Edna: Alright, now who can pick up the predicate in this sentence. Homer::screams in sleep: Edna: What's wrong with him now, Bart? Bart: Night terrors, ma'am. Homer: AHH! Cobras!
See, all the signals are routed through the local cable provider, who then is charged with distributing said content to the populace.
This allows the CRTC to control commercial content as well. As any Canadian will tell you on Super Bowl Sunday, we don't get to see most of the great US commercials 'cause they're filled with crap Canadian ones.
Of course, those people with grey-market DSS systems and plain old antennas can't be stopped from watching said programs...
I couldn't give a rat's ass about the karma, jackass.
Like others, I'm tired of logging onto/. and not being able to read the stories that are posted.
Since/. itself doesn't seem to want to do anything about the/. effect, it's up to all of us to do what we can in order to make sure we can all enjoy these stories.
From what I've heard and seen (there is a nude beach here in Toronto) the ones that you want to see naked never get naked... and the ones that you would never want to see naked are always first to shed their clothes. ick.
And another thing: I hope that all those seats are getting a good steam cleaning after the flight. Nasty.
Now, *if* the stewardesses... er I mean flight attendants were to go sans clothing; well... sign me up!
Seeking cyberland John, he's virtually disappeared
By Alexa Moses and Ben Wyld
January 20 2003
They seek him here, they seek him there, the NSW Labor Council seek him everywhere. No, not the Scarlet Pimpernel but John Howard, and they're after the Prime Minster's email address.
The Labor Council, via their LaborNET website, has set up a "Where's John?" competition to nail down Howard's email address and flush him out of his "virtual bunker".
The Labor Council issued the challenge after starting a "No War" campaign - an avenue for those who oppose possible military action against Iraq.
Via a form on the site, protesters can send messages to the President of the United States of America, George Bush, his deputy, Vice-President Richard Cheney, and the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Simon Crean - who all have publicly available email addresses.
There is one abstainer, John Howard, who, the Labor Council says, is in "virtual hiding".
"Whether it be the Australian Parliament House website, John's personal website, his official PM site or the Liberal Party site, you won't find an email address for John Howard," the LaborNET website says.
"Sure you can fill out some forms on these sites and hope that they reach the PM but the point is that many voters can't or prefer not to visit these sites."
We checked out Howard's various online lairs and couldn't locate an email address either. Although his personal home page does have a survey form, and messages can be sent via email on the Prime Minister's website, no email address is given.
But that's about as close as cyber-sleuths will get to finding the exact email address a spokeswoman for Howard says.
"It literally is the Prime Minister's email, and hundreds of people avail themselves to that facility every day," the spokeswoman told Spike yesterday.
Anyone who does discover the email address will receive a typical computer geek's prize of a case of Coke and $100 of Linux merchandise.
Who was the moderator that modded this as "overrated"?
Step forward, and explain!
I'm HIGHLY curious as to your explanations... for far too long we've all watched page after page and server after server implode and prevent all of us from taking a look at the site.
I attempt to do something nice for the community, hosting the site myself temporarily in the hopes that more people will get a chance to see it, and I get modded as OVERRATED?
No wonder this place is going down the toilet, with attitudes like that!
"...from deciding that having a fallable commander on the field is worth having at all?"
and was it Razor Mackham or Mazor Rackham? d'oh!
So, why do we need commanders then?
on
Mood-Sensing Computer
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Researchers envision the emotion-sensing robot serving military personnel on the battlefield.
"The human commander may get into trouble but be unable to ask for help," said Nilanjan Sarkar, team member and assistant professor of Vanderbilt University's Department of Mechanical Engineering.
"In cases like these his robot assistant will be able to detect his stress and either communicate the need for assistance or assist in some way itself."
So, if the machine can do that, what's to stop some meathead Pentagon desk-bound General from deciding that having a fallable commander on the field is worth it?
I know it's a stretch, but not that much of one...
Of course, I don't think we will ever get rid of the human equation in the battlefield, and nor should we.
I have the part in Ender's Game in my head where Razor Mackham talks to Ender about the importance of having individual command, instead of one central brain...
Ah, like most slashdotters, I've followed that case closely.
Guess I wasn't paying attention that day!
Ah, to go back to the goatse and all your base days...
But thanks for the info!
Here's an idea....
Here in Toronto we have a great store downtown called Active Surplus. You can buy just about anything there.
They have a pretty good glassware section where you can get most of the things you need... stopcocks (*snicker), flasks, beakers, pipettes, etc.
I would think that most major metro areas have a similar store. Great place to get all the glassware you'd need.
I would think another great source of info and leads would be the local highschool. Go in some day and have a chat with the Chem Teacher. I would think they'd have catalogues and suggestions for what you should have to get started!
Go read the Supreme Court decision!
Here: I quote:
Here, we conclude that respondents exposed their garbage to the public sufficiently to defeat their claim to Fourth Amendment protection. It is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street are readily accessible to animals, 2 children, scavengers, 3 snoops, 4 and other members of the public. See Krivda, supra, at 367, 486 P.2d, at 1269. Moreover, respondents placed their refuse at the curb for the express purpose of conveying it to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself have sorted through respondents' trash or permitted others, such as the police, to do so. Accordingly, having deposited their garbage "in an area particularly suited for [486 U.S. 35, 41] public inspection and, in a manner of speaking, public consumption, for the express purpose of having strangers take it," United States v. Reicherter, 647 F.2d 397, 399 (CA3 1981), respondents could have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items that they discarded.
My point was that there actually is NO double standard, regardless of WHAT the whining politicians would care to have Joe Citizen believe.
I suggest you take the time to do a little research next time.
According to California v. Greenwood, police can search and seize trash REGARDLESS of whether it's on the person's private property.
It does NOT violate the 4th A. It does not violate one's right to due process.
End of story.
For all of those people that have waxed on about due process, and Fourth Amendment rights, and private property, and whatever else.. keep in mind that this was already argued at the US Supreme Court level.
Police have the legal right to search trash without a warrant.
Here is an exerpt from the ruling:
1. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. Pp. 39-44.
(a) Since respondents voluntarily left their trash for collection in an area particularly suited for public inspection, their claimed expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items they discarded was not objectively reasonable. It is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left along a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public. Moreover, respondents placed their refuse at the curb for the express purpose of conveying it to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself have sorted through it or permitted others, such as the police, to do so. The police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public. Pp. 39-43.
(b) Greenwood's alternative argument that his expectation of privacy in his garbage should be deemed reasonable as a matter of federal constitutional law because the warrantless search and seizure of his garbage was impermissible as a matter of California law under Krivda, [486 U.S. 35, 36] which he contends survived the state constitutional amendment, is without merit. The reasonableness of a search for Fourth Amendment purposes does not depend upon privacy concepts embodied in the law of the particular State in which the search occurred; rather, it turns upon the understanding of society as a whole that certain areas deserve the most scrupulous protection from government invasion. There is no such understanding with respect to garbage left for collection at the side of a public street. Pp. 43-44.
2. Also without merit is Greenwood's contention that the California constitutional amendment violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Just as this Court's Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule decisions have not required suppression where the benefits of deterring minor police misconduct were overbalanced by the societal costs of exclusion, California was not foreclosed by the Due Process Clause from concluding that the benefits of excluding relevant evidence of criminal activity do not outweigh the costs when the police conduct at issue does not violate federal law. Pp. 44-45.
182 Cal. App. 3d 729, 227 Cal. Rptr. 539, reversed and remanded.
Slashdot Mirror
Test my nuts on your chin! booya!
New Program Determines FP-ability! Shazam!
Edna: Alright, now who can pick up the predicate in this sentence. :screams in sleep:
Homer:
Edna: What's wrong with him now, Bart?
Bart: Night terrors, ma'am.
Homer: AHH! Cobras!
Oh, wait a second... that's what happened!
This allows the CRTC to control commercial content as well. As any Canadian will tell you on Super Bowl Sunday, we don't get to see most of the great US commercials 'cause they're filled with crap Canadian ones.
Of course, those people with grey-market DSS systems and plain old antennas can't be stopped from watching said programs...
He looks like an escapee of a TJ Hooker episode gone wrong.
Like others, I'm tired of logging onto /. and not being able to read the stories that are posted.
Since /. itself doesn't seem to want to do anything about the /. effect, it's up to all of us to do what we can in order to make sure we can all enjoy these stories.
From what I've heard and seen (there is a nude beach here in Toronto) the ones that you want to see naked never get naked... and the ones that you would never want to see naked are always first to shed their clothes. ick.
And another thing: I hope that all those seats are getting a good steam cleaning after the flight. Nasty.
Now, *if* the stewardesses... er I mean flight attendants were to go sans clothing; well... sign me up!
By Alexa Moses and Ben Wyld
January 20 2003
They seek him here, they seek him there, the NSW Labor Council seek him everywhere. No, not the Scarlet Pimpernel but John Howard, and they're after the Prime Minster's email address.
The Labor Council, via their LaborNET website, has set up a "Where's John?" competition to nail down Howard's email address and flush him out of his "virtual bunker".
The Labor Council issued the challenge after starting a "No War" campaign - an avenue for those who oppose possible military action against Iraq.
Via a form on the site, protesters can send messages to the President of the United States of America, George Bush, his deputy, Vice-President Richard Cheney, and the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Simon Crean - who all have publicly available email addresses.
There is one abstainer, John Howard, who, the Labor Council says, is in "virtual hiding".
"Whether it be the Australian Parliament House website, John's personal website, his official PM site or the Liberal Party site, you won't find an email address for John Howard," the LaborNET website says.
"Sure you can fill out some forms on these sites and hope that they reach the PM but the point is that many voters can't or prefer not to visit these sites."
We checked out Howard's various online lairs and couldn't locate an email address either. Although his personal home page does have a survey form, and messages can be sent via email on the Prime Minister's website, no email address is given.
But that's about as close as cyber-sleuths will get to finding the exact email address a spokeswoman for Howard says.
"It literally is the Prime Minister's email, and hundreds of people avail themselves to that facility every day," the spokeswoman told Spike yesterday.
Anyone who does discover the email address will receive a typical computer geek's prize of a case of Coke and $100 of Linux merchandise.
For once there's a Rachal that prevents hot gas! /. more!
Now, if only I could convince my gf to read
Step forward, and explain!
I'm HIGHLY curious as to your explanations... for far too long we've all watched page after page and server after server implode and prevent all of us from taking a look at the site.
I attempt to do something nice for the community, hosting the site myself temporarily in the hopes that more people will get a chance to see it, and I get modded as OVERRATED?
No wonder this place is going down the toilet, with attitudes like that!
Am I being a karma whore? Frickin' eh, I am.
I'll just forget it, next time!
Coyote Gulch Mirror
Be gentle! I'm sure my server is meltable, too! ;)
"...from deciding that having a fallable commander on the field is worth having at all?"
and was it Razor Mackham or Mazor Rackham? d'oh!
"The human commander may get into trouble but be unable to ask for help," said Nilanjan Sarkar, team member and assistant professor of Vanderbilt University's Department of Mechanical Engineering.
"In cases like these his robot assistant will be able to detect his stress and either communicate the need for assistance or assist in some way itself."
So, if the machine can do that, what's to stop some meathead Pentagon desk-bound General from deciding that having a fallable commander on the field is worth it?
I know it's a stretch, but not that much of one...
Of course, I don't think we will ever get rid of the human equation in the battlefield, and nor should we.
I have the part in Ender's Game in my head where Razor Mackham talks to Ender about the importance of having individual command, instead of one central brain...
Ah, like most slashdotters, I've followed that case closely.
Guess I wasn't paying attention that day!
Ah, to go back to the goatse and all your base days...
But thanks for the info!
I actually laughed out loud. Thanks.
now i gotta change my sig!
thanks!
Here's an idea.... Here in Toronto we have a great store downtown called Active Surplus. You can buy just about anything there. They have a pretty good glassware section where you can get most of the things you need... stopcocks (*snicker), flasks, beakers, pipettes, etc. I would think that most major metro areas have a similar store. Great place to get all the glassware you'd need. I would think another great source of info and leads would be the local highschool. Go in some day and have a chat with the Chem Teacher. I would think they'd have catalogues and suggestions for what you should have to get started!
That'll teach me to not hit preview next time.
Go read the Supreme Court decision! Here: I quote: Here, we conclude that respondents exposed their garbage to the public sufficiently to defeat their claim to Fourth Amendment protection. It is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street are readily accessible to animals, 2 children, scavengers, 3 snoops, 4 and other members of the public. See Krivda, supra, at 367, 486 P.2d, at 1269. Moreover, respondents placed their refuse at the curb for the express purpose of conveying it to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself have sorted through respondents' trash or permitted others, such as the police, to do so. Accordingly, having deposited their garbage "in an area particularly suited for [486 U.S. 35, 41] public inspection and, in a manner of speaking, public consumption, for the express purpose of having strangers take it," United States v. Reicherter, 647 F.2d 397, 399 (CA3 1981), respondents could have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items that they discarded. My point was that there actually is NO double standard, regardless of WHAT the whining politicians would care to have Joe Citizen believe.
I suggest you take the time to do a little research next time. According to California v. Greenwood, police can search and seize trash REGARDLESS of whether it's on the person's private property. It does NOT violate the 4th A. It does not violate one's right to due process. End of story.
For all of those people that have waxed on about due process, and Fourth Amendment rights, and private property, and whatever else.. keep in mind that this was already argued at the US Supreme Court level.
Police have the legal right to search trash without a warrant.
Here is an exerpt from the ruling:
1. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. Pp. 39-44.
(a) Since respondents voluntarily left their trash for collection in an area particularly suited for public inspection, their claimed expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items they discarded was not objectively reasonable. It is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left along a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public. Moreover, respondents placed their refuse at the curb for the express purpose of conveying it to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself have sorted through it or permitted others, such as the police, to do so. The police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public. Pp. 39-43.
(b) Greenwood's alternative argument that his expectation of privacy in his garbage should be deemed reasonable as a matter of federal constitutional law because the warrantless search and seizure of his garbage was impermissible as a matter of California law under Krivda, [486 U.S. 35, 36] which he contends survived the state constitutional amendment, is without merit. The reasonableness of a search for Fourth Amendment purposes does not depend upon privacy concepts embodied in the law of the particular State in which the search occurred; rather, it turns upon the understanding of society as a whole that certain areas deserve the most scrupulous protection from government invasion. There is no such understanding with respect to garbage left for collection at the side of a public street. Pp. 43-44.
2. Also without merit is Greenwood's contention that the California constitutional amendment violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Just as this Court's Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule decisions have not required suppression where the benefits of deterring minor police misconduct were overbalanced by the societal costs of exclusion, California was not foreclosed by the Due Process Clause from concluding that the benefits of excluding relevant evidence of criminal activity do not outweigh the costs when the police conduct at issue does not violate federal law. Pp. 44-45.
182 Cal. App. 3d 729, 227 Cal. Rptr. 539, reversed and remanded.