That they are stonewalling says to me they've been misbehaving.
That not a single person has come forward and said they have done this, not even a single defendent in a criminal case based on copied cellphone data, says to me that this is a tempest in a teapot with a lot of assumptions and not much else. It's an excuse for people to rant about the cops and tell their own horror stories, but isn't much in the way of news.
The ACLU doesn't need to wait for the FOIA information to file a lawsuit. It needs to wait for someone to have done something wrong. That's all. We don't even have the excuse that maybe the ACLU hasn't heard about the situation yet. They clearly know about it and haven't found anything to do.
That's right. Just like I typed it before. That's a pretty shallow remark to a honest question.
It's a pretty simple answer to a pretty simple question. They are contract employees HIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT to do things ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT. Using them to try to disprove a statement about what powers a government has compared to a private company is pretty shallow, since they are not acting as a private company but as an arm of the government. It is pretty clear, too, that you aren't asking an honest question, you wanted to argue about the situation.
If you want to compare government to private companies, and use security firms as an example, pick on Pinkerton's or any of the "Merchant Security" agencies that provide the uniformed people patrolling the malls of America. They are not peace officers, yada yada yada, and they have no more authority than the owners of the mall give them. That means they can kick you off the premises, but they cannot arrest you or any of the other things a government agent can.
Not even those fellows with guns who deliver bags of money to the ATM machines can arrest you or even give you a parking ticket. They have guns for self defense in case YOU attack THEM, but they aren't going to draw down on you while making a felony arrest for a fugitive warrant, for example.
If/When this "Internet ID" thing comes around, it's going to mean one of two things for us:
A) No ID? No shoppy-shoppy. Please return to your local mall to be price gouged...
Yes, because certainly there will be no entrepreneurs willing to put up an online shop that doesn't worry about the "Internet ID thing" and still uses simple credit cards, because nobody will want to profit from shoppers who are being turned away from other online stores that decide they want you to use the voluntary Internet ID. No, nobody will go after that low hanging fruit. Even though there are scads of companies already seeking the cash of the online shopper for things that are illegal in the US (prescription-less meds, e.g.), not a single company will set up a shop to sell legal goods in a legal way.
Sign here, here, and here. In blood.
Yes, because all the existing shops that take credit cards require you to sign here, here, and here, in blood.
and you have absolutely no rights because you're not even a US citizen!
So you equate the inability to shop online in US stores to having "absolutely no rights"? Somehow your inability to shop has prevented your rights to free speech? To whatever else your Canadian constitution enumerates? You exaggerate, I think.
Should WHAT be allowed to stand? This unsupported allegation? That's all you are dealing with here. The article says they CAN do something, not that they ARE doing it.
They have GUNS, too. They CAN shoot you. They have nightsticks they CAN whack you on the head with. They have a device they CAN read your cellphone with during a traffic stop.
When the ACLU or anyone else provides even a shred of evidence that they ARE doing this, then you can rant and moan and rave about how awful it is. Otherwise, you're wasting a lot of energy over nothing.
... what would in any other context be considered illegal suspicionless searches.
In this context, too, Adrian. That's why the ACLU would already be suing if they were taking place.
What an outrageous summary. Even the FA it is based on.
The title of the story says they ARE doing this. The body of the article gives NO evidence that they are doing it, just that they have a box with the capability to read a cell phone in a short period of time.
Yes, so what if the CAN do it? They should be able to do it when it is necessary and legal. If they find a dead body and a cellphone in the pocket, they should be able to get data from it as fast as possible. That means the device should be with the troopers, not locked up in the office where it would take time to get it where it is needed.
Nothing in this article even begins to show that they are doing it to random people on traffic stops. It's just pure hypothesis and nonsense. If the ACLU had evidence it is being used illegally, then they would be suing already. Someone would have been the subject of a search and someone would have reported it to them.
Yes. The next paragraph, however, deals with the provider not being able to modify the object being distributed. The example is "in ROM", but that is not normative. If the provider cannot install the modified software either, then they meet the requirements of GPLV3, and in this case, he can't unless he also modifies non-GPL code.
It appears there is a requirement that the very next paragraph cancels. Yes, it also appears to be a violation of the spirit of the GPL, but the exception is arguable. How can the GPL force someone to modify code that is not released under that license?
No, it's not true. You don't have to guarantee that the code will work, in the sense of being free from bugs, but if you're distributing someone else's GPLv3 code, then you do have to guarantee that they can at least compile and run it... once it's running, it's up to them whether it works or not.
Which is it? Is it not true that I must support other people getting that code to run ("So if GPLV3 says I must distribute anything I modify and MUST SUPPORT other people getting it to run,...") or do I have to guarantee that they can compile and run it? I asked if it was true, you said 'no', and then told me I have to do exactly that which I asked about.
If I have to make sure that anyone who gets the code from me can compile it no matter what, then that's a really large support service I'm required to provide. The change I make may compile just fine under GCC 3.1 that I'm using, e.g., but fail under GCC 3.3, which is what the next guy in the chain uses. I've got to spend my time fixing every version issue just to make sure he can compile it? Wow. If none of the code compiles under 3.3 (or whatever the most recent version is), I'm stuck updating ALL the code so someone else can compile it? Why would any sane person accept such an open-ended support role?
If you sold the device with the GPLv3 code running on it, and won't let other people do the same with their modified versions, then yes.
If you cannot use your own custom version of gpgv2 in place of what they are without their magic keys... then they would be in violation of the GPLv3.
I just read the GPLV3 and don't find a clear statement that you must be able to run the modified source code on the same system upon which the modified object code has been received. You must get source, yes. Must execute, I don't see.
I see a specific exclusion for user devices where "you" (the provider") also cannot modify and run the recompiled code. The specific example deals with code installed in ROM. Is this not a similar case, where even the modified code provider cannot modify the program and run it on that hardware (without having to make chages elsewhere, in non-GPL code?). They can modify the source, compile it, install it, but even for them it will not run unless other changes to the system are made.
Second, doesn't the GPL specifically deny any warrantee of any kind, even for "usability and fitness of purpose" or whatever, to anyone who modifies the code? If you modify the code and try to install it and it does not run, doesn't the GPL specifically release the provider from ANY requirement to support the modified code? Doesn't that mean "if you change it and it doesn't run, tough luck?"
I would be very scared of any code that says anything other than that last bit. I write code and send it off to other people, and routinely they are unable to get the unmodified code to work properly. The interface to something has changed, the database they are using is just a tiny bit different. So if GPLV3 says I must distribute anything I modify and MUST SUPPORT other people getting it to run, whether or not they changed anything, that's just too much of an exposure to accept. Yes, I know, if it is true, don't use GPLV3 code. But is it true?
Now, I understand that not providing the modified source is a violation, but does GPLV3 really make not being able to run code on a specific device a violation, too?
I agree. A bunch of people here where I work had most of their life savings in an essentially unregulated gambling fund.
Except the gambling fund wasn't unregulated, it was regulated by a bunch of morons who kept denying that there was any problem and refusing to modify the rules to prevent it from happening. And the problem stemmed from regulations from other morons who thought it was more important that poor people could pretend they owned their own homes even if they couldn't afford it and the banks actually owned the properties.
When a bank, I mean, "gambling fund" is forced to create loan terms that allow people with no money to gamble, and then those people lose, who is at fault? The bank, or the morons who made the rules telling them they had to make the loans? When someone chooses to gamble by taking out a loan with an adjustable rate and a known balloon payment, and then can't pay it, who is at fault? The person who voluntarily accepted the deal, or the "gambling den" that was forced to offer it?
Which in no way invalidates the posters point. It doesn't tell how little you actually know about politics.
Actually, it does a good job invalidating it. The DOJ is under the control of the President, not the house of representatives. The DOJ routinely ignores things that the President wants ignored, and pushes agendas that the President wants pushed.
If the DOJ is going after someone, it's because the President wants it. And the President is a liberal democrat.
If this was four years ago and the DOJ was doing this, you'd hear the screams from the liberals about how a conservative President was raping the law, even when the liberals were in charge of the legislative branch. So put the blame where it belongs.
The lameness of my analogies also nicely highlights the ridiculousness of applying location based laws to something that doesn't have 'location'; i.e. the web.
It isn't the web that is violating the law, it is the people, and people most certainly DO have a location.
The bans on online gambling sites effectively border on having a government agent prevent you from entering a casino in Morocco because your local laws prohibit gambling.
It "borders on" that like a Mazzerati "borders on" a Kia. Both are cars, but they're from different places.
What it IS is preventing you from gambling in the US when it is illegal to gamble that way in the US, even if who you are gambling with is outside the US.
But the internet is like someone in Canada making a sign that we can see from the US. You can try to put up walls to block the sign, but all I have to do is drive down the road and I can see it again. It doesn't work.
Awww, that analogy works even if you just WALK down the road, so you failed to accomplish the mandatory automobile analogy. And looking at the sign doesn't require you sending things to Canada, so it's a poor analogy anyway.
Permission to link to a document is explicitly granted by the act of publication. - Done, we just can't convince the RIAA/MPAA of that...
Actually, false. There is no EXPLICIT permission to link, only an IMPLICIT one. EXPLICIT requires an active statement to that effect. IMPLICIT only requires an assumption. I.e., EXPLICIT means there is a statement (probably best listed in the site's TOS) that says "permission to link is granted." At that point, the permission is not granted by the act of publication but by the explicit TOS. The IMPLICIT permission that currently exists is pretty much based on the mistaken belief that "you can't stop me". (On my web server, I can stop anyone from accessing things with a referrer that isn't my own site, but that isn't a complete prevention of linking.)
Every document can contain a royalty mechanism at any desired degree of granularity to ensure payment on any portion accessed, including virtual copies ("transclusions") of all or part of the document. - Done
Ummm, no. "Can contain a mechanism" implies that such a mechanism exists. Simply not preventing that which doesn't exist doesn't meet the criterion here.
Every document is uniquely and securely identified. - URI, Done
Sigh. Again, no. The URI specifies something which may change at any time or may actually be different depending on which server it came from. I.e., active content and load balancing. Have you never tried to access "http://www.google.com" from a non-US country and gotten the local version?
Again, from personal experience, I had a jerk linking to some of my content, putting it in a window that attributed it to someone else. Using the referrer I was able to point requests from his links to a special page with content he wouldn't like. I.e., same URI, different results.
Every document is automatically moved to physical storage appropriate to its frequency of access from any given location. Amazon EC2, Google, Facebook, Load balancing, blah blah blah, Done
Uhhh, EVERY document? No. Anything with a "no cache" header is not supposed to be "automatically moved" anywhere.
Every document is automatically stored redundantly to maintain availability even in case of a disaster. Raid1,5,
Every document is stored on a RAID 1 or 5 server? And if that server suffers a disaster, the files are still available? No.
Truly meeting all of those requirements would mean the web would be a very different place than it is. Not a better place, just different. It is a Good Thing that not all of the criteria you claim have been met haven't actually been.
However, if you have no idea about statistics or inferential theories that underly modern science...
Unfortunately, this is a discussion about the census, and the census is not based upon statistics, it is a ENUMERATION of the population. I.e., a COUNT. That is what the Constitution mandates; that is what should happen.
How come I think that the technology coming out of this place will never see the light of day:
Because they are trying to design systems that will be used in ten years (nine) in a technological world that changes on a yearly basis and the lifecycle of an electronic product is six months or less.
In historical terms, they'll be producing a system that runs great on a Palm Pilot when the rest of the world is adopting iPads.
If it creates an increase in prices to handle collection and processing of sales taxes on Internet sales (which it certainly will), then it is effectively a new tax on me. It isn't collected and handed to the feds to squander on earmarks, but it's still taken from my pocket as in indirect cost.
These "fair" people cannot even admit what the actual tax rate would be. They call it a "27% tax" when an item that would otherwise cost $73 becomes $100 at the cash register. Why, 27% of the price is tax, so it is a "27% tax rate", right?
No. It is a 37% tax rate. You pay 37% of the price of the item as a tax.
Second, it taxes money YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAXED ON. I've been saving for a decade for an expensive item. I've paid income tax on every penny of that money. Boom. Fair tax gets implemented, now I pay a tax on the item when I actually buy it. Double taxation. That's fair? Yes, in the eyes of the "fair tax" people, it is. I'm obviously richer than I ought to be because I can actually put money in the bank and save it.
Then you wind up taxing children on the money they spend to buy candy. You wind up taxing POOR people at the same rate as the rich people. Fair? Yes, according to the "fair tax" people, it is.
Oh, but you solve this poor-people problem by giving them money taken from the rich people, trying to guess how much they spent that year and sending them just the right amount of handout, I mean "rebate", to cover what they paid in "fair tax". Nothing like buying votes to keep the incumbent in office, huh?
But this "fair tax" gets rid of the IRS and all the tax enforcers, right? That's got to be "fair". Well, it might be fair if it wasn't a whopper of a lie. With a "fair tax" you create an entire organization to manage the handouts to the poor people, to manage the collections from the rest of us, and keep track of who is and isn't paying. Just like today. Plenty of jobs for those out-of-work IRS agents, and no reduction in the size of government.
This crap about "fair tax" and the lies the supporters tell about it just enrage me. The biggest one is that MY tax is going to go down, they claim, but the truth is it won't. So keep all of this in mind when you hear the "fair tax" people flapping their gums.
It also eliminates tax loopholes in the process.
Yeah, like the terrible loophole that you can deduct mortgage interest on your home from your federal taxes. A "loophole" that many people take advantage of so they can afford to own a home. Oh, and deduct local property taxes. And the current social engineering for energy credits or anything else the current tax system is used to promote.
That's fair. Yep, change the rules of the game halfway through someone's mortgage. That's more than fair because it is only screwing the rich bastards who can still afford to pay their mortgages.
What was more interesting was the Christmas specials, which I didn't realize had a pattern until the last one where everyone was evacuating London at Christmas time because of what had been a regular pattern of Christmastime events. I think now even the Queen will be leaving.
This is absolutely true. The most egregious example is a character from the blockbuster Sci-Fi series "South Park", a character named Kenny seems to die almost every week.
Everyone who came up in the 80's remembers the infamous Dallas "missing season" that was dismissed as a mere amazingly-long dream sequence after Patrick Duffy decided he wanted his big Dallas paycheck after all.
That's nothing compared to the several decade dream sequence that brought us "Newhart" living in Vermont with some bimbo and a bunch of whack jobs.
But that was a reverse-death scenario, where the writers essentially killed off an entire cast (all the fictional people in Vermont) by showing us they didn't really even fictionally exist.
Gosh, I miss Darryl. No, not that one, the other one. But I really miss Stephanie. She was a true whack job, if you know what I mean.
Knowing what formula, what it means, what assumptions it requires, and what limitations it has, is key. That means memorizing its details.
Simply programming the solution into your calculator doesn't teach you anything but what the formula is. It doesn't demonstrate any knowledge of when/why/how to use the formula.
It's the same level of knowledge that has a student saying the answer to a problem is "1" when he uses an RPN calculator. He had the formula written down in front of him, but wasn't smart enough to realize the vastly wrong answer when he thought he was using it correctly. (He pressed an additional ENTER and wound up dividing one number by itself.) This problem dealt with the concentration of hydrogen ions in a buffer solution, and it should have been obvious that '1' was a completely ridiculous answer. (The real answer was around 10e-6.)
Except you get out in the real world and the last thing you want is your engineer pulling formulae from their (faulty) memory when they are already available in the computers they will be using.
No, the last thing you want is your engineer picking an equation to use because it looks like it might apply and it has been programmed into the computer for him. The correct problem solving method means knowing the problem to be solved first and then solving it, not picking from a list of problems that have already been solved and reproducing it.
Calling these calculators "crippled" is wrong. They are limited in function, deliberately. (car analogy) It is like calling a VW bug "crippled" because it isn't doing the job of a 1/4 ton pickup truck. (/car analogy).
They are smaller, cheaper and lighter than a computer (even a netbook, and much cheaper than an iPad). They are harder to use to cheat, and unfortunately, that is an issue that makes them better for classwork than those full computers with fancy software. They are just the right level to remove the tedium of doing basic math (which should have been mastered by now) while leaving the requirement to think through the problem to know what basic math needs to be applied.
The governing law on this matter is 8 USC 1325 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001325----000-.html). Show me where it says "felony" anywhere in there. This is a civil matter, not a felonious one.
Thanks for the cite. You are right, it does not say "felony" in that section. One point for you.
However -- it is clearly not a civil matter, since there is a threat of imprisonment. Subsection b specifies additional civil penalties for the same crime, but does not change the subsection a criminal action into a civil violation. Point for me. Tie.
And I'll repeat myself again, with a clarification: THERE IS NO LEGAL WAY FOR MEXICAN UNSKILLED WORKERS TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES LEGALLY.
You "repeated" yourself by not repeating yourself, you changed the meaning considerably. And sorry, but you are still wrong. There are legal ways, which a following poster cheefully outlines in his attempt at disproving there are legal ways.
The fact that there may be no legal way for a specific individual to enter the US doesn't change the fact that his entry is illegal and that he has a trivial means of complying with the law. Can you guess what that means is? Right, BY NOT TRYING TO ENTER THE US. Simple.
So make it possible for them to do what they're already doing legally,...
This argument is significantly different than the one you were making previously. Changing the law may be a good thing. It may be a bad thing. I'm not going to enter a debate about it. The law, however, as it stands, makes crossing the border without complying with the immigration laws a crime, not a civil infraction, and it is TRIVIAL to comply with this law.
It would be best for everyone if we made it possible for them all to work together legally...
I disagree entirely. How many people here rant about the outsourcing of jobs to India or China or other low-paying countries, and the loss of jobs for people in the US because of it? Well, what difference does it make if the low-paying jobs are outsourced to foreign countries or the foreigners come here to take them? We've still lost jobs for US citizens. Our unemployment rate goes up not because there are fewer jobs, but because there are so many people coming here that they can't all be hired. That's not good for "everyone", it's good for companies (those evil things with no ethics that everyone here rants about) who want cheap labor. It's good for the immigrant who comes here to work. But it's bad for those already here.
But of course conservatives don't really care about practical matters like civil rights,
I'm sorry, but there simply is no "civil right" to immigrate to the US, or any other country for that matter. Does not exist. That alien who comes to the US looking for a $4/hour job (below any minimum wage I know) has no more "civil right" to come here than I do to run off to New Zealand when I retire so I can take part in their wonderful social medicine system.
No, it's just all about control with you people.
And it's all about calling names and stereotyping with you people. So there. Point, set, match for me.
The real reason why Americans cross the border to buy medicines in Mexico (apart from the price) is because you don't need a prescription to get them.
...which in turn only reinforces my main point even further. Thanks!:)
No, it proves you are spouting nonsense even more. There are already passports and border control documents in use by both Mexico and the US and there are scads (according to you) of people who cross the border to get drugs without prescriptions or the government knowing. Having a US passport in your pocket when you walk into a Mexican pharmacy does NOT mean your cash purchase is being tracked any more than any other ID in your pocket allows that. This grand global conspiracy to rob you of your privacy and keep track of everything you buy simply does not exist.
Now, if you pay by credit card, and the vendor sends more than his company id to the CC company, then you have an issue with the vendor, not the US government, and you've chosen to lose your anonymity for the convenience of a cashless purchase. Does the CC company send a notice to ICE to check you out when you come back into the US because you stopped at XYZ Pharmacia in Juarez? Don't be silly, but if you are paranoid, use the ATM in Juarez and pay in pesos. Problem solved.
Proof? Several months ago I went to "a large south american country". That country has in place some really strict visa requirements for US citizens, and has reporting requirements to go with them. Where are you going? Where are you staying? Etc. If any place in the world would have ID requirements for monitoring purchases, they would. I walked into a pharmacy. I asked for a specific antibiotic. They handed it to me. Clearly printed on the package was the fact this was a PRESCRIPTION ONLY item. Great, I said. May I have another? Sure, here you go. And discount! I handed them cash. They waved goodbye. They reported nothing to anyone. Since they had NO IDEA who I was, it was impossible for them to do so. Is that store still there? Have the federales closed them down? I doubt it, it was one of a very large chain.
Now imagine if the US and Mexico had one big ol' database where all buyers could have their medical records updated no matter which country the person is from, or buys the drugs in?
And imagine if we all had ponies and ice cream for dinner every day and lemon drops fell from the sky...
What does this mythical database you are so worried about have to do with anything being discussed here? Did you even look at the summary, much less RTFA?
Not so easy to do if the whole planet is under one giant bureaucracy with which to deny these purchases on a blanket basis, based on who you are and where you live.
A very nice rant, but it ignores both the issue of this article and the specifics I detailed in my post.
There is nothing in a "global id" used for migrants and border control that would prevent you from buying that medicine or bread or whatever you desired using cash, credit card, or trade in chickens for all that matters. Ranting about anonymity in this context is completely irrelevant because you ALREADY give up anonymity to cross that border. You cannot be losing something you already DO NOT HAVE.
Now, I don't go to Mexico, so I don't know if they care who comes in from the US and run the same passport scans that the US does on incoming people. If they don't, and they do allow you to enter anonymously, or at least with just a look at your id and no record, then that's great, and NOTHING CHANGES, because they are just as unlikely to record anything about your global ID, or even require it. In that case, your anonymity is unchanged. You lose nothing.
In any case, Interpol is not an agency that can deny you anything. They can't say "don't sell to him" because they have no authority to do that. All they can do is advise any border crossing agents that you have a record internationally and they might want to look twice at you.
Go to Juarez right now and you can tell the local pharmacist that you're American, Canadian, German, African, whatever... and he won't care (or in some cases even know).
And he won't know tomorrow unless you tell him. And even if you tell him, he's just as likely not to care. The same reason that he's there today selling cheap/imitation/unapproved drugs to Americans will exist tomorrow.
Go there in a world that adopts a global ID, and odds are perfect that there are treaties that will have sprung up to insure that the same pharmacist is required to see your global ID,
Nonsense. There are no "perfect" odds. There is no treaty that will force a local pharmacist to look at your global id when he is free not to look at one for local purchasers. He can't force local purchasers to show such a card because there is no requirement for them to have one.
Or, worse, expect that the purchase can be made, but that the transaction gets recorded and sent back to your government/doctor/insurance/etc...
It's hard for data to be sent back to 'your' government/doctor/etc when nobody knows who that is or even who you are. If you are saying that they'll know you crossed the border, well, THEY ALREADY KNOW. What you do there depends on you. If you pay by credit card, they'll know who you are and what you bought. If you pay by cash, they won't. There will be nothing to send back.
Proof? My local pharmacy has my insurance information on file. I can still walk in there and buy things with cash and there is no tie back to my insurance because I DON'T TELL THEM WHO I AM. It's hard for them to record a transaction with my name when they don't know it.
Passports don't have the same kind of reach, nor do they have any sort of globally centralized and/or universally accessible database.
You don't need a globally centralized database of passports for YOUR COUNTRY to know where YOU go and WHEN. At least they can tell when you COME BACK, since going is relatively anonymous and you deal with THEIR country mostly. This card does NOTHING to change what you do when you leave, and isn't required if you don't want to leave in the first place.
OTOH, I'm not seeing any compelling argument for making this concept a global one, let alone a universally imposed one.
Since it isn't proposed to be globally imposed, much less universally, go back to sleep. When someone proposes a mandatory global id for everyone, your rant will have some validity. It's unlikely to happen because it would apply to too many people and be too intrusive for them to accept it.
Slashdot Mirror
That they are stonewalling says to me they've been misbehaving.
That not a single person has come forward and said they have done this, not even a single defendent in a criminal case based on copied cellphone data, says to me that this is a tempest in a teapot with a lot of assumptions and not much else. It's an excuse for people to rant about the cops and tell their own horror stories, but isn't much in the way of news.
The ACLU doesn't need to wait for the FOIA information to file a lawsuit. It needs to wait for someone to have done something wrong. That's all. We don't even have the excuse that maybe the ACLU hasn't heard about the situation yet. They clearly know about it and haven't found anything to do.
That's right. Just like I typed it before. That's a pretty shallow remark to a honest question.
It's a pretty simple answer to a pretty simple question. They are contract employees HIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT to do things ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT. Using them to try to disprove a statement about what powers a government has compared to a private company is pretty shallow, since they are not acting as a private company but as an arm of the government. It is pretty clear, too, that you aren't asking an honest question, you wanted to argue about the situation.
If you want to compare government to private companies, and use security firms as an example, pick on Pinkerton's or any of the "Merchant Security" agencies that provide the uniformed people patrolling the malls of America. They are not peace officers, yada yada yada, and they have no more authority than the owners of the mall give them. That means they can kick you off the premises, but they cannot arrest you or any of the other things a government agent can.
Not even those fellows with guns who deliver bags of money to the ATM machines can arrest you or even give you a parking ticket. They have guns for self defense in case YOU attack THEM, but they aren't going to draw down on you while making a felony arrest for a fugitive warrant, for example.
How does that compare to the private security companies being contracted in Iraq and Afghanistan? Serious question.
You mean those private companies being contracted by the government?
If/When this "Internet ID" thing comes around, it's going to mean one of two things for us: A) No ID? No shoppy-shoppy. Please return to your local mall to be price gouged...
Yes, because certainly there will be no entrepreneurs willing to put up an online shop that doesn't worry about the "Internet ID thing" and still uses simple credit cards, because nobody will want to profit from shoppers who are being turned away from other online stores that decide they want you to use the voluntary Internet ID. No, nobody will go after that low hanging fruit. Even though there are scads of companies already seeking the cash of the online shopper for things that are illegal in the US (prescription-less meds, e.g.), not a single company will set up a shop to sell legal goods in a legal way.
Sign here, here, and here. In blood.
Yes, because all the existing shops that take credit cards require you to sign here, here, and here, in blood.
and you have absolutely no rights because you're not even a US citizen!
So you equate the inability to shop online in US stores to having "absolutely no rights"? Somehow your inability to shop has prevented your rights to free speech? To whatever else your Canadian constitution enumerates? You exaggerate, I think.
Should this be allowed to stand,
Should WHAT be allowed to stand? This unsupported allegation? That's all you are dealing with here. The article says they CAN do something, not that they ARE doing it.
They have GUNS, too. They CAN shoot you. They have nightsticks they CAN whack you on the head with. They have a device they CAN read your cellphone with during a traffic stop.
When the ACLU or anyone else provides even a shred of evidence that they ARE doing this, then you can rant and moan and rave about how awful it is. Otherwise, you're wasting a lot of energy over nothing.
... what would in any other context be considered illegal suspicionless searches.
In this context, too, Adrian. That's why the ACLU would already be suing if they were taking place.
The title of the story says they ARE doing this. The body of the article gives NO evidence that they are doing it, just that they have a box with the capability to read a cell phone in a short period of time.
Yes, so what if the CAN do it? They should be able to do it when it is necessary and legal. If they find a dead body and a cellphone in the pocket, they should be able to get data from it as fast as possible. That means the device should be with the troopers, not locked up in the office where it would take time to get it where it is needed.
Nothing in this article even begins to show that they are doing it to random people on traffic stops. It's just pure hypothesis and nonsense. If the ACLU had evidence it is being used illegally, then they would be suing already. Someone would have been the subject of a search and someone would have reported it to them.
but if any present company had the best position to be skynet, it is google.
Watson: "What is absolute malarky, Alex?"
It's there, in section 6:
Yes. The next paragraph, however, deals with the provider not being able to modify the object being distributed. The example is "in ROM", but that is not normative. If the provider cannot install the modified software either, then they meet the requirements of GPLV3, and in this case, he can't unless he also modifies non-GPL code.
It appears there is a requirement that the very next paragraph cancels. Yes, it also appears to be a violation of the spirit of the GPL, but the exception is arguable. How can the GPL force someone to modify code that is not released under that license?
No, it's not true. You don't have to guarantee that the code will work, in the sense of being free from bugs, but if you're distributing someone else's GPLv3 code, then you do have to guarantee that they can at least compile and run it... once it's running, it's up to them whether it works or not.
Which is it? Is it not true that I must support other people getting that code to run ("So if GPLV3 says I must distribute anything I modify and MUST SUPPORT other people getting it to run,...") or do I have to guarantee that they can compile and run it? I asked if it was true, you said 'no', and then told me I have to do exactly that which I asked about.
If I have to make sure that anyone who gets the code from me can compile it no matter what, then that's a really large support service I'm required to provide. The change I make may compile just fine under GCC 3.1 that I'm using, e.g., but fail under GCC 3.3, which is what the next guy in the chain uses. I've got to spend my time fixing every version issue just to make sure he can compile it? Wow. If none of the code compiles under 3.3 (or whatever the most recent version is), I'm stuck updating ALL the code so someone else can compile it? Why would any sane person accept such an open-ended support role?
If you sold the device with the GPLv3 code running on it, and won't let other people do the same with their modified versions, then yes.
Except for the exceptions.
If you cannot use your own custom version of gpgv2 in place of what they are without their magic keys... then they would be in violation of the GPLv3.
I just read the GPLV3 and don't find a clear statement that you must be able to run the modified source code on the same system upon which the modified object code has been received. You must get source, yes. Must execute, I don't see.
I see a specific exclusion for user devices where "you" (the provider") also cannot modify and run the recompiled code. The specific example deals with code installed in ROM. Is this not a similar case, where even the modified code provider cannot modify the program and run it on that hardware (without having to make chages elsewhere, in non-GPL code?). They can modify the source, compile it, install it, but even for them it will not run unless other changes to the system are made.
Second, doesn't the GPL specifically deny any warrantee of any kind, even for "usability and fitness of purpose" or whatever, to anyone who modifies the code? If you modify the code and try to install it and it does not run, doesn't the GPL specifically release the provider from ANY requirement to support the modified code? Doesn't that mean "if you change it and it doesn't run, tough luck?"
I would be very scared of any code that says anything other than that last bit. I write code and send it off to other people, and routinely they are unable to get the unmodified code to work properly. The interface to something has changed, the database they are using is just a tiny bit different. So if GPLV3 says I must distribute anything I modify and MUST SUPPORT other people getting it to run, whether or not they changed anything, that's just too much of an exposure to accept. Yes, I know, if it is true, don't use GPLV3 code. But is it true?
Now, I understand that not providing the modified source is a violation, but does GPLV3 really make not being able to run code on a specific device a violation, too?
I agree. A bunch of people here where I work had most of their life savings in an essentially unregulated gambling fund.
Except the gambling fund wasn't unregulated, it was regulated by a bunch of morons who kept denying that there was any problem and refusing to modify the rules to prevent it from happening. And the problem stemmed from regulations from other morons who thought it was more important that poor people could pretend they owned their own homes even if they couldn't afford it and the banks actually owned the properties.
When a bank, I mean, "gambling fund" is forced to create loan terms that allow people with no money to gamble, and then those people lose, who is at fault? The bank, or the morons who made the rules telling them they had to make the loans? When someone chooses to gamble by taking out a loan with an adjustable rate and a known balloon payment, and then can't pay it, who is at fault? The person who voluntarily accepted the deal, or the "gambling den" that was forced to offer it?
Which in no way invalidates the posters point. It doesn't tell how little you actually know about politics.
Actually, it does a good job invalidating it. The DOJ is under the control of the President, not the house of representatives. The DOJ routinely ignores things that the President wants ignored, and pushes agendas that the President wants pushed.
If the DOJ is going after someone, it's because the President wants it. And the President is a liberal democrat.
If this was four years ago and the DOJ was doing this, you'd hear the screams from the liberals about how a conservative President was raping the law, even when the liberals were in charge of the legislative branch. So put the blame where it belongs.
The lameness of my analogies also nicely highlights the ridiculousness of applying location based laws to something that doesn't have 'location'; i.e. the web.
It isn't the web that is violating the law, it is the people, and people most certainly DO have a location.
The bans on online gambling sites effectively border on having a government agent prevent you from entering a casino in Morocco because your local laws prohibit gambling.
It "borders on" that like a Mazzerati "borders on" a Kia. Both are cars, but they're from different places.
What it IS is preventing you from gambling in the US when it is illegal to gamble that way in the US, even if who you are gambling with is outside the US.
But the internet is like someone in Canada making a sign that we can see from the US. You can try to put up walls to block the sign, but all I have to do is drive down the road and I can see it again. It doesn't work.
Awww, that analogy works even if you just WALK down the road, so you failed to accomplish the mandatory automobile analogy. And looking at the sign doesn't require you sending things to Canada, so it's a poor analogy anyway.
Permission to link to a document is explicitly granted by the act of publication. - Done, we just can't convince the RIAA/MPAA of that...
Actually, false. There is no EXPLICIT permission to link, only an IMPLICIT one. EXPLICIT requires an active statement to that effect. IMPLICIT only requires an assumption. I.e., EXPLICIT means there is a statement (probably best listed in the site's TOS) that says "permission to link is granted." At that point, the permission is not granted by the act of publication but by the explicit TOS. The IMPLICIT permission that currently exists is pretty much based on the mistaken belief that "you can't stop me". (On my web server, I can stop anyone from accessing things with a referrer that isn't my own site, but that isn't a complete prevention of linking.)
Every document can contain a royalty mechanism at any desired degree of granularity to ensure payment on any portion accessed, including virtual copies ("transclusions") of all or part of the document. - Done
Ummm, no. "Can contain a mechanism" implies that such a mechanism exists. Simply not preventing that which doesn't exist doesn't meet the criterion here.
Every document is uniquely and securely identified. - URI, Done
Sigh. Again, no. The URI specifies something which may change at any time or may actually be different depending on which server it came from. I.e., active content and load balancing. Have you never tried to access "http://www.google.com" from a non-US country and gotten the local version?
Again, from personal experience, I had a jerk linking to some of my content, putting it in a window that attributed it to someone else. Using the referrer I was able to point requests from his links to a special page with content he wouldn't like. I.e., same URI, different results.
Every document is automatically moved to physical storage appropriate to its frequency of access from any given location. Amazon EC2, Google, Facebook, Load balancing, blah blah blah, Done
Uhhh, EVERY document? No. Anything with a "no cache" header is not supposed to be "automatically moved" anywhere.
Every document is automatically stored redundantly to maintain availability even in case of a disaster. Raid1,5,
Every document is stored on a RAID 1 or 5 server? And if that server suffers a disaster, the files are still available? No.
Truly meeting all of those requirements would mean the web would be a very different place than it is. Not a better place, just different. It is a Good Thing that not all of the criteria you claim have been met haven't actually been.
However, if you have no idea about statistics or inferential theories that underly modern science ...
Unfortunately, this is a discussion about the census, and the census is not based upon statistics, it is a ENUMERATION of the population. I.e., a COUNT. That is what the Constitution mandates; that is what should happen.
How come I think that the technology coming out of this place will never see the light of day:
Because they are trying to design systems that will be used in ten years (nine) in a technological world that changes on a yearly basis and the lifecycle of an electronic product is six months or less.
In historical terms, they'll be producing a system that runs great on a Palm Pilot when the rest of the world is adopting iPads.
It's not a new tax. It's not a tax increase.
If it creates an increase in prices to handle collection and processing of sales taxes on Internet sales (which it certainly will), then it is effectively a new tax on me. It isn't collected and handed to the feds to squander on earmarks, but it's still taken from my pocket as in indirect cost.
The Fair Tax is exactly that
No, it is not.
These "fair" people cannot even admit what the actual tax rate would be. They call it a "27% tax" when an item that would otherwise cost $73 becomes $100 at the cash register. Why, 27% of the price is tax, so it is a "27% tax rate", right?
No. It is a 37% tax rate. You pay 37% of the price of the item as a tax.
Second, it taxes money YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAXED ON. I've been saving for a decade for an expensive item. I've paid income tax on every penny of that money. Boom. Fair tax gets implemented, now I pay a tax on the item when I actually buy it. Double taxation. That's fair? Yes, in the eyes of the "fair tax" people, it is. I'm obviously richer than I ought to be because I can actually put money in the bank and save it.
Then you wind up taxing children on the money they spend to buy candy. You wind up taxing POOR people at the same rate as the rich people. Fair? Yes, according to the "fair tax" people, it is.
Oh, but you solve this poor-people problem by giving them money taken from the rich people, trying to guess how much they spent that year and sending them just the right amount of handout, I mean "rebate", to cover what they paid in "fair tax". Nothing like buying votes to keep the incumbent in office, huh?
But this "fair tax" gets rid of the IRS and all the tax enforcers, right? That's got to be "fair". Well, it might be fair if it wasn't a whopper of a lie. With a "fair tax" you create an entire organization to manage the handouts to the poor people, to manage the collections from the rest of us, and keep track of who is and isn't paying. Just like today. Plenty of jobs for those out-of-work IRS agents, and no reduction in the size of government.
This crap about "fair tax" and the lies the supporters tell about it just enrage me. The biggest one is that MY tax is going to go down, they claim, but the truth is it won't. So keep all of this in mind when you hear the "fair tax" people flapping their gums.
It also eliminates tax loopholes in the process.
Yeah, like the terrible loophole that you can deduct mortgage interest on your home from your federal taxes. A "loophole" that many people take advantage of so they can afford to own a home. Oh, and deduct local property taxes. And the current social engineering for energy credits or anything else the current tax system is used to promote.
That's fair. Yep, change the rules of the game halfway through someone's mortgage. That's more than fair because it is only screwing the rich bastards who can still afford to pay their mortgages.
What was more interesting was the Christmas specials, which I didn't realize had a pattern until the last one where everyone was evacuating London at Christmas time because of what had been a regular pattern of Christmastime events. I think now even the Queen will be leaving.
This is absolutely true. The most egregious example is a character from the blockbuster Sci-Fi series "South Park", a character named Kenny seems to die almost every week.
Those bastards!
Everyone who came up in the 80's remembers the infamous Dallas "missing season" that was dismissed as a mere amazingly-long dream sequence after Patrick Duffy decided he wanted his big Dallas paycheck after all.
That's nothing compared to the several decade dream sequence that brought us "Newhart" living in Vermont with some bimbo and a bunch of whack jobs.
But that was a reverse-death scenario, where the writers essentially killed off an entire cast (all the fictional people in Vermont) by showing us they didn't really even fictionally exist.
Gosh, I miss Darryl. No, not that one, the other one. But I really miss Stephanie. She was a true whack job, if you know what I mean.
Knowing WHAT formula to use is key.
Partial credit for an incomplete answer.
Knowing what formula, what it means, what assumptions it requires, and what limitations it has, is key. That means memorizing its details.
Simply programming the solution into your calculator doesn't teach you anything but what the formula is. It doesn't demonstrate any knowledge of when/why/how to use the formula.
It's the same level of knowledge that has a student saying the answer to a problem is "1" when he uses an RPN calculator. He had the formula written down in front of him, but wasn't smart enough to realize the vastly wrong answer when he thought he was using it correctly. (He pressed an additional ENTER and wound up dividing one number by itself.) This problem dealt with the concentration of hydrogen ions in a buffer solution, and it should have been obvious that '1' was a completely ridiculous answer. (The real answer was around 10e-6.)
Except you get out in the real world and the last thing you want is your engineer pulling formulae from their (faulty) memory when they are already available in the computers they will be using.
No, the last thing you want is your engineer picking an equation to use because it looks like it might apply and it has been programmed into the computer for him. The correct problem solving method means knowing the problem to be solved first and then solving it, not picking from a list of problems that have already been solved and reproducing it.
Calling these calculators "crippled" is wrong. They are limited in function, deliberately. (car analogy) It is like calling a VW bug "crippled" because it isn't doing the job of a 1/4 ton pickup truck. (/car analogy).
They are smaller, cheaper and lighter than a computer (even a netbook, and much cheaper than an iPad). They are harder to use to cheat, and unfortunately, that is an issue that makes them better for classwork than those full computers with fancy software. They are just the right level to remove the tedium of doing basic math (which should have been mastered by now) while leaving the requirement to think through the problem to know what basic math needs to be applied.
The governing law on this matter is 8 USC 1325 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001325----000-.html). Show me where it says "felony" anywhere in there. This is a civil matter, not a felonious one.
Thanks for the cite. You are right, it does not say "felony" in that section. One point for you.
However -- it is clearly not a civil matter, since there is a threat of imprisonment. Subsection b specifies additional civil penalties for the same crime, but does not change the subsection a criminal action into a civil violation. Point for me. Tie.
And I'll repeat myself again, with a clarification: THERE IS NO LEGAL WAY FOR MEXICAN UNSKILLED WORKERS TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES LEGALLY.
You "repeated" yourself by not repeating yourself, you changed the meaning considerably. And sorry, but you are still wrong. There are legal ways, which a following poster cheefully outlines in his attempt at disproving there are legal ways.
The fact that there may be no legal way for a specific individual to enter the US doesn't change the fact that his entry is illegal and that he has a trivial means of complying with the law. Can you guess what that means is? Right, BY NOT TRYING TO ENTER THE US. Simple.
So make it possible for them to do what they're already doing legally, ...
This argument is significantly different than the one you were making previously. Changing the law may be a good thing. It may be a bad thing. I'm not going to enter a debate about it. The law, however, as it stands, makes crossing the border without complying with the immigration laws a crime, not a civil infraction, and it is TRIVIAL to comply with this law.
It would be best for everyone if we made it possible for them all to work together legally ...
I disagree entirely. How many people here rant about the outsourcing of jobs to India or China or other low-paying countries, and the loss of jobs for people in the US because of it? Well, what difference does it make if the low-paying jobs are outsourced to foreign countries or the foreigners come here to take them? We've still lost jobs for US citizens. Our unemployment rate goes up not because there are fewer jobs, but because there are so many people coming here that they can't all be hired. That's not good for "everyone", it's good for companies (those evil things with no ethics that everyone here rants about) who want cheap labor. It's good for the immigrant who comes here to work. But it's bad for those already here.
But of course conservatives don't really care about practical matters like civil rights,
I'm sorry, but there simply is no "civil right" to immigrate to the US, or any other country for that matter. Does not exist. That alien who comes to the US looking for a $4/hour job (below any minimum wage I know) has no more "civil right" to come here than I do to run off to New Zealand when I retire so I can take part in their wonderful social medicine system.
No, it's just all about control with you people.
And it's all about calling names and stereotyping with you people. So there. Point, set, match for me.
The real reason why Americans cross the border to buy medicines in Mexico (apart from the price) is because you don't need a prescription to get them.
No, it proves you are spouting nonsense even more. There are already passports and border control documents in use by both Mexico and the US and there are scads (according to you) of people who cross the border to get drugs without prescriptions or the government knowing. Having a US passport in your pocket when you walk into a Mexican pharmacy does NOT mean your cash purchase is being tracked any more than any other ID in your pocket allows that. This grand global conspiracy to rob you of your privacy and keep track of everything you buy simply does not exist.
Now, if you pay by credit card, and the vendor sends more than his company id to the CC company, then you have an issue with the vendor, not the US government, and you've chosen to lose your anonymity for the convenience of a cashless purchase. Does the CC company send a notice to ICE to check you out when you come back into the US because you stopped at XYZ Pharmacia in Juarez? Don't be silly, but if you are paranoid, use the ATM in Juarez and pay in pesos. Problem solved.
Proof? Several months ago I went to "a large south american country". That country has in place some really strict visa requirements for US citizens, and has reporting requirements to go with them. Where are you going? Where are you staying? Etc. If any place in the world would have ID requirements for monitoring purchases, they would. I walked into a pharmacy. I asked for a specific antibiotic. They handed it to me. Clearly printed on the package was the fact this was a PRESCRIPTION ONLY item. Great, I said. May I have another? Sure, here you go. And discount! I handed them cash. They waved goodbye. They reported nothing to anyone. Since they had NO IDEA who I was, it was impossible for them to do so. Is that store still there? Have the federales closed them down? I doubt it, it was one of a very large chain.
Now imagine if the US and Mexico had one big ol' database where all buyers could have their medical records updated no matter which country the person is from, or buys the drugs in?
And imagine if we all had ponies and ice cream for dinner every day and lemon drops fell from the sky ...
What does this mythical database you are so worried about have to do with anything being discussed here? Did you even look at the summary, much less RTFA?
Not so easy to do if the whole planet is under one giant bureaucracy with which to deny these purchases on a blanket basis, based on who you are and where you live.
A very nice rant, but it ignores both the issue of this article and the specifics I detailed in my post.
There is nothing in a "global id" used for migrants and border control that would prevent you from buying that medicine or bread or whatever you desired using cash, credit card, or trade in chickens for all that matters. Ranting about anonymity in this context is completely irrelevant because you ALREADY give up anonymity to cross that border. You cannot be losing something you already DO NOT HAVE.
Now, I don't go to Mexico, so I don't know if they care who comes in from the US and run the same passport scans that the US does on incoming people. If they don't, and they do allow you to enter anonymously, or at least with just a look at your id and no record, then that's great, and NOTHING CHANGES, because they are just as unlikely to record anything about your global ID, or even require it. In that case, your anonymity is unchanged. You lose nothing.
In any case, Interpol is not an agency that can deny you anything. They can't say "don't sell to him" because they have no authority to do that. All they can do is advise any border crossing agents that you have a record internationally and they might want to look twice at you.
Go to Juarez right now and you can tell the local pharmacist that you're American, Canadian, German, African, whatever... and he won't care (or in some cases even know).
And he won't know tomorrow unless you tell him. And even if you tell him, he's just as likely not to care. The same reason that he's there today selling cheap/imitation/unapproved drugs to Americans will exist tomorrow.
Go there in a world that adopts a global ID, and odds are perfect that there are treaties that will have sprung up to insure that the same pharmacist is required to see your global ID,
Nonsense. There are no "perfect" odds. There is no treaty that will force a local pharmacist to look at your global id when he is free not to look at one for local purchasers. He can't force local purchasers to show such a card because there is no requirement for them to have one.
Or, worse, expect that the purchase can be made, but that the transaction gets recorded and sent back to your government/doctor/insurance/etc ...
It's hard for data to be sent back to 'your' government/doctor/etc when nobody knows who that is or even who you are. If you are saying that they'll know you crossed the border, well, THEY ALREADY KNOW. What you do there depends on you. If you pay by credit card, they'll know who you are and what you bought. If you pay by cash, they won't. There will be nothing to send back.
Proof? My local pharmacy has my insurance information on file. I can still walk in there and buy things with cash and there is no tie back to my insurance because I DON'T TELL THEM WHO I AM. It's hard for them to record a transaction with my name when they don't know it.
Passports don't have the same kind of reach, nor do they have any sort of globally centralized and/or universally accessible database.
You don't need a globally centralized database of passports for YOUR COUNTRY to know where YOU go and WHEN. At least they can tell when you COME BACK, since going is relatively anonymous and you deal with THEIR country mostly. This card does NOTHING to change what you do when you leave, and isn't required if you don't want to leave in the first place.
OTOH, I'm not seeing any compelling argument for making this concept a global one, let alone a universally imposed one.
Since it isn't proposed to be globally imposed, much less universally, go back to sleep. When someone proposes a mandatory global id for everyone, your rant will have some validity. It's unlikely to happen because it would apply to too many people and be too intrusive for them to accept it.