So you copy your Gmail contacts to your Facebook account. You then want to remove those contacts you put into your Gmail account. Does Gmail now have to pass on that removal request to Facebook because they passed on the contact?
Gmail didn't pass on the contacts, YOU did.
if they don't then the contact is not completely deleted from the internet as it still exixts on another provider's system.
Telling Facebook or gmail to actually delete information doesn't mean you're telling them to delete it from anyplace it might be on the Internet. It's telling them to delete it from gmail or facebook, or wherever they sent it.
This is not a complicated problem. And yet, Google/Gmail thinks it is. My idiot ISP has just handed all of their user's personal information over to Google by moving their email services to gmail. Gmail immediately sent out an email telling people they shouldn't delete their email when done with it, they should "archive" it. (Of coirse, they can't index and sort and make money from selling private data if you've deleted it.) And, in fact, now my mobile email clients actually DON'T delete email when I tell them to. A week ago, deleting an email meant it went away. Today, deleting an email after reading it leaves that email not only on the system but marks it as UNREAD. Fascinating.
To delete records that have been copied one must retain a log to all those places where the data has been copied.
Yes, I will keep a mental log of where I sent the contact data I downloaded from gmail to.
This log can then be used to trace a person's activity and therefore a privacy concern.
Me knowing where I copied my own data is not a privacy concern. But thanks for trying to whitewash facebook.
As I recall, it was worse than this. I have no problem with them forcing IE to be a part of the OS (even though I understand why Netscape would not like that), but I did have a serious problem with them forcing hardware vendors to install Windows on EVERY PC computer they sold if they wanted to have a license to install it on ANY PC they sold.
I.e., if a company wanted to sell PCs to Mom and Pop home user with Windows pre-installed, they had to sell the PC hardware to ME with Windows pre-installed, even though the first thing I did with those systems was install Linux. That applied to the big companies as well as the local computer shop that wanted to keep its Microsoft Dealer status. I can't tell you how many copies of Windows 98 I have that were never used.
Having gone to many trips through the countries of Europe, I can say that you typically don't have a stack of coins in your pocket.
Yes, I do wind up with a stack of coins in my pocket, and I don't care what you say I have.
Now that your change is worth something, you spend it first and only go to paper afterwards,
Nope. I find it much easier to pull a paper bill out of my wallet than to fish around in my pocket looking for the right coin or three, having to actually look at them to figure out what their value is since I don't use them often enough to memorize by feel what they are.
Oh, you want 4 euro? Here's a paper bill that is larger than 4 euro, give me my change. Much easier than "let's see, here's 50p, here's 20p, that makes 70p, oops that was only a 10p so I'm at 60p, how much did you want again?"
Because you use your coins first,
But I don't. The ONLY time I try to use coins first is during the last day of my trip when I know I'll have to deal with all those useless coins when I get home so I better spend them now. It becomes more important to use coins first when you know you're just going to have to pull them out of your pocket and throw them into your bag so you can go through security.
Even if you pay with paper, you still pay off the change bit if you have it because you've already checked your pocket for enough money.
I usually keep a pretty close tab on how much money I've got with me, I don't have to look through my pockets every time I buy something to "check my pocket for enough money". So, I've not reached into my front pocket for change to count it every ten minutes, and reaching into my back pocket for a wallet is so much easier so why would I do both?
End result is that I have less coins in my pocket than I usually do back in the States.
That's you. I usually have as many, if not more, coins when I travel elsewhere than when I'm at home.
Not that I can withdraw 1s and 5s at the bank as it is. Minimum of $20 and a multiple of $20 from there.
I can tell you for a fact that banks (and credit unions) have 1 and 5 dollar bills on hand, as well as a full range of coins. They have to, since very few people have accounts that are an integer multiple of $20 and they have to be able to allow you to take your money out.
Maybe you're complaining because the ATMs don't hold anything but $20 bills? That's not the only way to withdraw money from the bank. It's the cheapest way for the banks, and it's cheaper to make a machine that deals only with one kind of bill, so that's what the ATMs do.
2x4s haven't been 2 by 4 for a very long time, my friend. I can remember when they actually were.
Isn't the metric system wonderful? Yes. I can buy 2.54mm headers that fit very well in the holes for the.1" headers I used to buy. But much more modern.
No, no. That's not the right way to look at it. It's 4 BILLION being saved. What? Yes, that's over THIRTY years, but so what? Doesn't "4 BILLION" sound so much better than "1 BILLION" or even just "146 MILLION"?
Now we have the latest style of inflation: the number of years a small savings is multiplied by to produce the sensational amount to be reported by the media. With the budget, it's typically been 10 years (so they won't say "this cut to spending will save just 100 million", they report savings of "1 billion". Now it's 30 years. We've automatically saved three times as much as before!
I suppose if you find getting into space unimaginably difficult
I said nothing of the kind. Space having a comparatively infinite amount of raw materials compared to the earth has nothing to do with the difficulty of going there.
You seem fairly bright though:
You don't, based on your pathetic attempt at insult and/or deliberate misreading of simple english.
...but not really beyond imagination either.
The amount of raw material that makes up the rest of the universe really is beyond the comprehension of most people. Some physicists make SWAGs at it, based on assumptions about how much mass there must be for the current theories to result in the observed behaviour, but that's still not a true comprehension of just how much there is.
Quick, smart ass, you got a firm understanding of the universe, tell me, if the amount of just hydrogen in the universe was compressed down into standard pressure and temperature, what would the volume be? No fair looking it up, we're talking about a basic understanding here.
infinite: adj.
[common] Consisting of a large number of objects; extreme. Used very loosely as in: "This program produces infinite garbage." "He is an infinite loser." The word most likely to follow infinite, though, is hair. (It has been pointed out that fractals are an excellent example of infinite hair.) These uses are abuses of the word's mathematical meaning.
I'm sorry if I confused you into thinking I meant that the nearly infinite universe was, truly, really mathematically infinite in scope.
That said, I don't understand what advantage they thought they would gain by having missile bases on the moon.
Simple. If country X launches a first-strike trying to disable country Y, then country Y's moon-based nukes would allow them to disable country X in return. "Mutual Assured Destruction" doesn't work when there isn't mutual assured destruction.
If country Y tries to take out country X's moon-based missiles, the time it takes for the attack to reach the moon would allow country X lots of time to... rain mutually assured destruction down upon the heads of country Y.
That's stupid. They should put the nukes on the dark side and then detonate them all at once to crash the moon into Russia.
No, no, no. That's stupid. Everyone knows that nukes "going off" on the dark side of the moon will push the moon AWAY from the earth and out into space where we'll come across all kinds of interesting aliens and other planets and stuff within just a few weeks. Don't you watch TV at ALL?
.. and into the giant pit of vacuum in which there are even less resources? Good plan.
That "giant pit of vacuum" has infinitely more mass and infinitely more hydrogen than this tiny pit of earth, from which fusion reactors can produce other elements. At least those not found on other tiny pits of earth that we may visit.
Wait, so you're saying the system is easily corruptible and bypassable, but it still makes it feasible?
Back in the 60s, they had these things called "payphones". Little slots you put money in, you got to call other people. There was info around specifying what kind of washer (and the mod to it) would substitute for a quarter. Easily corruptible. Some of the phones, all you had to do was short the microphone case to the phone and you got free calls. Easily corruptible. Very feasible.
In the 70s, the uni library had a copy machine system that people could put a card into and charge copies to their accounts. A simple plastic card, with an internal layer that was opaque to IR -- except for the holes punched into it before being laminated between two IR transparent but visibly opaque covers. Easily corruptible. (All you had to do was punch holes in a standard playing card until the system accepted it as valid...) Very feasible.
Every so often, the road department puts out traffic counting systems to determine how many cars use certain roads. Used to be a simple hose with a pressure sensor. Yeah, someone could jump up and down on the hose and create fictional cars. Easily corruptible system, but very feasible.
Any system where the expectation of being gamed is low enough that the cost of being gamed is covered by the honest people is still easily corruptible but quite feasible for regular use. Most people aren't going to be spoofing their bluetooth MAC address while driving down the road, if they even know how to do it. That makes this easily corruptible system quite feasible for measuring average traffic speeds.
If they only need the MAC addresses for the time that the device is traversing the system, then there's no reason to log the data for long term.
"If they only need information X for a short time, then there's no reason to log information X for the long term." Insert your own phrases for "information X" and see how it applies to government (or private corporation) systems. Try "web query" and then think about how many websites log that information for a very long time. (Mine keeps logs back to... mid '90s, probably. Definitely more than five years.)
How about "gun purchase background checks"? How many years are those kept?
How about "GPS road-tax tracking data"? Oregon keeps pushing the idea, but can never seem to answer the question of who keeps the data and how long.
They even keep denying that they'll be tracking who goes where -- despite a time/location dependent tax rate being one of the selling points for the system! I.e., if you drive main roads during congested hours, you pay more road tax than someone who drives the same roads at 2AM. To be able to do this, they MUST keep track of WHO (who has to pay) is going WHERE (which roads you are using) at WHAT TIME (peak vs. off-peak.) And they deny they'll keep track of any of this.
So, yes, they don't NEED to keep the data, but why would you imagine they'll throw out perfectly good data once they have it?
And in turn, they won't be able to subpoena the information related to the mac without showing that an actual crime was committed.
So, I guess if you carry a bluetooth device and commit a crime, you are hoping that nobody commits a crime that the police can show actually was committed so they can subpoena MAC data for.
If you commit a crime that isn't a crime, what is the sound of one hand being handcuffed?
The issue could have been addressed by fiat from any one popular software package.
Thus solving it for users of one package.
2) Add a field to the protocol
Which protocol? SMTP? POP? IMAP? UUCP?
The protocol allows for experimental fields
Same question.
The mouseover for the button
Oh, this would solve the problem only for the people with GUI mail clients.
could have said "use encryption if the recipient has a compatible client".
Sorry. How does my email client know what email client YOU are using and whether it supports this? Is there a new protocol you are proposing where one client asks another prior to sending an email? What happens if the recipient is offline?
But for some reason we didn't do that,
Mainly because it is an intractable problem, much more difficult than simply having one GUI email client start doing it. Here's one big problem: how do I read those encrypted emails sitting in my mailbox when I'm not using the specific GUI email client that deals with them, or I don't happen to have the key and can't get it because I'm not online at the moment?
(I've often wondered if the browser could automatically encrypt/decrypt the content of specific named text blocks from specific sites such as gmail. Then the content could be encrypted online, but show cleartext to the user.)
If you are limiting yourself to defining "email" as "gmail accessed via a web browser", you simplify the problem considerably. Of course Google could store all your email in an encrypted form and send you a javascript (if you have a js enabled/capable broswer) applet that decodes it on your system. If you send them your public key, they could even encrypt the stuff they store on their disks as it came in for you, if it wasn't already. You still have the problem of how you make sure every system you use to access that email has the key kept locally, and what happens for people who have gmail forwarded to some place else.
So, yes, the problem is rather trivial if you force everyone and everything through one mail server and ignore the huge diversity in protocols used to transport email and the kinds and types of clients/servers used to do it.
But why? It's not like you are going to be encoding video or rending a Pixar movie on the thing. You want video playback, document editing, some gaming, and web surfing,
What's interesting is that you use as examples of "high performance" activities those things which can most easily be left running unattended, and use as low performance activities those things that need the most system performance to provide realtime interactivity. Encoding video can be done on a P90 (given enough time) and nobody will know when it is done that it took a minute or a week. Watching that video on a system that skips and jumps because the CPU/GPU cannot keep up is immediately noticeable and would be unacceptable to most people.
I believe the minimum altitude for operating an aircraft is 500 feet,
The minimum altitude for operating an aircraft is 0 AGL; otherwise, they'd never be able to land.
There are different rules for altitude depending on the type of land one is over, and what type of aircraft one is operating. As I recall, helicopter rules are basically "high enough to land safely in case of trouble without endangering". Fixed wing have "within 500 feet of any structure or vessel...", or "500 AGL", or "1000 AGL" depending on population density. And, of course, the minimum is zero when making an approach to land. So, over water, the minimum for an aircraft truly is 0, as long as it is still 500 feet away from any boat or person. Ditto if one is out in the boonies.
But it would be interesting to see what would happen if someone shot down a government-owned drone. Anyone want to bet on how that would go down?
You think it would be interesting to go to prison for destruction of government property? That's my bet for your future if you do that.
Which is only offensive if you choose to view it as such.
All determinations of "offensive" are subjective. I.e., "only because you choose to view it as such". Someone who thinks that obscenity should not be protected speech would not be offended by regulations prohibiting it, as demonstrated by the continued bans on profanity and obscenity on broadcast TV and amateur radio services. I know of nobody who is submitting an NPRM to the FCC to remove the part of the CFR that makes profanity illegal on ham radio. (47CFR97.113(a)(4)).
Is "fuck" offensive and profanity? Some people don't think so. Say it more than "once by accident" on any repeater I operate and you'll be banned from that repeater. Express the concepts using polite language and you'll have no problem.
It's the people who believe that "bad words" exist who are bad people.
Oh my. There goes the entire debate about racism and racist language, then. Only bad people think that there can be racist language, yes?
Clearly you weren't paying a lot of attention to the ads associated with the presidential campaign that just concluded in the US.
Clearly you weren't watching the political ads. They are not commercial speech, nor was the speech attempted by CU.
This case essentially gives any non-corporeal legal entity the protected right to say whatever the hell it wants.
You are patently and absurdly wrong. The CU decision said no such thing. It did nothing to strike down any existing or potential commercial speech limitations. You cannot use the word "new" longer than a certain time fixed by the FTC when referring to your "new, improved" product, for example. Many other forms of commercial speech have limits. Ads for medicines cannot make outlandish claims about efficacy for conditions without proof. The DNC prohibits commercial speech from people who would sit in a boilerroom cold-calling everyone in sequence. (Whether criminals pay attention to the law is irrelevant, the law is constitutional and is a clear limit on commercial speech.) Financial organizations have limits on how they make offers to the public, and what claims they can make about success. The examples are almost endless.
So no, the Citizen's United decision did NOT say that "non-corporeal legal entities" can say whatever they want. Not even close.
It's hard to tell from the whacked indentation system/. has created, but it appears that this is a subthread in response to the statement by AC that you can tear your mailbox down and refuse to answer the door to the mailman if you want to stop getting mail. You asked if it wasn't a crime to do that. Is that where we are?
If so, both links you give are regulations about how any mailbox you do have must be constructed and where it can be placed. They are not regulations saying you must have a mailbox. The AC is quite correct. If you don't want to get mail from USPS, tear your mailbox down and provide no other means of delivery.
Many rural people have chosen not to have a mailbox, opting instead for pickup at the local PO. That's to keep their mail from sitting in a box along a country road unattended for most of the day.
When I last tried to get a PO box, I was told that doing so would mean that I would no longer get anything delivered at home, even if it was addressed to my home and not the PO box. In other words, my mailbox would be useless and I might as well tear it down. They can't force you to have a mailbox that they refuse to deliver to, can they? (They don't.)
And how does that apply to someone posting something to Twitter or Facebook along the lines of
If you read all of what I wrote, you will notice that I said I wasn't commenting on the tumblr events but on your question in general. So maybe it doesn't apply to those specifics. Hmm?
My simple question was in context. I wasn't talking about.... That should have been obvious.
No, it isn't obvious. People broaden the scope of a discussion all the time. A specific incident often leads to generic questions of the ethics of certain activities. I was rather explicit in telling you that I was dealing with your question in the broad sense.
My simple question "what's wrong with calling a racist a racist" implies that the person is actually a racist.
No, actually it implies "calling someone I think is a racist", not a cold, hard, proven, beyond all shadow of doubt racist. The point I made was that people are considered "racist" without truly being one ALL THE TIME, so calling someone who has been unfairly labeled a racist a racist is a serious problem. Well, many people think it is a problem. Some don't, it seems.
I'm glad you have perfect perception and can never make such a mistake, although your perfect perception did miss my clear statement of the context I was using to answer your question, and your vitriolic response was a mistake.
Keep fighting for your freedoms, they seem to dictate the direction the rest of us get herded.
This would have been a perfect time to repeal the nonsensical limitations on scanner radios that were based on analog cellphones and the desire of people who were using RADIO systems to keep other people with radios from hearing them. This mandated gap in coverage is no longer justifiable, yet it remains on the books.
Slashdot Mirror
So you copy your Gmail contacts to your Facebook account. You then want to remove those contacts you put into your Gmail account. Does Gmail now have to pass on that removal request to Facebook because they passed on the contact?
Gmail didn't pass on the contacts, YOU did.
if they don't then the contact is not completely deleted from the internet as it still exixts on another provider's system.
Telling Facebook or gmail to actually delete information doesn't mean you're telling them to delete it from anyplace it might be on the Internet. It's telling them to delete it from gmail or facebook, or wherever they sent it.
This is not a complicated problem. And yet, Google/Gmail thinks it is. My idiot ISP has just handed all of their user's personal information over to Google by moving their email services to gmail. Gmail immediately sent out an email telling people they shouldn't delete their email when done with it, they should "archive" it. (Of coirse, they can't index and sort and make money from selling private data if you've deleted it.) And, in fact, now my mobile email clients actually DON'T delete email when I tell them to. A week ago, deleting an email meant it went away. Today, deleting an email after reading it leaves that email not only on the system but marks it as UNREAD. Fascinating.
To delete records that have been copied one must retain a log to all those places where the data has been copied.
Yes, I will keep a mental log of where I sent the contact data I downloaded from gmail to.
This log can then be used to trace a person's activity and therefore a privacy concern.
Me knowing where I copied my own data is not a privacy concern. But thanks for trying to whitewash facebook.
I.e., if a company wanted to sell PCs to Mom and Pop home user with Windows pre-installed, they had to sell the PC hardware to ME with Windows pre-installed, even though the first thing I did with those systems was install Linux. That applied to the big companies as well as the local computer shop that wanted to keep its Microsoft Dealer status. I can't tell you how many copies of Windows 98 I have that were never used.
Having gone to many trips through the countries of Europe, I can say that you typically don't have a stack of coins in your pocket.
Yes, I do wind up with a stack of coins in my pocket, and I don't care what you say I have.
Now that your change is worth something, you spend it first and only go to paper afterwards,
Nope. I find it much easier to pull a paper bill out of my wallet than to fish around in my pocket looking for the right coin or three, having to actually look at them to figure out what their value is since I don't use them often enough to memorize by feel what they are.
Oh, you want 4 euro? Here's a paper bill that is larger than 4 euro, give me my change. Much easier than "let's see, here's 50p, here's 20p, that makes 70p, oops that was only a 10p so I'm at 60p, how much did you want again?"
Because you use your coins first,
But I don't. The ONLY time I try to use coins first is during the last day of my trip when I know I'll have to deal with all those useless coins when I get home so I better spend them now. It becomes more important to use coins first when you know you're just going to have to pull them out of your pocket and throw them into your bag so you can go through security.
Even if you pay with paper, you still pay off the change bit if you have it because you've already checked your pocket for enough money.
I usually keep a pretty close tab on how much money I've got with me, I don't have to look through my pockets every time I buy something to "check my pocket for enough money". So, I've not reached into my front pocket for change to count it every ten minutes, and reaching into my back pocket for a wallet is so much easier so why would I do both?
End result is that I have less coins in my pocket than I usually do back in the States.
That's you. I usually have as many, if not more, coins when I travel elsewhere than when I'm at home.
Not that I can withdraw 1s and 5s at the bank as it is. Minimum of $20 and a multiple of $20 from there.
I can tell you for a fact that banks (and credit unions) have 1 and 5 dollar bills on hand, as well as a full range of coins. They have to, since very few people have accounts that are an integer multiple of $20 and they have to be able to allow you to take your money out.
Maybe you're complaining because the ATMs don't hold anything but $20 bills? That's not the only way to withdraw money from the bank. It's the cheapest way for the banks, and it's cheaper to make a machine that deals only with one kind of bill, so that's what the ATMs do.
and 2x4 planks will be 2x4s.
2x4s haven't been 2 by 4 for a very long time, my friend. I can remember when they actually were.
Isn't the metric system wonderful? Yes. I can buy 2.54mm headers that fit very well in the holes for the .1" headers I used to buy. But much more modern.
Now get off my lawn.
So that's $146,000,000/yr.
No, no. That's not the right way to look at it. It's 4 BILLION being saved. What? Yes, that's over THIRTY years, but so what? Doesn't "4 BILLION" sound so much better than "1 BILLION" or even just "146 MILLION"?
Now we have the latest style of inflation: the number of years a small savings is multiplied by to produce the sensational amount to be reported by the media. With the budget, it's typically been 10 years (so they won't say "this cut to spending will save just 100 million", they report savings of "1 billion". Now it's 30 years. We've automatically saved three times as much as before!
I suppose if you find getting into space unimaginably difficult
I said nothing of the kind. Space having a comparatively infinite amount of raw materials compared to the earth has nothing to do with the difficulty of going there.
You seem fairly bright though:
You don't, based on your pathetic attempt at insult and/or deliberate misreading of simple english.
...but not really beyond imagination either.
The amount of raw material that makes up the rest of the universe really is beyond the comprehension of most people. Some physicists make SWAGs at it, based on assumptions about how much mass there must be for the current theories to result in the observed behaviour, but that's still not a true comprehension of just how much there is.
Quick, smart ass, you got a firm understanding of the universe, tell me, if the amount of just hydrogen in the universe was compressed down into standard pressure and temperature, what would the volume be? No fair looking it up, we're talking about a basic understanding here.
I do not think that word (infinite) means what you think it means. Either of you.
From here::
Also, here:
I'm sorry if I confused you into thinking I meant that the nearly infinite universe was, truly, really mathematically infinite in scope.
That said, I don't understand what advantage they thought they would gain by having missile bases on the moon.
Simple. If country X launches a first-strike trying to disable country Y, then country Y's moon-based nukes would allow them to disable country X in return. "Mutual Assured Destruction" doesn't work when there isn't mutual assured destruction.
If country Y tries to take out country X's moon-based missiles, the time it takes for the attack to reach the moon would allow country X lots of time to ... rain mutually assured destruction down upon the heads of country Y.
That's stupid. They should put the nukes on the dark side and then detonate them all at once to crash the moon into Russia.
No, no, no. That's stupid. Everyone knows that nukes "going off" on the dark side of the moon will push the moon AWAY from the earth and out into space where we'll come across all kinds of interesting aliens and other planets and stuff within just a few weeks. Don't you watch TV at ALL?
.. and into the giant pit of vacuum in which there are even less resources? Good plan.
That "giant pit of vacuum" has infinitely more mass and infinitely more hydrogen than this tiny pit of earth, from which fusion reactors can produce other elements. At least those not found on other tiny pits of earth that we may visit.
Not how it works in law up here.
So the law in Canada is a moron? Why the hell would you need a subpoena to find out the MAC address when you ALREADY KNOW THE MAC ADDRESS?
Glad you don't know the distinctions of law in Canada either.
That "whoosh" is the joke about committing a crime that isn't a crime and the sound of one hand zipping past your touked head, eh?
I realize that asking people to read the article they're commenting on is a stretch,
I realize that taking the government's word at face value is a stretch, but I'm glad you do. You keep the other end of the bell curve bell shaped.
Doesn't work like that here. You'd only be able to subpoena for the mac of the specific device, not all devices.
If you already know the MAC, you don't need a subpoena to find out the MAC.
And if you commit a crime that isn't a crime, you're committing a violation not a crime.
Whoosh.
Wait, so you're saying the system is easily corruptible and bypassable, but it still makes it feasible?
Back in the 60s, they had these things called "payphones". Little slots you put money in, you got to call other people. There was info around specifying what kind of washer (and the mod to it) would substitute for a quarter. Easily corruptible. Some of the phones, all you had to do was short the microphone case to the phone and you got free calls. Easily corruptible. Very feasible.
In the 70s, the uni library had a copy machine system that people could put a card into and charge copies to their accounts. A simple plastic card, with an internal layer that was opaque to IR -- except for the holes punched into it before being laminated between two IR transparent but visibly opaque covers. Easily corruptible. (All you had to do was punch holes in a standard playing card until the system accepted it as valid...) Very feasible.
Every so often, the road department puts out traffic counting systems to determine how many cars use certain roads. Used to be a simple hose with a pressure sensor. Yeah, someone could jump up and down on the hose and create fictional cars. Easily corruptible system, but very feasible.
Any system where the expectation of being gamed is low enough that the cost of being gamed is covered by the honest people is still easily corruptible but quite feasible for regular use. Most people aren't going to be spoofing their bluetooth MAC address while driving down the road, if they even know how to do it. That makes this easily corruptible system quite feasible for measuring average traffic speeds.
If they only need the MAC addresses for the time that the device is traversing the system, then there's no reason to log the data for long term.
"If they only need information X for a short time, then there's no reason to log information X for the long term." Insert your own phrases for "information X" and see how it applies to government (or private corporation) systems. Try "web query" and then think about how many websites log that information for a very long time. (Mine keeps logs back to ... mid '90s, probably. Definitely more than five years.)
How about "gun purchase background checks"? How many years are those kept?
How about "GPS road-tax tracking data"? Oregon keeps pushing the idea, but can never seem to answer the question of who keeps the data and how long.
They even keep denying that they'll be tracking who goes where -- despite a time/location dependent tax rate being one of the selling points for the system! I.e., if you drive main roads during congested hours, you pay more road tax than someone who drives the same roads at 2AM. To be able to do this, they MUST keep track of WHO (who has to pay) is going WHERE (which roads you are using) at WHAT TIME (peak vs. off-peak.) And they deny they'll keep track of any of this.
So, yes, they don't NEED to keep the data, but why would you imagine they'll throw out perfectly good data once they have it?
And in turn, they won't be able to subpoena the information related to the mac without showing that an actual crime was committed.
So, I guess if you carry a bluetooth device and commit a crime, you are hoping that nobody commits a crime that the police can show actually was committed so they can subpoena MAC data for.
If you commit a crime that isn't a crime, what is the sound of one hand being handcuffed?
The issue could have been addressed by fiat from any one popular software package.
Thus solving it for users of one package.
2) Add a field to the protocol
Which protocol? SMTP? POP? IMAP? UUCP?
The protocol allows for experimental fields
Same question.
The mouseover for the button
Oh, this would solve the problem only for the people with GUI mail clients.
could have said "use encryption if the recipient has a compatible client".
Sorry. How does my email client know what email client YOU are using and whether it supports this? Is there a new protocol you are proposing where one client asks another prior to sending an email? What happens if the recipient is offline?
But for some reason we didn't do that,
Mainly because it is an intractable problem, much more difficult than simply having one GUI email client start doing it. Here's one big problem: how do I read those encrypted emails sitting in my mailbox when I'm not using the specific GUI email client that deals with them, or I don't happen to have the key and can't get it because I'm not online at the moment?
(I've often wondered if the browser could automatically encrypt/decrypt the content of specific named text blocks from specific sites such as gmail. Then the content could be encrypted online, but show cleartext to the user.)
If you are limiting yourself to defining "email" as "gmail accessed via a web browser", you simplify the problem considerably. Of course Google could store all your email in an encrypted form and send you a javascript (if you have a js enabled/capable broswer) applet that decodes it on your system. If you send them your public key, they could even encrypt the stuff they store on their disks as it came in for you, if it wasn't already. You still have the problem of how you make sure every system you use to access that email has the key kept locally, and what happens for people who have gmail forwarded to some place else.
So, yes, the problem is rather trivial if you force everyone and everything through one mail server and ignore the huge diversity in protocols used to transport email and the kinds and types of clients/servers used to do it.
But why? It's not like you are going to be encoding video or rending a Pixar movie on the thing. You want video playback, document editing, some gaming, and web surfing,
What's interesting is that you use as examples of "high performance" activities those things which can most easily be left running unattended, and use as low performance activities those things that need the most system performance to provide realtime interactivity. Encoding video can be done on a P90 (given enough time) and nobody will know when it is done that it took a minute or a week. Watching that video on a system that skips and jumps because the CPU/GPU cannot keep up is immediately noticeable and would be unacceptable to most people.
I believe the minimum altitude for operating an aircraft is 500 feet,
The minimum altitude for operating an aircraft is 0 AGL; otherwise, they'd never be able to land.
There are different rules for altitude depending on the type of land one is over, and what type of aircraft one is operating. As I recall, helicopter rules are basically "high enough to land safely in case of trouble without endangering". Fixed wing have "within 500 feet of any structure or vessel...", or "500 AGL", or "1000 AGL" depending on population density. And, of course, the minimum is zero when making an approach to land. So, over water, the minimum for an aircraft truly is 0, as long as it is still 500 feet away from any boat or person. Ditto if one is out in the boonies.
But it would be interesting to see what would happen if someone shot down a government-owned drone. Anyone want to bet on how that would go down?
You think it would be interesting to go to prison for destruction of government property? That's my bet for your future if you do that.
Which is only offensive if you choose to view it as such.
All determinations of "offensive" are subjective. I.e., "only because you choose to view it as such". Someone who thinks that obscenity should not be protected speech would not be offended by regulations prohibiting it, as demonstrated by the continued bans on profanity and obscenity on broadcast TV and amateur radio services. I know of nobody who is submitting an NPRM to the FCC to remove the part of the CFR that makes profanity illegal on ham radio. (47CFR97.113(a)(4)).
Is "fuck" offensive and profanity? Some people don't think so. Say it more than "once by accident" on any repeater I operate and you'll be banned from that repeater. Express the concepts using polite language and you'll have no problem.
It's the people who believe that "bad words" exist who are bad people.
Oh my. There goes the entire debate about racism and racist language, then. Only bad people think that there can be racist language, yes?
Clearly you weren't paying a lot of attention to the ads associated with the presidential campaign that just concluded in the US.
Clearly you weren't watching the political ads. They are not commercial speech, nor was the speech attempted by CU.
This case essentially gives any non-corporeal legal entity the protected right to say whatever the hell it wants.
You are patently and absurdly wrong. The CU decision said no such thing. It did nothing to strike down any existing or potential commercial speech limitations. You cannot use the word "new" longer than a certain time fixed by the FTC when referring to your "new, improved" product, for example. Many other forms of commercial speech have limits. Ads for medicines cannot make outlandish claims about efficacy for conditions without proof. The DNC prohibits commercial speech from people who would sit in a boilerroom cold-calling everyone in sequence. (Whether criminals pay attention to the law is irrelevant, the law is constitutional and is a clear limit on commercial speech.) Financial organizations have limits on how they make offers to the public, and what claims they can make about success. The examples are almost endless.
So no, the Citizen's United decision did NOT say that "non-corporeal legal entities" can say whatever they want. Not even close.
If so, both links you give are regulations about how any mailbox you do have must be constructed and where it can be placed. They are not regulations saying you must have a mailbox. The AC is quite correct. If you don't want to get mail from USPS, tear your mailbox down and provide no other means of delivery.
Many rural people have chosen not to have a mailbox, opting instead for pickup at the local PO. That's to keep their mail from sitting in a box along a country road unattended for most of the day.
When I last tried to get a PO box, I was told that doing so would mean that I would no longer get anything delivered at home, even if it was addressed to my home and not the PO box. In other words, my mailbox would be useless and I might as well tear it down. They can't force you to have a mailbox that they refuse to deliver to, can they? (They don't.)
And how does that apply to someone posting something to Twitter or Facebook along the lines of
If you read all of what I wrote, you will notice that I said I wasn't commenting on the tumblr events but on your question in general. So maybe it doesn't apply to those specifics. Hmm?
My simple question was in context. I wasn't talking about .... That should have been obvious.
No, it isn't obvious. People broaden the scope of a discussion all the time. A specific incident often leads to generic questions of the ethics of certain activities. I was rather explicit in telling you that I was dealing with your question in the broad sense.
My simple question "what's wrong with calling a racist a racist" implies that the person is actually a racist.
No, actually it implies "calling someone I think is a racist", not a cold, hard, proven, beyond all shadow of doubt racist. The point I made was that people are considered "racist" without truly being one ALL THE TIME, so calling someone who has been unfairly labeled a racist a racist is a serious problem. Well, many people think it is a problem. Some don't, it seems.
I'm glad you have perfect perception and can never make such a mistake, although your perfect perception did miss my clear statement of the context I was using to answer your question, and your vitriolic response was a mistake.
Keep fighting for your freedoms, they seem to dictate the direction the rest of us get herded.
This would have been a perfect time to repeal the nonsensical limitations on scanner radios that were based on analog cellphones and the desire of people who were using RADIO systems to keep other people with radios from hearing them. This mandated gap in coverage is no longer justifiable, yet it remains on the books.