Damn, you're right. I can't touch it. It appears as though the same machine that is providing NAT services is also providing Firewall services. Perhaps you are confusing those two?
No, I'm talking about NAT and not the firewall. You are conflating the two as if they were one service.
That's easy to remedy for the purposes of our test though. Simply place your computer within your NAT's DMZ.
My NAT doesn't have a DMZ. The firewall does. See, you've confused the two.
Where is your God^H^H^H Security now, bitch?
You want to be crude and disgusting, I can respond the same way. It won't accomplish anything, asshole, but it sure feels good, I guess.
On a technical level, NAT does absolutely nothing to protect you. It simply translates one ip to another.
That is an incorrect "error of ommission" statement.
A NAT router takes a connection request from a specific non-routable address and port and creates a connection to the destination using a routable address and port.
That's the only connection the inside, non-routable system has to the internet. You can't port scan it, you can't connect to it's mail server, you can't touch it. If you port scan the routable address, you will be port scanning the NAT router, which isn't going to be listening to you because it has no reason to listen to you.
Take a typical SOHO internet router for example, it can use a specified IP for a DMZ.
Yes, you CAN use the firewall function in a SOHO router to define a catch-all system that is attackable, but again, that is a level of security, too. You know which system is open to the world, you can protect it and not worry about your other internal systems.
That turns off the filtering rules, (they are what protect you)...
No, "filtering rules" are a firewall function. Under NAT, what protects you is the fact that the address of the system you are hiding is non-routable, unknown to the outside, and thus unreachable from the outside, and the only connections are outgoing connections created by the internal system itself. You aren't subject to port scans or brute force slogin attacks.
NAT provides a level of security, whether it was designed to do that or if it comes along as a side-benefit.
I have a PC sitting behind a NAT router. I dare you to reach out from a site I don't currently have a connection to and touch that system in any way, shape or form. Every attempt YOU make to touch that system ends at the router. It doesn't matter if I have a completely unsecured FTP/SMTP/HTTP/whatever server running on that system available to everyone else on my local net, YOU can't touch it.
Yes, of course, NAT won't protect me from malicious websites I visit, but then, neither will a firewall. NAT won't stop me from installing malicious code, but then, neither will a firewall. If you are claiming that NAT isn't security because it doesn't do everything a firewall does, well, that's a silly argument.
NAT was designed to share network addresses and not to firewall your computer. It just so happens to protect from certain worms because it doesn't know how to deal with certain NAT configurations.
It protects you from a lot more than "certain worms". It protects you from anything that propogates by an inbound connection.
However, NAT is not a replacement for a proper firewall because some of those bots can call home even though a NAT.
Duh. Any CURRENT INFECTION can connect outbound through a NAT router. To claim that this means NAT provides NO security is simply ridiculous. In fact, any current infection can connect outbound through most firewalls, because most firewalls are configured to prevent incoming but not outgoing connections, so even firewalls won't protect you from the effects of a bot already on your computers. Yes, you can firewall your infected system after the fact and prevent it from calling out, but similarly you can simply shut it off and accomplish the same.
If your box can be owned when its on a public IP, it can owned when its behind a NAT.
And to BECOME owned when you are behind a NAT requires the same actions that would result in you becoming owned behind a firewall. Connect to the wrong place, install the wrong thing, bingo. But NAT won't allow outsiders to connect to your inside services, and so that vector for infection is gone.
He is saving open source software that he can freely pickup elsewhere? Yeah right,
Spoken like someone who has never had an open source project move out from under them either because of kernel/gcc/etc changes or due to deliberate changes that make new versions less useful.
It's so much fun to download the current version of a project just to have it barf because you aren't using gcc 4.0 or are using an older version of some library. Or it compiles fine but lacks a certain feature critical to your operation because someone decided it didn't need to or shouldn't do that.
Yes, I know, everyone updates every system every day so it has the most current kernel/compilers/libraries/etc, even if that means the systems are unusable for any production work.
The GPL requires you to distribute the source code to everyone you give the binary. If you do not distribute the binary but keep it in house, there is nothing that forces you to hand out any changes you've made to the source.
And this means that if you distribute the binary only in-house, then you must distribute the source only in-house, and only UPON REQUEST. You don't have to give out source unless asked for. You aren't required to stuff it down anyone's throat. What part of company X is going to ask another part of X for the source, get denied that request, and then sue under the GPL? (Yes, it could happen...)
Any company using GPL internally that doesn't hand out source to everyone in the company is simply going to say "nobody asked" if the original author or FSF or whoever tries to sue under GPL.
Consider this train of thought:
"I've got lots of open source software here I'm going to want to use this evening. It's going to be a minor inconvenience Googling for it and downloading it all.
How about this one: "I've got this older version of open source software on my system at work that I prefer because the newer versions have been crippled by imagined intellectual property issues and I can't get the older version off the net anymore."
Don't scoff. I ran across exactly this issue last week. A great open source program is now distributed with a very limited set of basis data, in a new format, compared to the previous version. If I want to work with data for New Zealand, for example, I need version 2.2.
Or consider this: if I use my current employer's fat pipe to download stuff from the open source repositories, I will still be writing files to their disk and then copying them, thus creating the exact same situation that I am already in.
They were rolling George into the operating room to work on his multiple gunshot wounds and they asked what happened.
Well, the last thing I remember is, me and Billy Joe and Frankie and my brother George were in the Dew Drop Inn having a few beers, and Billy Joe says 'hey everyone, let's go huntin'!', and I said "I'm game."
Optimal is to push&pop only those registers that are needed and actually used. But with this a simple change in the function can cause havoc accross your whole code base.
Spoken like someone who never coded more than a page in Assembly. Optimal is for the function to push registers that it is going to use and pop them when done, so changing the FUNCTION changes the pushes and pops. You don't put the push/pop sequences before and after every function call. That's silly. It's writing the same code multiple times.
I guess they could have been lying and merely moved my SSNs to another database, but I don't imagine that being a good idea as a record of my request would be on file, and any future breach that resulted in exposure of an SSN they said they deleted would only result in me going after them for lying as well. Why they'd risk increasing their legal liability is beyond me.
What legal liability?
You think customer service reps give a damn about lying to you? They're PAID to lie to you. Whatever it takes to get you off the phone and money in the company pocket.
Comcast (denied that the service plan I was on was supposed to get certain programming, offered to sell me an upgraded plan), Qwest (lied about their DSL having static DNS), DishNetwork (lied about an offer they made for a free DVR upgrade). Do I need more examples?
I don't know what law you think covers them lying about deleting your SSN from a system where you GAVE them the SSN in the first place.
As for TFA and DirectTV, the logical use of the SSN forever is to prevent a previous customer from pretending to be a new customer and getting the special deals they give to new customers.
The last four digits as identification? One in ten thousand in a country of 300 million isn't identification.
This only happens during the term of their parole, which is considered part of their sentence.
This is not true either way.
It is a standard limitation placed on child predatory sex offenders that they must avoid contact with children, even following any parole. I don't know for sure the laws regarding felons associating with other felons, so I'll have to yield on that specific one. And parole is not part of a sentence, it is a provisional release that modifies the incarceration status of the individual but not the original sentence.
The gambling has to do with statutes against gambling and an ability to track income for the purpose of taxation.
The point still stands that the government already tells people what websites they may not legally visit. The reason they may not visit doesn't change that.
"What does 58.44 represent in the following equation?" Would obviously include an equation after it which used the molecular mass of NaCl in a computation.
If this is the level of discussion you wish to hold, please continue without me. Simply stating the obvious as if I was too stupid to know the obvious is not going to convince me of anything, anyway.
I have never taught a single class. That doesn't make me any less capable of understanding how teachers ask questions.
But less capable of knowing why.
Also, I find it humorous that you are randomly bringing up the fact that it is cheating to use an iPhone/computer on a test.
Again, if this is the level of debate you wish to hold, look elsewhere. I did not bring up the fact that it was cheating, the original poster did so when he commented that it sounded like the ability to have a search engine based on numbers would make it easy to cheat on tests. Nor is it "random" to bring that point back up, since it is a far better point than "how are questions worded?" It doesn't matter how the question is worded, it is cheating, and if you get caught doing it it won't matter whether you were googling "molecular weight nacl" or "58.44", you are still getting booted from class and (I hope) expelled.
How about instead of using inconsistent terms like that we get right to the point, call the categories "us" and "them".
You mean like the "us" bucket that contains all the people we agree with, and the "them" bucket that has all the people "us" doesn't agree with?
One of the buckets is good and one is bad, depending on the person.
Yes, I guess exactly like the "us" bucket that contains all the people we agree with and the "them" bucket for the ones we don't.
Remember you don't have to think about it too much, ignorance is a plus when putting "them" down.
Yes, ignorance is such a wonderful condition because it allows "us" to put "them" down without even thinking about what "us" believes. We doesn't even really have to know what "us" believes, only that we wants to be an "us" and not a "them", because obviously "us" is good and "them" is bad. (Otherwise we'd want to be a "them", and "them" would then be "us" and "us" would be "them".
Oh, wait, I think you were intending to say that it's "THEM" what is ignorant because they doesn't agrees with "US".
Two-edged sword, claims of "ignorant" is. Not a very productive debating tactic, but very handy when you don't care about finding out who is right or want to have to think about what "us" believes.
There are plenty of privately-owned, privately-occupied cabins on Forest Service land. By your argument, anyone can break into them any time...
Untrue, and nonsense. By his argument, anyone can TAKE PICTURES OF THE CABINS, because the owners are displaying them on public land. The cabins are private property, so breaking in is still a crime.
The fact stands: if you don't want pictures of your naked self posted anywhere, don't show your naked self on public land. When you are in a public place, you have no expectation of privacy. And just like the cabin example, even though you have no expectation of privacy (can't stop people from taking pictures of you), you ARE protected from robbery and all the other crimes that apply to persons no matter where they stand.
Given that the Internet is probably now the most common way for humans to interact, more so than face-to-face meetings in many sub-groups, denying Internet associations is in effect denying regular contact with others in an overly broad sense.
I have two problems with that premise. First, I do not accept that it is the most common way for humans to interact. It may be the most common way for people to interact remotely, but I think most people interact more with people they see on the street or in the stores they visit. I interact face-wise with a LOT of people who don't go anywhere near Facebook or Myspace or any online "social" sites.
Second, it has long been argued that "internet interactions" are far inferior to real-life face-to-face interactions, and I agree. However, such e-interactions seem to consume more and more time as people get sucked into them, so prohibiting them would likely increase the amount of face time, resulting in a more community-integrated offender who is less likely to offend.
I mean, if the only people you talk to are/.ers, are you going to think humans deserve more or less respect, and are you more or less likely to ignore the humanity of someone you choose to commit a crime against? Which method of interacting makes people human instead of characters on a screen or avatars?
Should sites like Facebook make an attempt to restrict access of registered sex offenders from certain subsets of the population?
Absolutely. Child molester sex offenders should not see profiles of anyone under 18 and vice versa. This only enforces the common "no contact with" provisions of many sentences.
If you want to keep people on a leash forever, get a judgement against them for life in prison or a parole officer.
Agree. State up-front the sentence, in full. X years in jail, Y years probation.
Parole is a different matter, since parole is a system used in exchange for shorter times in prison. E.g., after five years on a ten year sentence, you are eligible for parole, under terms that you can freely refuse -- and thus stay for the last five of your sentence. If you agree to a lifetime GPS leg-bracelet in order to get out on parole, your choice. But to decide after the sentence of 10 years has been served that "well, we're going to make you wear a GPS tracker...", that's just not appropriate.
Please let me know when a full size plane is planning on flying at an altitude of 100 feet with a velocity of a few meters per second...
You mean like nap-of-the-earth flying practiced by military pilots in their jets?
I don't know if they go as fast as "a few meters per second", but I hear they go a couple hundred miles per hour. I also hear it is quite an awesome sight to have a few scream by 100 feet overhead, and considering how few prang while doing this it sounds like it's safe to be on the ground underneath.
Of course, TFA is about mixing UAV and regular aircraft in regular airspace, so "100 feet AGL" is out of context for this discussion. The flight rules for populated and sparsely populated areas, and even the unpopulated "500 feet from buildings or people", put aircraft quite a bit higher than 100 feet, unless you happen to be standing underneath the approach end of a runway. If you are standing there complaining about the aircraft passing overhead, perhaps you should move?
Why we need full size UAVs when radio control UAVs can accomplish anything you'd sanely want accomplish without a human at the controls is beyond me.
Radio control suffers from the same issue as fully automated UAVs.
The issue with them being in the airspace system is that much of the system is based on VFR -- visual flight rules. See and avoid. And even the parts that are always ATC controlled (Class A and B airspace) rely on see and avoid when the weather is clear. (It is not uncommon at all for an airplane approaching a very busy airport to be told something like "traffic 2 oclock, two miles", and then when the pilot says he has it in sight he's told "follow that aircraft".)
A radio control pilot cannot see anything other than what his camera is looking at right now. He can't swivel his head and see the Cessna 182 bearing down on him from the left as easily as a real pilot can.
I don't doubt that fully automated aircraft are at the level of sophistication where they can operate in a fully controlled environment, but we don't have many of those, if any. And we don't have ANY method I know of for ATC to issue emergency instructions to an unpiloted UAV, so they become essentially uncontrolled controlled systems.
See the Constitution, under the Amendment labeled 'I'. My reading of it says the government doesn't really get to say whether or not we use a particular website.
An interesting interpretation, and one that will maybe someday be tested in front of SCOTUS.
Until then, the government already tells you that you can't use a particular website. (E.g., gambling websites.) It tells people that they cannot freely associate (e.g. "no contact with known felons" as conditions of release.) It tells people they cannot shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater.
The main problem with the Illinois law is not that it limits free speech, but that it is ex-post facto sentencing.
Teachers are not trying to write the easiest or most correct way of asking a question, they are trying to test knowledge.
Yes, and "what is 58.44?" is a meaningless question. "What is 58.44 in the following equation?" doesn't test anything.
I've never seen questions about molecular weight in the form you propose. Maybe I went to better schools than you did. Not my problem. And if I caught you using your iPhone to google for the answers to ANY question in ANY format on any of MY tests, you'd be dropped from the class and reported for cheating.
Amend the process of sentencing. There's no reason it has to be fully declared in advance.
Of course it should be declared in advance.
First of all, it's the honest way of doing it. "Just kidding" is a bad concept to apply to the legal system.
Second, kiss any hope of plea bargains goodbye. "Plead guilty of this lesser offense and you'll get 5 years." "Ok" "Just kidding, it'll really be fifteen, maybe twenty...".
And finally, the time to appeal is when the guilt/sentence is determined, not twenty years later when the government decides to add ten years to his sentence because they didn't like the original one.
If you want to have certain kinds of criminals punished for life, be honest and upfront and let them know when they are sentenced. Don't tell them "five years" and then drag it out for life just because the prevailing attitude when they are ready to get out has changed. "ex post facto" is prohibited. That should apply to sentencing as well.
Due process of law does not mean passing laws further punishing people that have already paid their debt to society.
That's correct. I have a real problem with a system where someone goes through the legal system, is convicted of a crime, is sentenced for that crime, serves the sentence, and then the system says "oh, we want to add more punishment now".
The time to determine the punishment is at sentencing, when the convicted person can decide to appeal the conviction or/and sentence, not decades later when chances of appeal are gone and the system is piling on more and more punishment for the same crime.
But that's not how the system sees it, so... the "ex post facto" clause is often ignored.
Thus it seems that for better or worse the Constitution has a provision that allows for the deprivation of the liberties of convicted criminals...
Please differentiate between "liberty" and "rights". The former is quite commonly deprived from convicted persons, while the latter, logically, cannot be.
It's not an inalienable right if the government can "alienate" it at will.
If we can take away their right to vote and keep and bear arms,...
Notice that these are not "liberties", but rights, and there is a serious argument that those should not be taken away.
why not the "right" to use Facebook?
When did using facebook achieve anything close to the status of a right? And yes, I see the scare quotes so I know you aren't calling it a right, but even scare quotes imply a deal of similarity.
This is clearly a mistake in logic that I was pointing out only due the parent being modded insightful when in reality the parents post is a fallacy.
While it is true that you can word any question any damn way you want, it is UNlikely that the question would be worded backwards, to ask what compound has a specific molecular weight.
To word it backwards would require four times the effort on the part of the student to demonstrate one simple concept, and more effort on the part of the instructor to create three wrong answers. He would have to calculate the molecular weight to make sure it wasn't the same. It is TRIVIAL to create fictional answers to the question when the known molecular weight of the one compound in question is known; simply use different numbers.
The "logical fallacy" here is that questions will be asked in all possible orders instead of the most logical.
Perhaps that is why, in all the chemistry classes I've taken and TA'd, the question has never been "what has the molecular weight 58.44?", but the more direct and logical "What is the molecular weight of NaCl?"
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm talking about NAT and not the firewall. You are conflating the two as if they were one service.
That's easy to remedy for the purposes of our test though. Simply place your computer within your NAT's DMZ.
My NAT doesn't have a DMZ. The firewall does. See, you've confused the two.
Where is your God^H^H^H Security now, bitch?
You want to be crude and disgusting, I can respond the same way. It won't accomplish anything, asshole, but it sure feels good, I guess.
That is an incorrect "error of ommission" statement.
A NAT router takes a connection request from a specific non-routable address and port and creates a connection to the destination using a routable address and port.
That's the only connection the inside, non-routable system has to the internet. You can't port scan it, you can't connect to it's mail server, you can't touch it. If you port scan the routable address, you will be port scanning the NAT router, which isn't going to be listening to you because it has no reason to listen to you.
Take a typical SOHO internet router for example, it can use a specified IP for a DMZ.
Yes, you CAN use the firewall function in a SOHO router to define a catch-all system that is attackable, but again, that is a level of security, too. You know which system is open to the world, you can protect it and not worry about your other internal systems.
That turns off the filtering rules, (they are what protect you)...
No, "filtering rules" are a firewall function. Under NAT, what protects you is the fact that the address of the system you are hiding is non-routable, unknown to the outside, and thus unreachable from the outside, and the only connections are outgoing connections created by the internal system itself. You aren't subject to port scans or brute force slogin attacks.
NAT provides a level of security, whether it was designed to do that or if it comes along as a side-benefit.
I have a PC sitting behind a NAT router. I dare you to reach out from a site I don't currently have a connection to and touch that system in any way, shape or form. Every attempt YOU make to touch that system ends at the router. It doesn't matter if I have a completely unsecured FTP/SMTP/HTTP/whatever server running on that system available to everyone else on my local net, YOU can't touch it.
Yes, of course, NAT won't protect me from malicious websites I visit, but then, neither will a firewall. NAT won't stop me from installing malicious code, but then, neither will a firewall. If you are claiming that NAT isn't security because it doesn't do everything a firewall does, well, that's a silly argument.
NAT was designed to share network addresses and not to firewall your computer. It just so happens to protect from certain worms because it doesn't know how to deal with certain NAT configurations.
It protects you from a lot more than "certain worms". It protects you from anything that propogates by an inbound connection.
However, NAT is not a replacement for a proper firewall because some of those bots can call home even though a NAT.
Duh. Any CURRENT INFECTION can connect outbound through a NAT router. To claim that this means NAT provides NO security is simply ridiculous. In fact, any current infection can connect outbound through most firewalls, because most firewalls are configured to prevent incoming but not outgoing connections, so even firewalls won't protect you from the effects of a bot already on your computers. Yes, you can firewall your infected system after the fact and prevent it from calling out, but similarly you can simply shut it off and accomplish the same.
If your box can be owned when its on a public IP, it can owned when its behind a NAT.
And to BECOME owned when you are behind a NAT requires the same actions that would result in you becoming owned behind a firewall. Connect to the wrong place, install the wrong thing, bingo. But NAT won't allow outsiders to connect to your inside services, and so that vector for infection is gone.
Spoken like someone who has never had an open source project move out from under them either because of kernel/gcc/etc changes or due to deliberate changes that make new versions less useful.
It's so much fun to download the current version of a project just to have it barf because you aren't using gcc 4.0 or are using an older version of some library. Or it compiles fine but lacks a certain feature critical to your operation because someone decided it didn't need to or shouldn't do that.
Yes, I know, everyone updates every system every day so it has the most current kernel/compilers/libraries/etc, even if that means the systems are unusable for any production work.
And this means that if you distribute the binary only in-house, then you must distribute the source only in-house, and only UPON REQUEST. You don't have to give out source unless asked for. You aren't required to stuff it down anyone's throat. What part of company X is going to ask another part of X for the source, get denied that request, and then sue under the GPL? (Yes, it could happen...)
Any company using GPL internally that doesn't hand out source to everyone in the company is simply going to say "nobody asked" if the original author or FSF or whoever tries to sue under GPL.
How about this one: "I've got this older version of open source software on my system at work that I prefer because the newer versions have been crippled by imagined intellectual property issues and I can't get the older version off the net anymore."
Don't scoff. I ran across exactly this issue last week. A great open source program is now distributed with a very limited set of basis data, in a new format, compared to the previous version. If I want to work with data for New Zealand, for example, I need version 2.2.
Or consider this: if I use my current employer's fat pipe to download stuff from the open source repositories, I will still be writing files to their disk and then copying them, thus creating the exact same situation that I am already in.
Well, the last thing I remember is, me and Billy Joe and Frankie and my brother George were in the Dew Drop Inn having a few beers, and Billy Joe says 'hey everyone, let's go huntin'!', and I said "I'm game."
Thank you very much, I'll be here all week...
"I'm game!"
What I want to know is, if this facility is successful, how will /. survive?
Spoken like someone who never coded more than a page in Assembly. Optimal is for the function to push registers that it is going to use and pop them when done, so changing the FUNCTION changes the pushes and pops. You don't put the push/pop sequences before and after every function call. That's silly. It's writing the same code multiple times.
You mean... Google wants my man-milk?
Son, if you are a man-cow, the farmer isn't interested in your milk, he's after your tenderloin. And ribs. And brisket. And tongue.
I'm strangely aroused and confused.
If you are aroused by what would be a fatal situation for you, you are confused.
------
Yes, meat is murder. Tasty, tasty murder.
What legal liability?
You think customer service reps give a damn about lying to you? They're PAID to lie to you. Whatever it takes to get you off the phone and money in the company pocket.
Comcast (denied that the service plan I was on was supposed to get certain programming, offered to sell me an upgraded plan), Qwest (lied about their DSL having static DNS), DishNetwork (lied about an offer they made for a free DVR upgrade). Do I need more examples?
I don't know what law you think covers them lying about deleting your SSN from a system where you GAVE them the SSN in the first place.
As for TFA and DirectTV, the logical use of the SSN forever is to prevent a previous customer from pretending to be a new customer and getting the special deals they give to new customers.
The last four digits as identification? One in ten thousand in a country of 300 million isn't identification.
This is not true either way.
It is a standard limitation placed on child predatory sex offenders that they must avoid contact with children, even following any parole. I don't know for sure the laws regarding felons associating with other felons, so I'll have to yield on that specific one. And parole is not part of a sentence, it is a provisional release that modifies the incarceration status of the individual but not the original sentence.
The gambling has to do with statutes against gambling and an ability to track income for the purpose of taxation.
The point still stands that the government already tells people what websites they may not legally visit. The reason they may not visit doesn't change that.
If this is the level of discussion you wish to hold, please continue without me. Simply stating the obvious as if I was too stupid to know the obvious is not going to convince me of anything, anyway.
I have never taught a single class. That doesn't make me any less capable of understanding how teachers ask questions.
But less capable of knowing why.
Also, I find it humorous that you are randomly bringing up the fact that it is cheating to use an iPhone/computer on a test.
Again, if this is the level of debate you wish to hold, look elsewhere. I did not bring up the fact that it was cheating, the original poster did so when he commented that it sounded like the ability to have a search engine based on numbers would make it easy to cheat on tests. Nor is it "random" to bring that point back up, since it is a far better point than "how are questions worded?" It doesn't matter how the question is worded, it is cheating, and if you get caught doing it it won't matter whether you were googling "molecular weight nacl" or "58.44", you are still getting booted from class and (I hope) expelled.
You mean like the "us" bucket that contains all the people we agree with, and the "them" bucket that has all the people "us" doesn't agree with?
One of the buckets is good and one is bad, depending on the person.
Yes, I guess exactly like the "us" bucket that contains all the people we agree with and the "them" bucket for the ones we don't.
Remember you don't have to think about it too much, ignorance is a plus when putting "them" down.
Yes, ignorance is such a wonderful condition because it allows "us" to put "them" down without even thinking about what "us" believes. We doesn't even really have to know what "us" believes, only that we wants to be an "us" and not a "them", because obviously "us" is good and "them" is bad. (Otherwise we'd want to be a "them", and "them" would then be "us" and "us" would be "them".
Oh, wait, I think you were intending to say that it's "THEM" what is ignorant because they doesn't agrees with "US".
Two-edged sword, claims of "ignorant" is. Not a very productive debating tactic, but very handy when you don't care about finding out who is right or want to have to think about what "us" believes.
Untrue, and nonsense. By his argument, anyone can TAKE PICTURES OF THE CABINS, because the owners are displaying them on public land. The cabins are private property, so breaking in is still a crime.
The fact stands: if you don't want pictures of your naked self posted anywhere, don't show your naked self on public land. When you are in a public place, you have no expectation of privacy. And just like the cabin example, even though you have no expectation of privacy (can't stop people from taking pictures of you), you ARE protected from robbery and all the other crimes that apply to persons no matter where they stand.
I have two problems with that premise. First, I do not accept that it is the most common way for humans to interact. It may be the most common way for people to interact remotely, but I think most people interact more with people they see on the street or in the stores they visit. I interact face-wise with a LOT of people who don't go anywhere near Facebook or Myspace or any online "social" sites.
Second, it has long been argued that "internet interactions" are far inferior to real-life face-to-face interactions, and I agree. However, such e-interactions seem to consume more and more time as people get sucked into them, so prohibiting them would likely increase the amount of face time, resulting in a more community-integrated offender who is less likely to offend.
I mean, if the only people you talk to are /.ers, are you going to think humans deserve more or less respect, and are you more or less likely to ignore the humanity of someone you choose to commit a crime against? Which method of interacting makes people human instead of characters on a screen or avatars?
Should sites like Facebook make an attempt to restrict access of registered sex offenders from certain subsets of the population?
Absolutely. Child molester sex offenders should not see profiles of anyone under 18 and vice versa. This only enforces the common "no contact with" provisions of many sentences.
If you want to keep people on a leash forever, get a judgement against them for life in prison or a parole officer.
Agree. State up-front the sentence, in full. X years in jail, Y years probation.
Parole is a different matter, since parole is a system used in exchange for shorter times in prison. E.g., after five years on a ten year sentence, you are eligible for parole, under terms that you can freely refuse -- and thus stay for the last five of your sentence. If you agree to a lifetime GPS leg-bracelet in order to get out on parole, your choice. But to decide after the sentence of 10 years has been served that "well, we're going to make you wear a GPS tracker ...", that's just not appropriate.
You mean like nap-of-the-earth flying practiced by military pilots in their jets? I don't know if they go as fast as "a few meters per second", but I hear they go a couple hundred miles per hour. I also hear it is quite an awesome sight to have a few scream by 100 feet overhead, and considering how few prang while doing this it sounds like it's safe to be on the ground underneath.
Of course, TFA is about mixing UAV and regular aircraft in regular airspace, so "100 feet AGL" is out of context for this discussion. The flight rules for populated and sparsely populated areas, and even the unpopulated "500 feet from buildings or people", put aircraft quite a bit higher than 100 feet, unless you happen to be standing underneath the approach end of a runway. If you are standing there complaining about the aircraft passing overhead, perhaps you should move?
Radio control suffers from the same issue as fully automated UAVs.
The issue with them being in the airspace system is that much of the system is based on VFR -- visual flight rules. See and avoid. And even the parts that are always ATC controlled (Class A and B airspace) rely on see and avoid when the weather is clear. (It is not uncommon at all for an airplane approaching a very busy airport to be told something like "traffic 2 oclock, two miles", and then when the pilot says he has it in sight he's told "follow that aircraft".)
A radio control pilot cannot see anything other than what his camera is looking at right now. He can't swivel his head and see the Cessna 182 bearing down on him from the left as easily as a real pilot can.
I don't doubt that fully automated aircraft are at the level of sophistication where they can operate in a fully controlled environment, but we don't have many of those, if any. And we don't have ANY method I know of for ATC to issue emergency instructions to an unpiloted UAV, so they become essentially uncontrolled controlled systems.
An interesting interpretation, and one that will maybe someday be tested in front of SCOTUS.
Until then, the government already tells you that you can't use a particular website. (E.g., gambling websites.) It tells people that they cannot freely associate (e.g. "no contact with known felons" as conditions of release.) It tells people they cannot shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater.
The main problem with the Illinois law is not that it limits free speech, but that it is ex-post facto sentencing.
Yes. Have you ever taught one?
Teachers are not trying to write the easiest or most correct way of asking a question, they are trying to test knowledge.
Yes, and "what is 58.44?" is a meaningless question. "What is 58.44 in the following equation?" doesn't test anything.
I've never seen questions about molecular weight in the form you propose. Maybe I went to better schools than you did. Not my problem. And if I caught you using your iPhone to google for the answers to ANY question in ANY format on any of MY tests, you'd be dropped from the class and reported for cheating.
Next question?
Of course it should be declared in advance.
First of all, it's the honest way of doing it. "Just kidding" is a bad concept to apply to the legal system.
Second, kiss any hope of plea bargains goodbye. "Plead guilty of this lesser offense and you'll get 5 years." "Ok" "Just kidding, it'll really be fifteen, maybe twenty...".
And finally, the time to appeal is when the guilt/sentence is determined, not twenty years later when the government decides to add ten years to his sentence because they didn't like the original one.
If you want to have certain kinds of criminals punished for life, be honest and upfront and let them know when they are sentenced. Don't tell them "five years" and then drag it out for life just because the prevailing attitude when they are ready to get out has changed. "ex post facto" is prohibited. That should apply to sentencing as well.
That's correct. I have a real problem with a system where someone goes through the legal system, is convicted of a crime, is sentenced for that crime, serves the sentence, and then the system says "oh, we want to add more punishment now".
The time to determine the punishment is at sentencing, when the convicted person can decide to appeal the conviction or/and sentence, not decades later when chances of appeal are gone and the system is piling on more and more punishment for the same crime.
But that's not how the system sees it, so ... the "ex post facto" clause is often ignored.
Please differentiate between "liberty" and "rights". The former is quite commonly deprived from convicted persons, while the latter, logically, cannot be.
It's not an inalienable right if the government can "alienate" it at will.
If we can take away their right to vote and keep and bear arms, ...
Notice that these are not "liberties", but rights, and there is a serious argument that those should not be taken away.
why not the "right" to use Facebook?
When did using facebook achieve anything close to the status of a right? And yes, I see the scare quotes so I know you aren't calling it a right, but even scare quotes imply a deal of similarity.
While it is true that you can word any question any damn way you want, it is UNlikely that the question would be worded backwards, to ask what compound has a specific molecular weight.
To word it backwards would require four times the effort on the part of the student to demonstrate one simple concept, and more effort on the part of the instructor to create three wrong answers. He would have to calculate the molecular weight to make sure it wasn't the same. It is TRIVIAL to create fictional answers to the question when the known molecular weight of the one compound in question is known; simply use different numbers.
The "logical fallacy" here is that questions will be asked in all possible orders instead of the most logical.
Perhaps that is why, in all the chemistry classes I've taken and TA'd, the question has never been "what has the molecular weight 58.44?", but the more direct and logical "What is the molecular weight of NaCl?"