As others have said, this is not about electrical interference but social control. What's the difference between someone reading harry potter on a 1lb device or reading it in it's 10 lb hardcover form? The greater danger is from the projectile the book becomes in a crash. But since there is no FUD means for banning the book, they allow you to read it. But in reality there is no difference so long as the plane doesn't crash.
I have a post elsewhere that goes into this but the suicide rates don't change between locales that severely restrict quick access to firearms and those with more reasonable laws. Suicide rates track with economic factors for the most part. If someone has decided to end their life, they will do so with any means possible. Pills, gravity, etc it doesn't matter.
First, Child is anyone up to 19 and at least 2/3s of that ~150 or so deaths occurs in the 16-19 yro range.
Second, the original statement was not tied in any way to the CDC data because the CDC data does not in any way suggest a likelihood or probability of firearms death for those who possess a gun v. not possessing a gun.
So I am very right that the OP was munging the Brady stats, of which the Brady bunch and others have been forced to admit that their stats include suicides and treats all deaths up to 26 as "children".
I am very familiar with CDC and Census data as I used it throughout my time in graduate school.
But if you take the gun away, the person is less likely to commit suicide - the same way if you put up a fence along a bridge, people are less likely to commit suicide by jumping off.
The statistic is right to include suicides as those are deaths that could have been prevented.
You are kidding, right? If you look at the suicide rate of states it's intimately linked with economic prosperity and not easy access to, or the lack thereof, guns. MA has just as many suicides per capita that other mid size prosperous states do, but less with guns and more with pills, etc.
Nah. We'll send a neurotic genius to upload a computer virus on the mothership.
And he will miraculously be able to figure out the network protocol and to interface with the mothership when computers on earth can barely communicate with each other beyond some simple predefined syntax.
The victim having a gun doesn't help in most cases. Studies have shown that bystanders are more likely to get injured, and having a gun during a drive-by shooting is pretty much useless. Making guns harder to get isn't likely to make those go up.
Please, point me to such studies that say this. I won't hold my breath since you are mis characterizing bogus studies to begin with.
Bull. The UK has the same "gun" homicide stats that it had before they confiscated the citizen's arms. Their raw homicide rate has actually gone up. You are spouting lies.
Actually, this could be interesting, as long as we can get reliable statistics...
Do you really expect to get reliable (accurate is what I think you are going for there) statistics from a nation whose leader and the referendums he supports has "received" close to 90%+ of the vote in each of the elections despite massive opposition? Good luck with that.
I'd believe guns kill people if gun bans in other countries had successfully reduced crime, instead of just changing it.
The majority (2/3rds) of gun deaths in the US are suicides. We'd be most successful reducing *deaths* by having better support for depressed people, for instance.
Shhh.... You don't want the people to realize gun control is all about control and nothing about guns or safety now, do you?:-)
No, this is utter bull shit. The stat, which is a Brady creation, is that for people with a gun in the home, they are more likely to be "harmed" by a gun. Now, think that through. If you want to commit suicide and you have a gun at the house, um sure you will use a gun. This does not mean you will fall victim to a gun homicide nor does it mean your gun will be used against you.
This is a complete and utter manipulation of the numbers which you have bought into lock stock and barrel.
If your compute power doubles in the same size die every 1.5 years, then if you halve the die size keeping the compute power the same you actually cut the power in half. This is a very well known phenomenon and Koomey is doing what he has been for a while, making headlines with little substance and lots of flair.
That Microsoft and Intel paid for this research calls into question what it was they were actually paying for.
So for an example, if party A has a conversation with B, A can't record it because B supposedly has a REP privacy right yet A has heard everything B said. They were having a conversation for christ's sake. B gave up their privacy to the statements once they engaged in said conversation. So A can detail the conversation to whomever will listen but if B denies what was said or that the conversation even took place, it becomes a he said, she said situation. Now, who does this protect? It protects B. It protects liars, cheats and thieves. Because it allows them to lie about what took place.
Interesting comments although I disagree with the above. It is perfectly reasonable to not want part of a conversation to be recorded without your knowledge or consent. Privacy does not stop at one individual - a conversation between two people can also be private.
I also think you have an unrealistic view of human relationships if you think that the constant threat of secret recording wouldn't make our interactions awkward at best, and unmanageable at worst.
For example, you might in a private conversation with another person choose to express views which are unpopular, or offensive, or in some other way not views you would choose to express to a larger audience. You might tell someone something off-the-record in a conversation which you would never put in writing. A person secretly recording you takes away your right to choose your audience if they then republish the recording.
Look at in on the flipside. What is the problem with simply telling someone you are going to record them? Then they may choose how to proceed, instead of you misleading them (because most humans assume that they are NOT being recorded at all times, so your non-disclosure is misleading).
A) In 38 states your conversations can be secretly recorded without your knowledge. Humanity has not crumbled under the weight. B) "Privacy does not stop at one individual". Correct, but it requires the consent of all of those people to maintain the privacy. You are trusting the other party to not repeat what you said, therefore you trust they won't use the recordings. C) "You might tell someone something off-the-record in a conversation which you would never put in writing." Security via obscurity. If you don't want anyone to know you think it, don't write it or speak it. D) "What is the problem with simply telling someone you are going to record them?" Because in interactions with people with authority, they can use this to force you to stop doing so. See my original post. The right to record conversations you are a party to is a defensive one.
At the end of the day, the prohibition on 2nd party recording is to protect liars, cheats and thieves by removing the ability to accurately capture evidence of the conversation one was a party to and does nothing for privacy.
Oh and to this: If you were speaking with your doctor or shrink, would you be okay with them secretly recording you?
Yes, I would. I am already expecting them to be discriminating. I don't have a problem with them recording so long as they accept the responsibility to protect the recordings.
A & B were having a conversation in my example. Read it again.
There is no privacy expectation for B once they state something to A. Period. They chose to divulge the information and once they do that, they lose their privacy right. Think of it this way, imagine a suspect tells the cop "I did it" and the cop testifies to this effect. The suspect has no right to privacy from the cop and those words can be used against them. However, if the cop records this conversation with the suspect, under the logic of Comm v. Hyde, the suspect has a privacy right and the recording can't be used against them.
This ruling is in line with Comm v. Hyde. There is NOTHING new about this ruling, at least regards the recording issue. There is nothing wrong with OPENLY recording cops in MA or anyone else who are speaking in normal voice in public. By being in public, they are forfeiting their privacy. This is inline with 4th Amendment thinking.
In technical terms, the above is 3rd party recording that is not considered 3rd party eavesdropping because there is no REP (reasonable expectation of privacy).
Now, what this ruling DOES bring as new is the cops who think that they have veto power over your OPEN recording of them are now on notice, in federal court you have zero shelter from the liability of arresting someone because you don't like that they are recording you in public. This is new. The cops are not being granted qualified immunity and are on the hook for the damages of denying Glik his rights by improperly arresting him. That is a step in the right direction.
The problem here is if you are recording your interaction with a cop, what does that cop have to do to stop your recording? "Detain" you, that is what. Once they do, for their "safety" of course, they now control your recording equipment and can turn it off. Nothing in the above ruling changes this. They can do this, beat you to a pulp, or just ignore you to illustrate both extremes, and there will be no record of it.
What has not changed is Comm v. Hyde which makes 2nd party recording a privacy issue. This is not the case in 38 other states but here in MA, people are presumed to have a REP right from secret recording even when the recorders are privy to what is being said. That is absurd if you dissect it, but that is where Hyde dropped us. So for an example, if party A has a conversation with B, A can't record it because B supposedly has a REP privacy right yet A has heard everything B said. They were having a conversation for christ's sake. B gave up their privacy to the statements once they engaged in said conversation. So A can detail the conversation to whomever will listen but if B denies what was said or that the conversation even took place, it becomes a he said, she said situation. Now, who does this protect? It protects B. It protects liars, cheats and thieves. Because it allows them to lie about what took place. There is a line in Hyde where the SJC basically acknowledges this by stating to allow surreptitious recording of cops will allow the citizens to monitor and find corruption.
Now they just need to order all of the samples destroyed.
They can not order them destroyed because they are likely out of the hands of the state at this point and in the fed's hands. A state court can not order the feds to do squat. But any person ever charged with a crime based on evidence gained from this DNA database has a 4A claim to bounce the evidence (exclusionary rule)
Thankfully, this dialing back corporate personhood and granting personal rights to corporations has long been overdue. Odd case to have it happen in, as the outcome is not clearly positive in all cases, but the overall result for the law in general is a positive one.
If they would stop requiring CS degrees the problem would get better. They require the degree when it is not really required for the particular job they are hiring for. Of course some folks graduating from privately run IT training programs have relevant education, but the vast majority of CS degrees are fundamental math and theory. They don't train people to be IT workers, they train them to be programmers and theoreticians. Good IT workers have experience. Experience is not something school gives, especially in this field.
The memo also suggests that agencies require all their employees to report any contacts with members of the news media they may have.
What happens when you are married to one, or related to one. You have to file a daily report or do they just fire these people. Manning got this because he had unfettered BULK access to information. Focus on how the technology works.
so the credit card merchant services provider is then storing the full card information? someone MUST be. if the hash is interchangeable with the card number, then the hash IS the card number for all intents and purposes.
It's not interchangeable. It is limited to this vendor.
if the data can be used to initiate future transactions, it is not useless.
If it can only be used to initiate future transaction with the original vendor, it is of limited utility to criminals. It also makes the liability for fraud limited to the vendor who got hacked, which is a nice market based mechanism for those who have crappy security to fix their problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, the stock ticker and the wireless company aren't the same, which means there are a lot of dumb people out there.
As others have said, this is not about electrical interference but social control. What's the difference between someone reading harry potter on a 1lb device or reading it in it's 10 lb hardcover form? The greater danger is from the projectile the book becomes in a crash. But since there is no FUD means for banning the book, they allow you to read it. But in reality there is no difference so long as the plane doesn't crash.
I have a post elsewhere that goes into this but the suicide rates don't change between locales that severely restrict quick access to firearms and those with more reasonable laws. Suicide rates track with economic factors for the most part. If someone has decided to end their life, they will do so with any means possible. Pills, gravity, etc it doesn't matter.
First, Child is anyone up to 19 and at least 2/3s of that ~150 or so deaths occurs in the 16-19 yro range.
Second, the original statement was not tied in any way to the CDC data because the CDC data does not in any way suggest a likelihood or probability of firearms death for those who possess a gun v. not possessing a gun.
So I am very right that the OP was munging the Brady stats, of which the Brady bunch and others have been forced to admit that their stats include suicides and treats all deaths up to 26 as "children".
I am very familiar with CDC and Census data as I used it throughout my time in graduate school.
But if you take the gun away, the person is less likely to commit suicide - the same way if you put up a fence along a bridge, people are less likely to commit suicide by jumping off.
The statistic is right to include suicides as those are deaths that could have been prevented.
You are kidding, right? If you look at the suicide rate of states it's intimately linked with economic prosperity and not easy access to, or the lack thereof, guns. MA has just as many suicides per capita that other mid size prosperous states do, but less with guns and more with pills, etc.
Nah. We'll send a neurotic genius to upload a computer virus on the mothership.
And he will miraculously be able to figure out the network protocol and to interface with the mothership when computers on earth can barely communicate with each other beyond some simple predefined syntax.
The victim having a gun doesn't help in most cases. Studies have shown that bystanders are more likely to get injured, and having a gun during a drive-by shooting is pretty much useless. Making guns harder to get isn't likely to make those go up.
Please, point me to such studies that say this. I won't hold my breath since you are mis characterizing bogus studies to begin with.
Bull. The UK has the same "gun" homicide stats that it had before they confiscated the citizen's arms. Their raw homicide rate has actually gone up. You are spouting lies.
Actually, this could be interesting, as long as we can get reliable statistics...
Do you really expect to get reliable (accurate is what I think you are going for there) statistics from a nation whose leader and the referendums he supports has "received" close to 90%+ of the vote in each of the elections despite massive opposition? Good luck with that.
I'd believe guns kill people if gun bans in other countries had successfully reduced crime, instead of just changing it.
The majority (2/3rds) of gun deaths in the US are suicides. We'd be most successful reducing *deaths* by having better support for depressed people, for instance.
Shhh.... You don't want the people to realize gun control is all about control and nothing about guns or safety now, do you? :-)
Your worry proves why this and all civilian disarmament efforts are BAD in theory.
No, this is utter bull shit. The stat, which is a Brady creation, is that for people with a gun in the home, they are more likely to be "harmed" by a gun. Now, think that through. If you want to commit suicide and you have a gun at the house, um sure you will use a gun. This does not mean you will fall victim to a gun homicide nor does it mean your gun will be used against you.
This is a complete and utter manipulation of the numbers which you have bought into lock stock and barrel.
You are not confused. The AG is. You are actually right that this fraud doesn't involve apple at all. But that won't matter.
It's the inverse of Moore's law so yeah, duh....
If your compute power doubles in the same size die every 1.5 years, then if you halve the die size keeping the compute power the same you actually cut the power in half. This is a very well known phenomenon and Koomey is doing what he has been for a while, making headlines with little substance and lots of flair.
That Microsoft and Intel paid for this research calls into question what it was they were actually paying for.
So for an example, if party A has a conversation with B, A can't record it because B supposedly has a REP privacy right yet A has heard everything B said. They were having a conversation for christ's sake. B gave up their privacy to the statements once they engaged in said conversation. So A can detail the conversation to whomever will listen but if B denies what was said or that the conversation even took place, it becomes a he said, she said situation. Now, who does this protect? It protects B. It protects liars, cheats and thieves. Because it allows them to lie about what took place.
Interesting comments although I disagree with the above. It is perfectly reasonable to not want part of a conversation to be recorded without your knowledge or consent. Privacy does not stop at one individual - a conversation between two people can also be private.
I also think you have an unrealistic view of human relationships if you think that the constant threat of secret recording wouldn't make our interactions awkward at best, and unmanageable at worst.
For example, you might in a private conversation with another person choose to express views which are unpopular, or offensive, or in some other way not views you would choose to express to a larger audience. You might tell someone something off-the-record in a conversation which you would never put in writing. A person secretly recording you takes away your right to choose your audience if they then republish the recording.
Look at in on the flipside. What is the problem with simply telling someone you are going to record them? Then they may choose how to proceed, instead of you misleading them (because most humans assume that they are NOT being recorded at all times, so your non-disclosure is misleading).
A) In 38 states your conversations can be secretly recorded without your knowledge. Humanity has not crumbled under the weight.
B) "Privacy does not stop at one individual". Correct, but it requires the consent of all of those people to maintain the privacy. You are trusting the other party to not repeat what you said, therefore you trust they won't use the recordings.
C) "You might tell someone something off-the-record in a conversation which you would never put in writing." Security via obscurity. If you don't want anyone to know you think it, don't write it or speak it.
D) "What is the problem with simply telling someone you are going to record them?" Because in interactions with people with authority, they can use this to force you to stop doing so. See my original post. The right to record conversations you are a party to is a defensive one.
At the end of the day, the prohibition on 2nd party recording is to protect liars, cheats and thieves by removing the ability to accurately capture evidence of the conversation one was a party to and does nothing for privacy.
Oh and to this:
If you were speaking with your doctor or shrink, would you be okay with them secretly recording you?
Yes, I would. I am already expecting them to be discriminating. I don't have a problem with them recording so long as they accept the responsibility to protect the recordings.
A & B were having a conversation in my example. Read it again.
There is no privacy expectation for B once they state something to A. Period. They chose to divulge the information and once they do that, they lose their privacy right. Think of it this way, imagine a suspect tells the cop "I did it" and the cop testifies to this effect. The suspect has no right to privacy from the cop and those words can be used against them. However, if the cop records this conversation with the suspect, under the logic of Comm v. Hyde, the suspect has a privacy right and the recording can't be used against them.
This ruling is in line with Comm v. Hyde. There is NOTHING new about this ruling, at least regards the recording issue. There is nothing wrong with OPENLY recording cops in MA or anyone else who are speaking in normal voice in public. By being in public, they are forfeiting their privacy. This is inline with 4th Amendment thinking.
In technical terms, the above is 3rd party recording that is not considered 3rd party eavesdropping because there is no REP (reasonable expectation of privacy).
Now, what this ruling DOES bring as new is the cops who think that they have veto power over your OPEN recording of them are now on notice, in federal court you have zero shelter from the liability of arresting someone because you don't like that they are recording you in public. This is new. The cops are not being granted qualified immunity and are on the hook for the damages of denying Glik his rights by improperly arresting him. That is a step in the right direction.
The problem here is if you are recording your interaction with a cop, what does that cop have to do to stop your recording? "Detain" you, that is what. Once they do, for their "safety" of course, they now control your recording equipment and can turn it off. Nothing in the above ruling changes this. They can do this, beat you to a pulp, or just ignore you to illustrate both extremes, and there will be no record of it.
What has not changed is Comm v. Hyde which makes 2nd party recording a privacy issue. This is not the case in 38 other states but here in MA, people are presumed to have a REP right from secret recording even when the recorders are privy to what is being said. That is absurd if you dissect it, but that is where Hyde dropped us. So for an example, if party A has a conversation with B, A can't record it because B supposedly has a REP privacy right yet A has heard everything B said. They were having a conversation for christ's sake. B gave up their privacy to the statements once they engaged in said conversation. So A can detail the conversation to whomever will listen but if B denies what was said or that the conversation even took place, it becomes a he said, she said situation. Now, who does this protect? It protects B. It protects liars, cheats and thieves. Because it allows them to lie about what took place. There is a line in Hyde where the SJC basically acknowledges this by stating to allow surreptitious recording of cops will allow the citizens to monitor and find corruption.
And it's not even an accurate use off the term to boot.
Now they just need to order all of the samples destroyed.
They can not order them destroyed because they are likely out of the hands of the state at this point and in the fed's hands. A state court can not order the feds to do squat. But any person ever charged with a crime based on evidence gained from this DNA database has a 4A claim to bounce the evidence (exclusionary rule)
Thankfully, this dialing back corporate personhood and granting personal rights to corporations has long been overdue. Odd case to have it happen in, as the outcome is not clearly positive in all cases, but the overall result for the law in general is a positive one.
If they would stop requiring CS degrees the problem would get better. They require the degree when it is not really required for the particular job they are hiring for. Of course some folks graduating from privately run IT training programs have relevant education, but the vast majority of CS degrees are fundamental math and theory. They don't train people to be IT workers, they train them to be programmers and theoreticians. Good IT workers have experience. Experience is not something school gives, especially in this field.
What happens when you are married to one, or related to one. You have to file a daily report or do they just fire these people. Manning got this because he had unfettered BULK access to information. Focus on how the technology works.
so the credit card merchant services provider is then storing the full card information? someone MUST be. if the hash is interchangeable with the card number, then the hash IS the card number for all intents and purposes.
It's not interchangeable. It is limited to this vendor.
if the data can be used to initiate future transactions, it is not useless.
If it can only be used to initiate future transaction with the original vendor, it is of limited utility to criminals. It also makes the liability for fraud limited to the vendor who got hacked, which is a nice market based mechanism for those who have crappy security to fix their problems.