans they cannot afford, it becomes a problem for the rest of us.
I bought the house I own under the social engineering rules. The bank couldn't require much in the way of proof I'd pay them back, or much of a down payment. They offered me a wonderful ARM, though. The contract was clear on the initial rates and when they were going to balloon. We even discussed how this would be a great deal -- if I was going to stick around for only five years. They didn't once shoot me, or even point a gun at my head, to force me to accept it. I simply said "I want a fixed" and they said "ok".
Actually, he likely has a low threshold for killing someone and so likely will do it again.
Actually he probably has a high threshold and there will be little or no motive for him to kill others. "You were sexually abusive when I was 8 and were attacking my sister..." Nope. "You put too tight a curfew on..." Nope. "You were a drunk that repeatedly battered Mom ..." Nope. The motive is gone. He won't do it again, and certainly he cannot kill his parents more than once so technically he cannot do it again if he wanted to.
On the other hand, let's say that somehow, you are absolutely certain that a person who killed his parents will never kill again. What is your actual justification for imprisoning him?
That question is absurd on its face and I need make no further argument. You're actually trying to claim it is ok not to put a double murderer in jail at all. You've missed the point entirely.
...but in our experience using both, it really has to be a perfect night to just match Hubble.
I know how you could make it better than Hubble all the time. Details left to the reader...
Green pointers, which rely on frequency-doubling optics, also emitted âoeunacceptableâ levels of infrared light, reported the team led by NIST Laser Safety Officer Joshua Hadler.
In October of 2010, Optics and Photonics News published an article "A Red Light for Green Laser Pointers" that described a simple way to detect the IR from a green laser pointer using a CD as a refracting element, a TV remote control as a standard emitter, and a web or other digital camera as a detector. The basics are you use the CD to refract the source (green laser or TV remote) and a digital camera (most are sensitive to IR) as a detector to see where the pure IR (TV remote) and mixed IR/green (laser) dots show up.
It's a paywalled article so linking to it wouldn't be worthwhile.
You are clearly doing your best to dodge the matter. Sure the parent killer can't kill his parents again, but the problem is that he killed SOMEONE and he certainly could do that again. But you knew that, right?
He probably has little to none of the same motive to kill anyone besides his parents, so the statement stands: he is unlikely to do it again even if you never put him in jail. Were the sole goal of laws to prevent recidivism, then 1) they are a complete failure based on existing recidivism rates and 2) someone who kills his parents should not go to jail.
That's not dodging the matter, that's called "reductio ad absurdum". "Likelyhood of doing it again" is not a good basis to determine punishment. The sole goal of punishment is not just to prevent repeat offending but to deter others. 30 months in prison for someone who assaults a police officer and tried to blind a pilot carrying passengers is not outrageous.
They certainly do act as if that is the case,
In your imagination, perhaps, but not the real world.
The point is to make sure he won't do it again.
No, the point is to keep others from doing it.
Someone who murders their parents should not be put in jail for very long, if at all, under the "make sure he won't do it again" rule since it is very unlikely that he'd murder his parents a second time. The goal of this specific exercise is to get the word out so one Bubba will say to the other Bubba who is holding a laser pointer "did you hear about the guy who went to prison for 30 months for doing what you are about to do?"
Prison is not supposed to be about letting sadists get a vicarious thrill at the expense of minor criminals.
Yeah, because everyone involved in the prosecution is just sitting at home drooling about putting this guy in prison. Sure. I hate to break it to you, but putting people in jail for doing stupid illegal things is not sadism by any stretch of the imagination. It is sad that stupid people do stupid things that break the law, but it is their choice to do the stupid thing. Maybe you could call this masochism if there were some sexual pleasure that the stupid people get, but that's doubtful.
What's certain is that if carriers dedicated a little of the energy they plough into maintaining these anachronistic, valueless (to their customers, that is) premium SMS 'services'
If customers find them valueless, why do they sign up for them? They are optional. So optional, I've never heard of them even after being a ten year customer of T-Mobile.