Is there some maximum cable length law between one's TV and an antenna? Isn't this essentially a business that has a good location for reception and a long cable to TVs where the rabbit ears would get squat. People in rural areas have long used towers, long cables, and remote antenna rotators to get better signals (I can personally remember this from the late 70s and it surely predates my childhood memories) -- why can't city folk do the same thing by essentially renting an antenna with desireable placement and the wiring to bring in the signal?
Oh boy, what rubbish. Let's address some of your points:
1. You failed to show a correlation between drug prohibition and incarceration. Do we have substantially more people in jail *because* of the war on drugs? If so, prove it.
2. It doesn't matter that everyone consumes drugs at the same level (to be proven, where is your source?). What matters is who deals and distributors said drugs. I highly doubt that as many white people distribute drugs as other ethnic groups and it makes perfect sense to dish out longer jail time to distributors than users. So what are you really complaining about here?
3. There is a reduction (on a gross-level, not net), but the population is increasing and drug distributors are better funded than people enforcing the law. Are you implying that ineffective drug enforcement means we should give up altogether? Sex trade and child labor is on the rise too, should we stop trying to curb those crimes too?
4. I'm not going to argue for/against this.
5. I'm sure terrorism had nothing to do with it. The world is changing my friend, drugs are only part of the problem.
6. I'm not sure what you're referring to here. The DEA and main police force are separate beats. I trust my local police force just fine, thank you very much.
7. Last time I checked, drug use was illegal (and enforced as such) in most countries around the world, so I have no idea what you're referring to.
8. Poor logic. Again, should we legalize all form of criminal acts for fear of what the black market will do? Laws exist for morale reasons. Selling drugs is like selling Alcohol to a known Alcoholic. It is highly addictive and prays on people's weakness.
9. Many people experiment, but most move on and hold nothing but respect for law enforcement. Most people don't smoke pot and do crack through the rest of their life.
10. That's a problem that affects all felons. Where do you draw the line? Shouldn't we try to improve the life of *all* felons? Why the focus on drug felons alone?
A recent study in Seattle is illustrative. Although the majority of those who shared, sold, or transferred serious drugs[17] in Seattle are white (indeed seventy percent of the general Seattle population is white), almost two-thirds (64.2%) of drug arrestees are black.
3. I don't even understand you're point in the first sentence. It's totally incoherent. The second, about the sex trade, completely misses the point because the number of people who use prostitutes is vastly smaller than those who use drugs. The drug war is like outlawing french fries -- sure, they make you fat but so many people use them, it's pointless to push against the tide. The same cannot be said about prostitution. If we ever get to the point that is the case, then we can address that -- right now, it's just off topic. A diversion.
5. As Greenwald pointed out in his debate, the egregious civil liberties violations of the last decade, first took root in the drug war.
I don't know about the spreading of falsehood part, but destroying families and doing far more harm than good -- that's fact.
Glenn Greenwald debated GWB's drug czar on the question of whether the US should legalize all drugs. http://vimeo.com/32110912 Greenwald identified the following costs, all of which we pay due to the drug war, all of which would go away if reason prevailed, and challenges prohibitionists to address why these costs are worth it. Listen closely to Portugal's experience with decriminalizing all drugs (evaporation of the following costs, slight increase in usage rates of some drugs (but less of an increase than neighbor countries during the same time period), a DROP in usage rates of drugs among young people, reduction in the spread of HIV etc, returning people who use drugs to the productive economy rather than making them burdensomely unemployable, acceptance of the police as a helpful organization rather than an enemy, which leads to the police being able to actually investigate real crime).
If you are unable to address those costs with evidence based information, we will know your opinion is based on mere personal dislike for drugs and drug users, i.e., moralizing, fear mongering, and prejudice:
1. The US is the world's largest prison state on a per capita basis AND on an absolute basis. We hold 25% of the world's prisoners despite having only 5% of the world's population.
2. The War on Drugs is undeniably racist. All ethnic groups use drugs at essentially equal levels, but certain minorities comprise the greatest number by far of those convicted.
3. Economic costs in the 100s of billions and yet no reduction in drug use.
4. Drug war has spawned the privatised prison industry.
5. The erosion of civil liberties experienced in the last 40 years has been rooted in the drug war.
6. Militarization of the police force which turns it from an organization community members will trust for help, into one which is feared and deemed an enemy. This hinders solving crime.
7. International resentment to the US based on US demands that other countries criminalize their population and take on what are seen as unnecessary social and economic costs.
8. Extreme violence due to the fact that in a black market, only criminals will participate and criminals use violence to secure market share ("you don't see Budweiser and Heinken shooting each other over territory").
9. Drug war breeds contempt for the law, because millions of people use drugs, even frequently, without any consequences at all (depending on one's demographic profile).
10. The drug war destroys the lives of the very individuals the government claims it wishes to help because as felons, they become unemployable. So while imprisoned and after release, such people are unable to provide for their families and being separated from families is highly corrosive to families.
Exactly how many non-geeks are actually knowledgeable about patent trolls? Two? Three?
Talk to most random people about patents, and they think: "lotto" -- invent something cool and retire. Try to explain what is wrong with the system and their eyes glaze over. The notion that patent reform will come from the masses and that they will demand change is.... wishful thinking? ludicrous? Crazy? Pick any word that's the antonym of "possible."
This is what they are doing here. Trying to find dirt in everyone, so that when they want to get you, they've got a so-called valid "probable cause" for doing so. --- sez paranoid me.;>)
I do a lot of crabbing every summer for dungeness and so I have some experience with that side of the question. I've cooked crabs whole (live) and as claw clusters (turn crab on its back on a cutting board, position large cleaver over the center between the claws, push down fast and hard like you are doing the chest compressions of CPR, clean out the guts, boil).
Whole crabs have decidedly more crabby taste to them (if cooking one at a time in a typical 5 qt spaghetti pan, place in boiling water, and cook for 20 minutes (this includes the time needed for the water to reboil, not 20 minutes after the water reboils)). I prefer the taste of whole crabs.
Clusters are milder tasting (if two clusters in that five quart pan, cook 12 minutes total -- includes time for water to reboil).
Whole crabs cooked in your kitchen will leave a lingering smell -- clusters will be unnoticeable in an hour.
There is nothing you can add to dungeness which will make it better -- all additions are subtractions. Boil, cool rapidly (it is better cold than hot), eat everything immediately. It doesn't keep at all. In a pinch, you can make crab cakes with body meat within 12 hours of cooking. After that, it's just a waste and you should have left the crab in the ocean for later.
However, if you're shit canned with no reason, you can file for unemployment, and the employer pays half of that.
I am an employer in WA state. The way it works is that you pay the Department of Employment Security a base amount for your employees based on wages. If you lay someone off and they become entitled to Unemployment Compensation, your rates go up a little. If you have no claims over a certain period your rates go down a little. Claims affect an employer's "experience rating" which is a factor that is multiplied by the base amount: no claims and that experience rating might be 0.9*base, or if you do have claims, it could 1.1*base. In other words -- it works like car insurance. Lots of tickets, pay more. None for X period, pay less. But under no circumstances is an employer required to pay half the wages. The benefits are paid out of the collected premiums and there is no deductible so to speak.
A law like this would be ineffective for the stated purpose [because only an idiot would use FB for that purpose]
Because the law is not about finding people who pass secrets. It is about eroding privacy to the point that everyone thinks it is normal for the government and employers (same thing if they are huge companies) to know every private detail of your life.
This has the potential to affect everyone in enormous ways because it takes firm root in a huge crack in our civil liberty protections. We are all aware that there is an enumerated list of things the government is (supposedly) not allowed to do, like conduct searches without a warrant. If they do, that evidence is poisoned and is not supposed to be used at trial (*). But what many people don't know is that private non-governmental agencies are not bound by these rules (**).
Thus it is entirely possible for the government to wink and nod at an "internal" investigation, or even encourage it, because such an investigation would go beyond government's constitutional boundaries. When the private entity turns over the information so obtained to the government, the government doesn't have a "fruit of the poisonous tree" problem and the evidence can be used in court. The potential for such abuse is huge, especially by megacorps who essentially own the government to the point that whatever is in their own interest, is almost certainly in the interest of the state.
And of course, this will extend to any password (if not immediately, shortly thereafter) -- email, slashdot, whatever.
If this law was written such that employers could search people's homes, closets, photoalbums, etc., people would probably understand its breathtaking scope better. From a functional standpoint, people's digital closets and photoalbums should be just as off limits.
I have concerns myself, I don't have an account with them, I don't have their products and I block their cookies.
Do you have a friend or family member who has an account? Did you let them take your picture for their address book on their phone?
Shortly after I got my first Android phone, as an experiment, I'd ask my friends if I could take their picture for my address book. Not a one, from tech savvy to total luddite refused, or even thought twice. They just immediately said "sure," smiled, and held still. So then after I'd take the shot, I'd say something along the lines "you know, Google will have all your contact info and a mug shot, you sure it's OK?" Still nobody has ever objected, even after the warning.
I let people take the photo knowing all this full well because I also realize that there is nothing I can do about it if the person wants to put a picture of me with the contact info -- they can use any photo, even a paper one and get that into the address book.
So anyway, blah blah blah -- my point is that no matter how careful you are with your personal information, you have no control over other people. That's why merely having the infrastructure in place, even if you don't actively participate, can be dangerous to privacy.
In the movie he tried to turn Finch by feeding him information... obvious that he wouldn't kill him in that situation. In the book Finch goes to Larkhill and takes LSD to try to figure things out. I can't remember if in the book V tried to influence Finch and turn him into a quasi ally as in the movie, but in either case the most this shows is that he didn't have time to go kill every cop in the world. If Finch actually interfered with his plans, that would be a different story. Anyway, it really is warping the story line to suggest that the treatment of Finch suggests V would be anti-DDoS. V would quite clearly use any tool to accomplish his goals.
Well, then I don't understand your post. V blew up buildings, took over TV, radio, and PA system, killed people, and incited revolt. Some of it was personal revenge, some to make a point, and some to destroy the oppressive ruling regime. Why would he cringe from using DDoS to silence those he disliked? If he's OK killing them, hijacking their media transmission systems, and blowing up their buildings -- why would he be unwilling to temporarily make their websites unavailable? That just doesn't make sense.
What consequences? Trivial things that are soon forgotten like three people eating a cake outside Ortiz's house (Let 'em eat cake!)? There are no consequences at all for Federal abuse of power and cake eating events like that are probably less annoying to Ortiz than morning traffic.
But we don't hear much about it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't happening in every major city of the country to dozens of people. But we hear nothing about it except in rare situations. I would probably have barely noticed Schwartz if he didn't commit suicide. What we need is a central location where people can go to learn about all these types of cases.
And once we have that... one way to hurt the Feds is in the pocketbook. And a great way to hurt them in the pocketbook, is to make these ridiculous prosecutions ridiculously expensive by helping fund a real defense in every such case... to bury them in costs. Legal protests too -- in ways that require the Feds to spend money or waste employee time (emphasis on "legal" though). It could be like a financial DDoS for the Department of Injustice.
Wouldn't it be nice if the Feds supported due process? I mean, isn't that they're primary purpose as defenders of the Constitution? The Feds are the biggest threat to due process of any organization on the planet.
Except that in this instance with what has become known it is hard to see any injustice at all. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
50 years for trespassing? (*)
This is how the Feds stick it to you if you help terrorists and violent drug kingpings -- you know, fucking murderers -- launder money for a decade:
Wow. So the executives who spent a decade laundering billions of dollars [for terrorists and drug kingpins] will have to partially defer their bonuses during the five-year deferred prosecution agreement? Are you fucking kidding me? That's the punishment? The government's negotiators couldn't hold firm on forcing HSBC officials to completely wait to receive their ill-gotten bonuses? They had to settle on making them "partially" wait?... What was the Justice Department's opening offer -- asking executives to restrict their Caribbean vacation time to nine weeks a year?
(*) Quit with the 6 months plea bargain bullshit. A plea bargain is not a contract.
Some have blithely said Aaron should just have taken a deal. This is callous. There was great practical risk to Aaron from pleading to any felony..... More particularly, the court is not constrained to sentence as the government suggests. Rather, the probation department drafts an advisory sentencing report recommending a sentence based on the guidelines. The judge tends to rely heavily on that "neutral" report in sentencing. If Aaron pleaded to a misdemeanor, his potential sentence would be capped at one year, regardless of his guidelines calculation. However, if he plead guilty to a felony, he could have been sentenced to as many as 5 years, despite the government's agreement not to argue for more. Each additional conviction would increase the cap by 5 years, though the guidelines calculation would remain the same. No wonder he didn't want to plead to 13 felonies. Also, Aaron would have had to swear under oath that he committed a crime, something he did not actually believe.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there some maximum cable length law between one's TV and an antenna? Isn't this essentially a business that has a good location for reception and a long cable to TVs where the rabbit ears would get squat. People in rural areas have long used towers, long cables, and remote antenna rotators to get better signals (I can personally remember this from the late 70s and it surely predates my childhood memories) -- why can't city folk do the same thing by essentially renting an antenna with desireable placement and the wiring to bring in the signal?
Don't forget unemployment and worker's comp premiums which are largely hidden from view as well.
Modern art is a conspiracy between artists and rich people to make poor people feel stupid.
Kurt Vonnegut
Obviously you failed to watch the debate.
1. 50% of the Federal inmates, 25% of state inmates for drug offenses: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs
2. You're just being racist.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/07/study-whites-more-likely-to-abuse-drugs-than-blacks/
http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/06/19/race-drugs-and-law-enforcement-united-states#_Part_I:_Race
3. I don't even understand you're point in the first sentence. It's totally incoherent. The second, about the sex trade, completely misses the point because the number of people who use prostitutes is vastly smaller than those who use drugs. The drug war is like outlawing french fries -- sure, they make you fat but so many people use them, it's pointless to push against the tide. The same cannot be said about prostitution. If we ever get to the point that is the case, then we can address that -- right now, it's just off topic. A diversion.
5. As Greenwald pointed out in his debate, the egregious civil liberties violations of the last decade, first took root in the drug war.
6. Google "drug war militarization of the police force" and pick an article: https://www.google.com/search?q=drug+war+militarization+of+the+police+force
7. Again, you totally didn't watch the debate
I don't know about the spreading of falsehood part, but destroying families and doing far more harm than good -- that's fact.
Glenn Greenwald debated GWB's drug czar on the question of whether the US should legalize all drugs. http://vimeo.com/32110912 Greenwald identified the following costs, all of which we pay due to the drug war, all of which would go away if reason prevailed, and challenges prohibitionists to address why these costs are worth it. Listen closely to Portugal's experience with decriminalizing all drugs (evaporation of the following costs, slight increase in usage rates of some drugs (but less of an increase than neighbor countries during the same time period), a DROP in usage rates of drugs among young people, reduction in the spread of HIV etc, returning people who use drugs to the productive economy rather than making them burdensomely unemployable, acceptance of the police as a helpful organization rather than an enemy, which leads to the police being able to actually investigate real crime).
If you are unable to address those costs with evidence based information, we will know your opinion is based on mere personal dislike for drugs and drug users, i.e., moralizing, fear mongering, and prejudice:
1. The US is the world's largest prison state on a per capita basis AND on an absolute basis. We hold 25% of the world's prisoners despite having only 5% of the world's population.
2. The War on Drugs is undeniably racist. All ethnic groups use drugs at essentially equal levels, but certain minorities comprise the greatest number by far of those convicted.
3. Economic costs in the 100s of billions and yet no reduction in drug use.
4. Drug war has spawned the privatised prison industry.
5. The erosion of civil liberties experienced in the last 40 years has been rooted in the drug war.
6. Militarization of the police force which turns it from an organization community members will trust for help, into one which is feared and deemed an enemy. This hinders solving crime.
7. International resentment to the US based on US demands that other countries criminalize their population and take on what are seen as unnecessary social and economic costs.
8. Extreme violence due to the fact that in a black market, only criminals will participate and criminals use violence to secure market share ("you don't see Budweiser and Heinken shooting each other over territory").
9. Drug war breeds contempt for the law, because millions of people use drugs, even frequently, without any consequences at all (depending on one's demographic profile).
10. The drug war destroys the lives of the very individuals the government claims it wishes to help because as felons, they become unemployable. So while imprisoned and after release, such people are unable to provide for their families and being separated from families is highly corrosive to families.
Exactly how many non-geeks are actually knowledgeable about patent trolls? Two? Three?
Talk to most random people about patents, and they think: "lotto" -- invent something cool and retire. Try to explain what is wrong with the system and their eyes glaze over. The notion that patent reform will come from the masses and that they will demand change is .... wishful thinking? ludicrous? Crazy? Pick any word that's the antonym of "possible."
Here, this book will help you feed that (rational) paranoia:
http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx
Democrats are the New GOP and the old GOP is just a parody of itself.
It'll be ok this time. i friended you just to confuse the alliances.
I do a lot of crabbing every summer for dungeness and so I have some experience with that side of the question. I've cooked crabs whole (live) and as claw clusters (turn crab on its back on a cutting board, position large cleaver over the center between the claws, push down fast and hard like you are doing the chest compressions of CPR, clean out the guts, boil).
Whole crabs have decidedly more crabby taste to them (if cooking one at a time in a typical 5 qt spaghetti pan, place in boiling water, and cook for 20 minutes (this includes the time needed for the water to reboil, not 20 minutes after the water reboils)). I prefer the taste of whole crabs.
Clusters are milder tasting (if two clusters in that five quart pan, cook 12 minutes total -- includes time for water to reboil).
Whole crabs cooked in your kitchen will leave a lingering smell -- clusters will be unnoticeable in an hour.
There is nothing you can add to dungeness which will make it better -- all additions are subtractions. Boil, cool rapidly (it is better cold than hot), eat everything immediately. It doesn't keep at all. In a pinch, you can make crab cakes with body meat within 12 hours of cooking. After that, it's just a waste and you should have left the crab in the ocean for later.
I am an employer in WA state. The way it works is that you pay the Department of Employment Security a base amount for your employees based on wages. If you lay someone off and they become entitled to Unemployment Compensation, your rates go up a little. If you have no claims over a certain period your rates go down a little. Claims affect an employer's "experience rating" which is a factor that is multiplied by the base amount: no claims and that experience rating might be 0.9*base, or if you do have claims, it could 1.1*base. In other words -- it works like car insurance. Lots of tickets, pay more. None for X period, pay less. But under no circumstances is an employer required to pay half the wages. The benefits are paid out of the collected premiums and there is no deductible so to speak.
Because the law is not about finding people who pass secrets. It is about eroding privacy to the point that everyone thinks it is normal for the government and employers (same thing if they are huge companies) to know every private detail of your life.
I just added you to my foes list. Not for any reason. I agree with your dislike of this bill, just thought you should have an enemy.
You're talking about a protected class. People who have passwords is not such a class.
This has the potential to affect everyone in enormous ways because it takes firm root in a huge crack in our civil liberty protections. We are all aware that there is an enumerated list of things the government is (supposedly) not allowed to do, like conduct searches without a warrant. If they do, that evidence is poisoned and is not supposed to be used at trial (*). But what many people don't know is that private non-governmental agencies are not bound by these rules (**).
Thus it is entirely possible for the government to wink and nod at an "internal" investigation, or even encourage it, because such an investigation would go beyond government's constitutional boundaries. When the private entity turns over the information so obtained to the government, the government doesn't have a "fruit of the poisonous tree" problem and the evidence can be used in court. The potential for such abuse is huge, especially by megacorps who essentially own the government to the point that whatever is in their own interest, is almost certainly in the interest of the state.
And of course, this will extend to any password (if not immediately, shortly thereafter) -- email, slashdot, whatever.
If this law was written such that employers could search people's homes, closets, photoalbums, etc., people would probably understand its breathtaking scope better. From a functional standpoint, people's digital closets and photoalbums should be just as off limits.
(*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
(**) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#Limitations_of_the_rule
I'm trashing my android phone and getting an iPhone today!
Do you have a friend or family member who has an account? Did you let them take your picture for their address book on their phone?
Shortly after I got my first Android phone, as an experiment, I'd ask my friends if I could take their picture for my address book. Not a one, from tech savvy to total luddite refused, or even thought twice. They just immediately said "sure," smiled, and held still. So then after I'd take the shot, I'd say something along the lines "you know, Google will have all your contact info and a mug shot, you sure it's OK?" Still nobody has ever objected, even after the warning.
I let people take the photo knowing all this full well because I also realize that there is nothing I can do about it if the person wants to put a picture of me with the contact info -- they can use any photo, even a paper one and get that into the address book.
So anyway, blah blah blah -- my point is that no matter how careful you are with your personal information, you have no control over other people. That's why merely having the infrastructure in place, even if you don't actively participate, can be dangerous to privacy.
In the movie he tried to turn Finch by feeding him information ... obvious that he wouldn't kill him in that situation. In the book Finch goes to Larkhill and takes LSD to try to figure things out. I can't remember if in the book V tried to influence Finch and turn him into a quasi ally as in the movie, but in either case the most this shows is that he didn't have time to go kill every cop in the world. If Finch actually interfered with his plans, that would be a different story. Anyway, it really is warping the story line to suggest that the treatment of Finch suggests V would be anti-DDoS. V would quite clearly use any tool to accomplish his goals.
Well, then I don't understand your post. V blew up buildings, took over TV, radio, and PA system, killed people, and incited revolt. Some of it was personal revenge, some to make a point, and some to destroy the oppressive ruling regime. Why would he cringe from using DDoS to silence those he disliked? If he's OK killing them, hijacking their media transmission systems, and blowing up their buildings -- why would he be unwilling to temporarily make their websites unavailable? That just doesn't make sense.
What consequences? Trivial things that are soon forgotten like three people eating a cake outside Ortiz's house (Let 'em eat cake!)? There are no consequences at all for Federal abuse of power and cake eating events like that are probably less annoying to Ortiz than morning traffic.
Here's another person who's getting raped by the Feds:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/21/barrett-brown-persecution-anonymous
But we don't hear much about it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't happening in every major city of the country to dozens of people. But we hear nothing about it except in rare situations. I would probably have barely noticed Schwartz if he didn't commit suicide. What we need is a central location where people can go to learn about all these types of cases.
And once we have that ... one way to hurt the Feds is in the pocketbook. And a great way to hurt them in the pocketbook, is to make these ridiculous prosecutions ridiculously expensive by helping fund a real defense in every such case ... to bury them in costs. Legal protests too -- in ways that require the Feds to spend money or waste employee time (emphasis on "legal" though). It could be like a financial DDoS for the Department of Injustice.
Wouldn't it be nice if the Feds supported due process? I mean, isn't that they're primary purpose as defenders of the Constitution? The Feds are the biggest threat to due process of any organization on the planet.
V killed his opposition and blew up their buildings. I'm kind of thinking he'd be just fine with a DDoS if it made a point.
50 years for trespassing? (*)
This is how the Feds stick it to you if you help terrorists and violent drug kingpings -- you know, fucking murderers -- launder money for a decade:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213
(*) Quit with the 6 months plea bargain bullshit. A plea bargain is not a contract.
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/01/towards-learning-losing-aaron-swartz-part-2
Don't be so ridiculously literal ... replace cooking or guitar with whatever floats your boat.
Is inspiration more or less likely to strike if your mind is occupied? I wonder as I Tao this out on myphone while waiting for my lunch to be served.