This sounds like marketing nonsense to me. From one of their "how this works" pages:
The light field fully defines how a scene appears. It is the amount of light traveling in every direction through every point in space -- it's all the light rays in a scene. Conventional cameras cannot record the light field.
And if you know anything about a camera lens, neither can this "light field camera". Any light ray that doesn't travel towards the camera lens cannot be recorded by that lens. Any lens. Of "all the light rays in a scene", very few travel exactly the correct direction. (You can calculate what percentage by choosing a point in the image and determining what percentage of the whole sphere the solid angle of your lens intercepts.)
I looked at the "focus stacking" links found elsewhere. All I can say about that is -- if the watch in the picture had been actually running, it would not have helped the part of the image that was moving. Why not just use the correct depth of field to start with? Its not like your watch is going to go blind if you have to add illumination so you can get a tiny aperture.
But, if you knew you could use 8-bit characters, and you generated your passwords randomly, this could affect half of your password space.
If you generate your passwords randomly, you are going to have a hard time entering them from a lot of keyboards and OS. For example, I don't seem to be able to enter this \xa3 "pound sign" on this OS using the "alt+0163" Windows hack.
In any case, if you cut the number of selections for each character in a password in half, you cut your password space by 2^n, where n is the number of characters in your password.
I read the linked comment (not much of a description there), but it does appear that it is triggered by "8 bit characters" in passwords.
It talks about "pound sign" as the test, but claims that it is "\xa3 in C". I didn't know that C had a different definition for ASCII characters than ASCII does, and in my ASCII tables the octothorpe is 0x23. Ahh, maybe a language difference, and the "british currency symbol" is what he is referring to.
Or maybe this points out the error of relying on non-standard characters for anything. According to my Web Design nutshell book, \£ is the British pound symbol, but apparently FF3 doesn't know it (or/. strips it.) Here are two in a row: -- I see nothing. That's defined in ISO 8859-1, however, and not ASCII.
In any case, it looks like if you use standard ASCII characters in your password you are not a target for this bug.
Hey, I DO NOT agree to have my camera confiscated, disabled, or blocked if I go to a concert.
Then you are free not to attend that concert, and the concert promoter is free not to let you in. Your choice.
Nor do I agree to refrain from snapping photos of anything I might see at a museum. Everyone carried cameras on our class trips in school!
Someone asked about "legal" and then complained when examples of "legal but contractually prohibited" were given. Well, here's an example of illegal: you may not take photos in certain museum/national historic exhibits in Great Britain. If you don't agree to refrain from taking photos there, you can have your butt hauled out and your camera confiscated. You don't have to go in, so it is your choice.
Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying if you have friends, you don't want to be "that guy" who shits on everything (whether it be Facebook or whatever) because if you pull that shit, pretty soon you won't have any friends.
I went back to reread the comment you replied to where you said "that wouldn't work", and I find absolutely nothing about shitting on facebook. I see a suggestion that you avoid facebook and use email or put up your own web page. That is what I assumed you were saying wouldn't work for you because you actually have friends.
Do you really imagine that any friends you might have would abandon you if you were to withdraw from Facebook, or better, never join it? I don' t mean all those people who send friend requests so they can get their count up above 100 or 1000, but real friends?
Would you really count anyone who would drop you as a friend because you didn't join Facebook as a friend? I would not.
so stop making an argument that doesn't exist, and admit that a guy posing with a handgun on facebook has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about
And it had nothing to do with what you were talking about, until you got slapped down for exhibiting such a closed-minded assinine view of an entire segment of the population you have no clue about and obviously little concern to learn about. THEN you tried changing your rant to "google images with 'thug' and 'handgun' in the title", which got you another slap down, so now you are whinging about something else.
You have no clue about people who own guns or why their pictures might be on facebook, and even less ability to judge their motivations or hold a rational discussion. YOU are the textbook example of why it IS dangerous to one's well-being to post images of anything that any pinhead might find objectionable.
Goodbye, troll. And to think, I had mod points I could have modded you out of the discussion with.
Some of us actually have friends though, so your solution won't work for us.
Quite astute of you, sir. It was nearly impossible for anyone to have any friends before Facebook was created, and likewise nearly impossible to keep in touch with any of them prior to Mr. Zuckerberg's fine accomplishemt.
And now that Facebook has been created, all previous forms of communications that any of the very very few people who DID have friends have been disabled, effectively preventing anyone who is not on Facebook from having any friends at all.
you're changing the subject
i'm talking about a facebook profile with a guy holding a handgun
I'm done feeding the troll. You weren't talking about a facebook profile, you were talking about a google search for images that were tagged with the word "thug" and "handgun". And at first, you were talking about finding a picture of someone holding a gun on facebook.
surely you can agree a guy with a need to pose with a handgun has issues
Stop it. I agree with no such blatant blanket generalization about all gun owners. And you didn't apologize for anything, you tried to backpedal by claiming you mean only one kind of gun and then repeated your assinine black-wash attempt of those gun owners.
i'm talking about handguns, you're talking about rifles
You didn't say "handguns", I didn't say "rifles". You said "guns", I said "guns". In one place I said 'shooting skeet', which can be done using a handgun or rifle, but is more often done using shotguns, but that was only an example and not an exhaustive list of "guns".
so, if everywhere you saw "gun" you read "handgun" instead of "hunting rifle", do you have any argument with what i said?
Yes, and that's why I called what you said "bullshit" when I posted my response. Handguns, rifles, shotguns; your attitude towards the owners thereof is assinine and insulting.
So, the pictures on my Facebook page of my competing in organized shooting competition makes me immodest and vulgar?
No, as long as you are grim and sober the entire time and get no pleasure from winning any such competitions, and understand that the straights and squares will be scared of you, you're fine. And make sure you abhore the carnage you create by blowing holes in pieces of paper or shattering clay disks...
but you don't have a right to demand that the straights and squares not be uncomfortable around you,
Straights and squares won't be uncomfortable around someone who has pictures of himself on facebook holding a gun or using it in some manner. It's only the nutcases who think pictures of someone holding a gun equate to "a point of public pride", or "confidence and discretion issues" that one needs to worry about.
a gun is an ugly tool whose responsible usage is always grim and sober.
Bullshit.
don't look at a gun hater for this assessment,
Why not? You're the only one I've ever heard say something as stupid as that.
look to a responsible gun owner for this assessment
A responsible gun owner is going to say that a gun is a tool that can be used for good things, and can provide enjoyment and recreation just like any other sporting implement. They certainly won't think it is "grim and sober" when they go out shooting skeet, they do it for fun.
so i seriously wonder about the mindset of someone who finds great joy in celebrating their public image with a tool of carnage.
Meanwhile, you leave your "mindset" completely open for the world to see and laugh at.
maybe i don't want to work with such a person
And more importantly, maybe THEY don't want to work in a hostile environment where they face the possibility of retaliation from a gun hater just because they enjoy a legal, safe sport.
it's a beacon type, that when it turns 180 degrees it becomes active.
So if the container ship has to turn back to port for mechanical failure or some other reason, all the beacons start going off as the ship makes a u-ee?
And if true, someone somewhere who has an IQ bordering on mentally disabled is sitting in a jail cell for a crime he did not commit but confessed to under false pretense,
If he knew he didn't do it, then there is no machine that can tell him he did. He knows. Even an idiot knows.
The only person caught with such a system is a dumbass criminal who knows he did it and doesn't know that a copy machine can't detect that he's lying.
I wouldn't spend a lot of time crying over someone like that.
And yet pilots are beginning to carry iPads onto the flight deck to cut down on 50-lb flight bags, and airlines are stuffing planes full of seatback LCD screens and onboard WiFi systems.
And those are known devices in a known place in the aircraft, doing a known function, all unintentional emitters, and TESTED BEFORE THEY ARE INSTALLED so they are known not to interfere. Do you not get the difference between this and Joe Schmuck pulling his cellphone out of his pocket trying to call his girlfriend and thus activating a deliberate transmitter in a random place in the plane?
Do you also not understand the difference between a device under the direct control of the pilot, that can be disabled with the flick of a switch by the pilot when a problem is discovered, with Joe Schmuck texting his BFF that he's "lolz txting while on a plane" who would first need to be located by a probably strapped in flight atttendant and then told to turn it off?
If you don't, then you don't understand the problem.
We test this a thousand times each and every day, on every flight.
No, we don't. Stop being dishonest. The reports of problems that arise "every day" are dismissed as "anecdotal evidence" not worth anything. Either claim we test and find issues or stop claiming these are "tests" of any kind.
Have we had ONE serious incident? Lost ONE single plane attributed to a consumer electronics device? No and no.
I'm glad you are so willing to wait until planes actually do start falling from the skies before you are ready to accept any mitigating actions to prevent it from happening. And I am anxious to see you apply for a position on the NTSB because someone with so much perfect knowledge of aircraft systems and accident causes would be a one-man accident investigation panel.
The truth is, your "no and no" is ignorance. Attributing the cause of a crash to a transient PED is next to impossible, even though there are at least two fatal crashes that have signs of issues with them. Ansett Flight 703 and Crossair Flight 498. Neither can be confirmed as being due to PED use, but it is hard to attribute the error in the radar altimeter in the former flight (flipping 1000 feet in a few seconds, according to the pilot) as anything but interference. (The painting of the antenna was ruled out as a cause, and would not have caused an error as was observed in any case.)
So, maybe and maybe are the right answers. And given that enough people have seen interference issues is it simply lunacy to pretend that such issues don't exist. As I've posted before, I personally have seen it happen, so you will have nothing to say that will disabuse me of the knowledge that PED can cause interference.
You build safety factors into your standards. Go 50% over what you think you need. Or 100% over. Then, normal wear and tear shouldn't cause devices to exceed the threshhold that causes trouble,
There's that "perfect world" optimism again.
Please explain this to the TV that was signalling to the satellites at a power level a thousand times more than it should have been emitting. "You shouldn't be doing that, you had 100% overhead in your emission limits..."
Explain that to the cheaply made laptops who meet their emission limits when nothing is plugged in, but fail by 1000% when a badly manufactured cable is plugged in.
No, designs CANNOT account for users who modify the equipment, either deliberately or accidentally. And designs CANNOT account for manufacturers who avoid testing when the design changes.
Otherwise, some prankster on the ground could aim a transmitter at a plane and screw with its electronics.
Now I know that you have no clue what you are talking about, because it is absolutely TRIVIAL for a "prankster" to aim a transmitter at a plane and screw with the avionics. For a few dollars, I could build a fake marker beacon. I could EASILY transmit a fake ILS signal. Put an amp and an antenna on a GPS jammer and the aircraft GPS is gone. Buy a used aircraft radio and block ATC transmissions. You CANNOT SHIELD against that which you must receive, whether that is a leaky laptop emitting on a necessary frequency or a TV gone whacko or a "prankster".
Nobody is ignoring the problem. The solution to the problem is to limit the potential for exposure as much as possible. I'm sorry if that means you cannot text your BFF while you are flying or play DES games for twenty minutes, or even read a book on your Kindle for those same twenty minutes, but I'm sure you can tough it out and survive. And not be so selfish as to think that your use of a PED is so critical that you'd jeopardize everyone else on the plane even to a tiny degree.
Actually, it is a critical part of any exemption you want to write into that law. AND that the police officer is openly identified AS a police officer when the recording is made.
If you exclude "official duties", then you would allow secret recording of an officer while off-duty, and when he's not acting as a police officer his life is his own. He deserves, at that time, the same protections anyone else has.
The judges have to realize these laws are broken, if they are upheld, simply taking a video camera to record your kid at the park would be an illegal act (with some ridiculously heavy penalties associated with it in some states).
Oh, please. Come back to earth, ok? Your kid is, presumably, a minor under your guardianship, or you wouldn't be calling him "your kid". You are, by the act if taping him, defacto authorizing the taping on his behalf. It would be an interesting but ultimately useless exercise to determine if MASS law even allows a minor to give consent to taping, similar to their inability to consent to sexual activity. But in any event, no, you aren't going to jail for taping your kid in the park (unless he or she is naked or exhibiting some sort of sexually explicit conduct.)
How can anybody even think it might be illegal...? I don't get it.
You mean other than there is a law in MASS that says that both parties involved in a recording must give consent for it to be legal?
I'm pretty sure that if a cop's supervisor tells a cop that there is a law that makes something illegal, and he goes to the books and looks it up to verify, he's probably going to think that it is illegal. I know that if a cop tells me something is illegal, and I can go to the statutes and find that yes, there is a statute saying it is illegal, I am going to think it is illegal, too.
I read the law, and I don't think it is a twisted interpretation of what it actually says to believe that secretly recording a police officer is illegal under the provisions as listed. It simply is too broad in defining terms, and you don't get to apply a knowledgable/. kind of definition of things when the law itself contains the definitions.
SHOULD the district court "throw the case out"? Of course not. That's exactly the wrong thing to do. You want a ruling that says "this is nonsense, the law is unconstitutional" or whatever will make the law invalid. Simply throwing the case out will let the lower court decision stand.
Yes, I think it should be legal, too. An obvious exception to the MASS law should be "recording of government employee identified as such while acting under color of authority". The law (http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99) does not contain such an exemption, although it does contain many others.
i.e. you can perform analysis on the encrypted data without decrypting it first.
About the only analysis I can think of that you can do on properly encrypted data is cryptanalysis.
Trends in financial data, order status, anything I can think of that's useful would be obscured by the encryption. Which is, after all, the reason one encrypts the data in the first place.
Your examples are a bit twisted. Reading your appointments in a public street wouldn't make them public simply because they were private information obviously intended to be kept secret.
I'm sorry, but you didn't read the definition of "public data", now did you? "Anything I can see while walking down the street" -- by definition. How are you not seeing the data about your appointment with the dominatrix? How can that not fit the definition? Unless the definition is wrong, which was my point.
As for the intent to keep it secret, I guess then that the police intending to keep a checkpoint location secret is sufficient to breach the definition of "public data" and it, too, would be secret. Unless the definition was wrong, which was my point.
It'd be hard to argue that a police operation on the middle of a public road is intended to be kept secret and that you're not supposed to look at it.
Good thing that nobody is arguing that a police operation in the middle of a public road is intended to be kept secret and that you aren't supposed to look at it, then.
If it is something I can SEE WHILE WALKING DOWN THE STREET than it is public data, by definition.
Interesting definition.
You walk down the street, see someone's credit card laying on the sidewalk where they dropped it. Obviously, it is now public information. There can be nothing wrong with selling that information to the Russian mob, right?
You go to the ATM machine and the person ahead of you forgot to pull the receipt. You take it and get their account number. You wait a few minutes before looking so you can look at it while you "walk down the street". It is obviously public information now. Oh, you were also able to shoulder-surf their PIN, so that's public information, too.
You pull the PDA out of your pocket while walking down the street to check your appointments and see that you have an appointment with Mistress Dominica tonight at 7 and you better not be late you slimy worm kiss my feet bastard! This information is now, by definition, public data.
No, I think your definition is a little incorrect. Ok, a lot incorrect. People using this kind of definition for "public data" are why the ECPA was written and why scanners have large gaps in coverage of the cell phone bands. They could hear cell phone conversations on their radio, so they thought it became "public data" they could pass around freely.
I like how you fail to quote the part of his statement where GP chooses to not drive home, then fail to respond to any point that he makes. Good job!
I like how you fail to recognize the other outcome from checking with the checkpoint app: "no checkpoints reported, I'm just a little buzzed, so I hop in the car and drive home." He didn't say that explicitly, but that's the other side of the coin of what he did say. Or did you think that he was checking the app just for fun and had already decided not to drive home? No, that's not what he said.
What happens without that app? If he thought "maybe I'm too drunk to drive and I might get caught at a checkpoint" every time he was drunk and needed to "drive home", instead of being able to see if there was a high probability of getting caught, and took a cab instead, THAT would make the roads safer.
And then, what if the only way home wasn't the road where the checkpoint was? Do you think he might have decided to take the backroads to avoid the cops, thus making for a longer drive over less well maintained roads and increasing the danger to himself and others?
In the case of planes, test that they can tolerate a minimum amount of interference. And for the devices, test that they do not emit more than that minimum amount.
In a perfect world, with perfect manufacturing systems and non-breakable objects, that would be fine. In fact, this is already being done.
In the real world, however, you have laptops that are FCC certified for emission levels with nothing plugged into them that radiate all kinds of garbage when a mouse is plugged in, or a poorly shielded USB extension cable, or some other third-party peripheral. You have that cellphone you've dropped a few times and knocked the grounding screw loose so it now radiates. You are sitting in a plane that has been through maintenance a few times, and that cable bundle that was routed one way at manufacturing time has been misrouted by a few inches so it's now in a slightly different place. Or the cable bundle has come loose due to vibration and the shielding has abraded. Or a simple screw holding a ground lug has corroded and is not grounding something well anymore.
This is/., so maybe you have that laptop that you've opened up to replace the hard disk with a nice SSD, but you bent a few of the grounding fingers around the edge of the case when you put it back together, or maybe you just forgot to put the grounding stuff back in and decided "it's just a grounding thing, it isn't important." Or you've demonstrated your leet hacker chops by modding your PS3 into a clear plastic case, having no clue about anything to do with Part 15 or the emission limits and wouldn't know how to test for them if you did.
Or you have a fine piece of modern Chinese manufactured (or US for that matter) electronics where they got the FCC Part 15 certification for A or B emission levels on the first few production units, and then decided to save money by changing the production system and never bothered to retest the units for emissions.
So, you have a can of worms here. How do you solve it?
Ban all electronics. Not practical. There are too many things that too many people need to take with them when they travel, including those business travellers who pay prime rates for short-notice tickets.
Make all electronic items checked only, and shield the hell out of the baggage compartment. Impractical and unworkable, since much of the avionics is routed through that area. Also not acceptable for those same business travellers who you expect to check a $3k laptop.
Make a list of all approved electronic devices. Also unworkable. You'd put an enourmous amount of work onto the waiters, I mean stewardesses, I mean "flight attendants", who would have to carry a book with them just to figure out what was and was not approved.
Ban the use of all electronics that can be turned off during certain critical phases of the flight. Saves the effort of trying to figure out is that modded PS3 is legit for emissions, or if your laptop has been Part 15 tested with that mouse or whatever, or has been opened up to revoke its approved status. And gosh, this is what we do.
Why is it that people who should be the most aware of the foibles of our technology and the potentials for failure are so willing to think that none of the technology they use will ever fail in even the slightest way?
Slashdot Mirror
Until then, this sounds too sci-fi.
This sounds like marketing nonsense to me. From one of their "how this works" pages:
And if you know anything about a camera lens, neither can this "light field camera". Any light ray that doesn't travel towards the camera lens cannot be recorded by that lens. Any lens. Of "all the light rays in a scene", very few travel exactly the correct direction. (You can calculate what percentage by choosing a point in the image and determining what percentage of the whole sphere the solid angle of your lens intercepts.)
I looked at the "focus stacking" links found elsewhere. All I can say about that is -- if the watch in the picture had been actually running, it would not have helped the part of the image that was moving. Why not just use the correct depth of field to start with? Its not like your watch is going to go blind if you have to add illumination so you can get a tiny aperture.
But, if you knew you could use 8-bit characters, and you generated your passwords randomly, this could affect half of your password space.
If you generate your passwords randomly, you are going to have a hard time entering them from a lot of keyboards and OS. For example, I don't seem to be able to enter this \xa3 "pound sign" on this OS using the "alt+0163" Windows hack.
In any case, if you cut the number of selections for each character in a password in half, you cut your password space by 2^n, where n is the number of characters in your password.
It talks about "pound sign" as the test, but claims that it is "\xa3 in C". I didn't know that C had a different definition for ASCII characters than ASCII does, and in my ASCII tables the octothorpe is 0x23. Ahh, maybe a language difference, and the "british currency symbol" is what he is referring to.
Or maybe this points out the error of relying on non-standard characters for anything. According to my Web Design nutshell book, \£ is the British pound symbol, but apparently FF3 doesn't know it (or /. strips it.) Here are two in a row: -- I see nothing. That's defined in ISO 8859-1, however, and not ASCII.
In any case, it looks like if you use standard ASCII characters in your password you are not a target for this bug.
Hey, I DO NOT agree to have my camera confiscated, disabled, or blocked if I go to a concert.
Then you are free not to attend that concert, and the concert promoter is free not to let you in. Your choice.
Nor do I agree to refrain from snapping photos of anything I might see at a museum. Everyone carried cameras on our class trips in school!
Someone asked about "legal" and then complained when examples of "legal but contractually prohibited" were given. Well, here's an example of illegal: you may not take photos in certain museum/national historic exhibits in Great Britain. If you don't agree to refrain from taking photos there, you can have your butt hauled out and your camera confiscated. You don't have to go in, so it is your choice.
Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying if you have friends, you don't want to be "that guy" who shits on everything (whether it be Facebook or whatever) because if you pull that shit, pretty soon you won't have any friends.
I went back to reread the comment you replied to where you said "that wouldn't work", and I find absolutely nothing about shitting on facebook. I see a suggestion that you avoid facebook and use email or put up your own web page. That is what I assumed you were saying wouldn't work for you because you actually have friends.
Do you really imagine that any friends you might have would abandon you if you were to withdraw from Facebook, or better, never join it? I don' t mean all those people who send friend requests so they can get their count up above 100 or 1000, but real friends?
Would you really count anyone who would drop you as a friend because you didn't join Facebook as a friend? I would not.
so stop making an argument that doesn't exist, and admit that a guy posing with a handgun on facebook has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about
And it had nothing to do with what you were talking about, until you got slapped down for exhibiting such a closed-minded assinine view of an entire segment of the population you have no clue about and obviously little concern to learn about. THEN you tried changing your rant to "google images with 'thug' and 'handgun' in the title", which got you another slap down, so now you are whinging about something else.
You have no clue about people who own guns or why their pictures might be on facebook, and even less ability to judge their motivations or hold a rational discussion. YOU are the textbook example of why it IS dangerous to one's well-being to post images of anything that any pinhead might find objectionable.
Goodbye, troll. And to think, I had mod points I could have modded you out of the discussion with.
Some of us actually have friends though, so your solution won't work for us.
Quite astute of you, sir. It was nearly impossible for anyone to have any friends before Facebook was created, and likewise nearly impossible to keep in touch with any of them prior to Mr. Zuckerberg's fine accomplishemt.
And now that Facebook has been created, all previous forms of communications that any of the very very few people who DID have friends have been disabled, effectively preventing anyone who is not on Facebook from having any friends at all.
you're changing the subject i'm talking about a facebook profile with a guy holding a handgun
I'm done feeding the troll. You weren't talking about a facebook profile, you were talking about a google search for images that were tagged with the word "thug" and "handgun". And at first, you were talking about finding a picture of someone holding a gun on facebook.
surely you can agree a guy with a need to pose with a handgun has issues
Stop it. I agree with no such blatant blanket generalization about all gun owners. And you didn't apologize for anything, you tried to backpedal by claiming you mean only one kind of gun and then repeated your assinine black-wash attempt of those gun owners.
so tell me what you see: http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=thug+handgun&oq=thug+handgun
So, you search the web for pictures of thugs holding guns and extrapolate that to all gun owners everywhere.
What I see is a moron gun-hater who has no clue about real life.
If you didn't want to know what I see, you shouldn't have asked me.
i'm talking about handguns, you're talking about rifles
You didn't say "handguns", I didn't say "rifles". You said "guns", I said "guns". In one place I said 'shooting skeet', which can be done using a handgun or rifle, but is more often done using shotguns, but that was only an example and not an exhaustive list of "guns".
so, if everywhere you saw "gun" you read "handgun" instead of "hunting rifle", do you have any argument with what i said?
Yes, and that's why I called what you said "bullshit" when I posted my response. Handguns, rifles, shotguns; your attitude towards the owners thereof is assinine and insulting.
So, the pictures on my Facebook page of my competing in organized shooting competition makes me immodest and vulgar?
No, as long as you are grim and sober the entire time and get no pleasure from winning any such competitions, and understand that the straights and squares will be scared of you, you're fine. And make sure you abhore the carnage you create by blowing holes in pieces of paper or shattering clay disks...
but you don't have a right to demand that the straights and squares not be uncomfortable around you,
Straights and squares won't be uncomfortable around someone who has pictures of himself on facebook holding a gun or using it in some manner. It's only the nutcases who think pictures of someone holding a gun equate to "a point of public pride", or "confidence and discretion issues" that one needs to worry about.
a gun is an ugly tool whose responsible usage is always grim and sober.
Bullshit.
don't look at a gun hater for this assessment,
Why not? You're the only one I've ever heard say something as stupid as that.
look to a responsible gun owner for this assessment
A responsible gun owner is going to say that a gun is a tool that can be used for good things, and can provide enjoyment and recreation just like any other sporting implement. They certainly won't think it is "grim and sober" when they go out shooting skeet, they do it for fun.
so i seriously wonder about the mindset of someone who finds great joy in celebrating their public image with a tool of carnage.
Meanwhile, you leave your "mindset" completely open for the world to see and laugh at.
maybe i don't want to work with such a person
And more importantly, maybe THEY don't want to work in a hostile environment where they face the possibility of retaliation from a gun hater just because they enjoy a legal, safe sport.
it's a beacon type, that when it turns 180 degrees it becomes active.
So if the container ship has to turn back to port for mechanical failure or some other reason, all the beacons start going off as the ship makes a u-ee?
And if true, someone somewhere who has an IQ bordering on mentally disabled is sitting in a jail cell for a crime he did not commit but confessed to under false pretense,
If he knew he didn't do it, then there is no machine that can tell him he did. He knows. Even an idiot knows.
The only person caught with such a system is a dumbass criminal who knows he did it and doesn't know that a copy machine can't detect that he's lying.
I wouldn't spend a lot of time crying over someone like that.
And yet pilots are beginning to carry iPads onto the flight deck to cut down on 50-lb flight bags, and airlines are stuffing planes full of seatback LCD screens and onboard WiFi systems.
And those are known devices in a known place in the aircraft, doing a known function, all unintentional emitters, and TESTED BEFORE THEY ARE INSTALLED so they are known not to interfere. Do you not get the difference between this and Joe Schmuck pulling his cellphone out of his pocket trying to call his girlfriend and thus activating a deliberate transmitter in a random place in the plane?
Do you also not understand the difference between a device under the direct control of the pilot, that can be disabled with the flick of a switch by the pilot when a problem is discovered, with Joe Schmuck texting his BFF that he's "lolz txting while on a plane" who would first need to be located by a probably strapped in flight atttendant and then told to turn it off?
If you don't, then you don't understand the problem.
We test this a thousand times each and every day, on every flight.
No, we don't. Stop being dishonest. The reports of problems that arise "every day" are dismissed as "anecdotal evidence" not worth anything. Either claim we test and find issues or stop claiming these are "tests" of any kind.
Have we had ONE serious incident? Lost ONE single plane attributed to a consumer electronics device? No and no.
I'm glad you are so willing to wait until planes actually do start falling from the skies before you are ready to accept any mitigating actions to prevent it from happening. And I am anxious to see you apply for a position on the NTSB because someone with so much perfect knowledge of aircraft systems and accident causes would be a one-man accident investigation panel.
The truth is, your "no and no" is ignorance. Attributing the cause of a crash to a transient PED is next to impossible, even though there are at least two fatal crashes that have signs of issues with them. Ansett Flight 703 and Crossair Flight 498. Neither can be confirmed as being due to PED use, but it is hard to attribute the error in the radar altimeter in the former flight (flipping 1000 feet in a few seconds, according to the pilot) as anything but interference. (The painting of the antenna was ruled out as a cause, and would not have caused an error as was observed in any case.)
So, maybe and maybe are the right answers. And given that enough people have seen interference issues is it simply lunacy to pretend that such issues don't exist. As I've posted before, I personally have seen it happen, so you will have nothing to say that will disabuse me of the knowledge that PED can cause interference.
You build safety factors into your standards. Go 50% over what you think you need. Or 100% over. Then, normal wear and tear shouldn't cause devices to exceed the threshhold that causes trouble,
There's that "perfect world" optimism again.
Please explain this to the TV that was signalling to the satellites at a power level a thousand times more than it should have been emitting. "You shouldn't be doing that, you had 100% overhead in your emission limits..."
Explain that to the cheaply made laptops who meet their emission limits when nothing is plugged in, but fail by 1000% when a badly manufactured cable is plugged in.
No, designs CANNOT account for users who modify the equipment, either deliberately or accidentally. And designs CANNOT account for manufacturers who avoid testing when the design changes.
Otherwise, some prankster on the ground could aim a transmitter at a plane and screw with its electronics.
Now I know that you have no clue what you are talking about, because it is absolutely TRIVIAL for a "prankster" to aim a transmitter at a plane and screw with the avionics. For a few dollars, I could build a fake marker beacon. I could EASILY transmit a fake ILS signal. Put an amp and an antenna on a GPS jammer and the aircraft GPS is gone. Buy a used aircraft radio and block ATC transmissions. You CANNOT SHIELD against that which you must receive, whether that is a leaky laptop emitting on a necessary frequency or a TV gone whacko or a "prankster".
Nobody is ignoring the problem. The solution to the problem is to limit the potential for exposure as much as possible. I'm sorry if that means you cannot text your BFF while you are flying or play DES games for twenty minutes, or even read a book on your Kindle for those same twenty minutes, but I'm sure you can tough it out and survive. And not be so selfish as to think that your use of a PED is so critical that you'd jeopardize everyone else on the plane even to a tiny degree.
The official duties part is totally unnecessary.
Actually, it is a critical part of any exemption you want to write into that law. AND that the police officer is openly identified AS a police officer when the recording is made.
If you exclude "official duties", then you would allow secret recording of an officer while off-duty, and when he's not acting as a police officer his life is his own. He deserves, at that time, the same protections anyone else has.
The judges have to realize these laws are broken, if they are upheld, simply taking a video camera to record your kid at the park would be an illegal act (with some ridiculously heavy penalties associated with it in some states).
Oh, please. Come back to earth, ok? Your kid is, presumably, a minor under your guardianship, or you wouldn't be calling him "your kid". You are, by the act if taping him, defacto authorizing the taping on his behalf. It would be an interesting but ultimately useless exercise to determine if MASS law even allows a minor to give consent to taping, similar to their inability to consent to sexual activity. But in any event, no, you aren't going to jail for taping your kid in the park (unless he or she is naked or exhibiting some sort of sexually explicit conduct.)
How can anybody even think it might be illegal...? I don't get it.
You mean other than there is a law in MASS that says that both parties involved in a recording must give consent for it to be legal?
I'm pretty sure that if a cop's supervisor tells a cop that there is a law that makes something illegal, and he goes to the books and looks it up to verify, he's probably going to think that it is illegal. I know that if a cop tells me something is illegal, and I can go to the statutes and find that yes, there is a statute saying it is illegal, I am going to think it is illegal, too.
I read the law, and I don't think it is a twisted interpretation of what it actually says to believe that secretly recording a police officer is illegal under the provisions as listed. It simply is too broad in defining terms, and you don't get to apply a knowledgable /. kind of definition of things when the law itself contains the definitions.
SHOULD the district court "throw the case out"? Of course not. That's exactly the wrong thing to do. You want a ruling that says "this is nonsense, the law is unconstitutional" or whatever will make the law invalid. Simply throwing the case out will let the lower court decision stand.
Yes, I think it should be legal, too. An obvious exception to the MASS law should be "recording of government employee identified as such while acting under color of authority". The law (http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99) does not contain such an exemption, although it does contain many others.
i.e. you can perform analysis on the encrypted data without decrypting it first.
About the only analysis I can think of that you can do on properly encrypted data is cryptanalysis.
Trends in financial data, order status, anything I can think of that's useful would be obscured by the encryption. Which is, after all, the reason one encrypts the data in the first place.
Got any examples?
better than the body simply being missing with no clues. Bodies would be damaged by scavengers anyway.
Let's just say the irony of your comment combined with your handle was not missed by this observer.
Your examples are a bit twisted. Reading your appointments in a public street wouldn't make them public simply because they were private information obviously intended to be kept secret.
I'm sorry, but you didn't read the definition of "public data", now did you? "Anything I can see while walking down the street" -- by definition. How are you not seeing the data about your appointment with the dominatrix? How can that not fit the definition? Unless the definition is wrong, which was my point.
As for the intent to keep it secret, I guess then that the police intending to keep a checkpoint location secret is sufficient to breach the definition of "public data" and it, too, would be secret. Unless the definition was wrong, which was my point.
It'd be hard to argue that a police operation on the middle of a public road is intended to be kept secret and that you're not supposed to look at it.
Good thing that nobody is arguing that a police operation in the middle of a public road is intended to be kept secret and that you aren't supposed to look at it, then.
If it is something I can SEE WHILE WALKING DOWN THE STREET than it is public data, by definition.
Interesting definition.
You walk down the street, see someone's credit card laying on the sidewalk where they dropped it. Obviously, it is now public information. There can be nothing wrong with selling that information to the Russian mob, right?
You go to the ATM machine and the person ahead of you forgot to pull the receipt. You take it and get their account number. You wait a few minutes before looking so you can look at it while you "walk down the street". It is obviously public information now. Oh, you were also able to shoulder-surf their PIN, so that's public information, too.
You pull the PDA out of your pocket while walking down the street to check your appointments and see that you have an appointment with Mistress Dominica tonight at 7 and you better not be late you slimy worm kiss my feet bastard! This information is now, by definition, public data.
No, I think your definition is a little incorrect. Ok, a lot incorrect. People using this kind of definition for "public data" are why the ECPA was written and why scanners have large gaps in coverage of the cell phone bands. They could hear cell phone conversations on their radio, so they thought it became "public data" they could pass around freely.
I like how you fail to quote the part of his statement where GP chooses to not drive home, then fail to respond to any point that he makes. Good job!
I like how you fail to recognize the other outcome from checking with the checkpoint app: "no checkpoints reported, I'm just a little buzzed, so I hop in the car and drive home." He didn't say that explicitly, but that's the other side of the coin of what he did say. Or did you think that he was checking the app just for fun and had already decided not to drive home? No, that's not what he said.
What happens without that app? If he thought "maybe I'm too drunk to drive and I might get caught at a checkpoint" every time he was drunk and needed to "drive home", instead of being able to see if there was a high probability of getting caught, and took a cab instead, THAT would make the roads safer.
And then, what if the only way home wasn't the road where the checkpoint was? Do you think he might have decided to take the backroads to avoid the cops, thus making for a longer drive over less well maintained roads and increasing the danger to himself and others?
Good job, yourself.
In the case of planes, test that they can tolerate a minimum amount of interference. And for the devices, test that they do not emit more than that minimum amount.
In a perfect world, with perfect manufacturing systems and non-breakable objects, that would be fine. In fact, this is already being done.
In the real world, however, you have laptops that are FCC certified for emission levels with nothing plugged into them that radiate all kinds of garbage when a mouse is plugged in, or a poorly shielded USB extension cable, or some other third-party peripheral. You have that cellphone you've dropped a few times and knocked the grounding screw loose so it now radiates. You are sitting in a plane that has been through maintenance a few times, and that cable bundle that was routed one way at manufacturing time has been misrouted by a few inches so it's now in a slightly different place. Or the cable bundle has come loose due to vibration and the shielding has abraded. Or a simple screw holding a ground lug has corroded and is not grounding something well anymore.
This is /., so maybe you have that laptop that you've opened up to replace the hard disk with a nice SSD, but you bent a few of the grounding fingers around the edge of the case when you put it back together, or maybe you just forgot to put the grounding stuff back in and decided "it's just a grounding thing, it isn't important." Or you've demonstrated your leet hacker chops by modding your PS3 into a clear plastic case, having no clue about anything to do with Part 15 or the emission limits and wouldn't know how to test for them if you did.
Or you have a fine piece of modern Chinese manufactured (or US for that matter) electronics where they got the FCC Part 15 certification for A or B emission levels on the first few production units, and then decided to save money by changing the production system and never bothered to retest the units for emissions.
So, you have a can of worms here. How do you solve it?
Why is it that people who should be the most aware of the foibles of our technology and the potentials for failure are so willing to think that none of the technology they use will ever fail in even the slightest way?