>"That's the problem. There would be only one way to enforce this type of law and that would be through sting operations. An undercover officer would bring a computer in to be repaired with illicit images somewhere obvious, like the desktop background screen. If no report is filed, the worker is arrested."
But just because a tech worked on the computer doesn't mean he/she actually was aware of any porn on there- unless the sting made it so it is nearly impossible to miss (like making it a background image or something stupid). I know when I work on others' computers, I very intentionally try to NOT look at anything not absolutely necessary to do what I am trying to do. Not just from a liability aspect, but it is the professional way to handle the situation.
It is a very dangerous law which might do far more harm than ever do any good.
The summary does say the professional is required to report it IF THEY ENCOUNTER IT, but are not required to search for it. In other words, if in the process of doing work on a computer he/she discovers it (see is and knows what it is) and doesn't report it... that is a crime.
It is a law that would be nearly impossible to enforce.
>"Actually you cherry pick when you claim the Constitution doesn't allow the fed to pass laws that impact the states; any treaty we make impacts the states for example."
No, making treaties is a federal power, as stated in the Constitution. As is defense, coining money, etc.
>" The constant idiotic misrepresentation of states having some sort of limitless right to do anything they want to do is an idiotic purely partisan hack thing that's never been based on reality."
I certainly make no such representation. Not only do the States have to comply with the USA Constitution, they also have to comply with their own State Constitutions... as interpreted by the State courts and possibly the Federal courts (if appealed that high).
"The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. "
"Section 5, also known as the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, enables Congress to pass laws enforcing the amendment's other provisions."
I don't see how either could be construed to allowing Federal laws about education or parents not being sued for allowing their kids to walk to school.
>"So: if a state or locality has decided or later decides to specifically make a law specifically against "unattended kids going to school," that law would take precedence over this act. "States rights" are still in effect here."
Your posting is informative but doesn't refute that it is still not the Federal government's power to pass such laws (based on the Constitution). The States should make the necessary laws regarding such things and the State courts will interpret them and the State Executive branch will enforce them. If there is no State law about it, then that power is left TO THE PEOPLE.
Their passing such a law specifically DOES erode the States' rights to govern their people in a matter not granted the Fed by the Constitution. If the State wanted legislation in that area, it would do so, or is free to do so. In this case, the Federal law might step out of the way if there is a State law about it, but it is still overstepping, it is just doing it in a round-around way... they are setting a default law about something. Quite clever, actually.
>"Here, you forgot a very important party, the people. I think walking to school is exercise of a people power not a state-granted privilege. Personally, I don't think the federal government has a place in education, K-12 or higher education, except as a sponsor and propagator of educational standards (which I think is a legitimate role of the Commerce Clause). But they do have a role as a protector of the people which I think this law imperfectly attempts."
I do not believe that is what they mean by "the people". They are saying the power is reserved to the States OR THE PEOPLE- meaning that powers not specifically granted the Federal government then go to the States, and if not addressed by the States, the power is not government at all but left freely to people so they can decide what they want to do. That is freedom.
You are hardly worth replying to. The Constitution is the law of the land, it is not just some optional suggestion. And people who believe in the Constitution are not anarchists nor "very right leaning GOP".
Please show me where in the Constitution the federal government is given the power to address such things such as education or children walking to school. I seem to remember that if it isn't listed there, those powers ARE RESERVED BY THE STATES.
>unless there's a blinking light or some other cue to let you know the state it's in, there's a very good chance that at any given point it may not be in the same state you thought it was.
If you watch the video on the article, it clearly explains that in order to turn the valve back on, it requires pressing a safety button AND flipping the switch. So there is pretty much zero chance that it can be accidentally turned back on (enable through) by accident.
The video is so overdone/overblown it is laughable. Too much drama, not enough function. $20K for 6 minutes of maybe 12MPH "flight" on something likely to be deafeningly loud. Since he wants to "create a product for the masses" I think he has to start with something else.
Oh, and there is no "turbine", just fans. At least it really is hovering.
>"An acceptable ad comes from the same domain as to web page. Simple as that."
Well it is not quite THAT simple. At least, not for me.
It also has to have no animation or movement or change EVER. It must also not prevent scrolling or travel with scrolling. Absolutely should not have any sound. No popups or unders. No change with mouse movement. Can't be deceptive. Shouldn't be overly offensive. Shouldn't delay the loading of the rest of the page. And shouldn't take up an unreasonable amount of the page.
My recommendation is Claws-Mail. Not only is it fast and simple to use, but is stable and feature-packed as well as being free, open-source, and multiplatform. http://www.claws-mail.org/
>"solutions that would both keep us safe and protect our privacy,"
Sorry, that doesn't happen (which has been proven over and over again). You can have safety or privacy/freedom. They pretty much are opposite ends of the spectrum. You can try to have middle ground, but it is a compromise, not obtainment of both.
I was not aware of that until now! I still had about:config browser.newab.url set to about:blank, but it wasn't doing anything. Ug, that does piss me off, somewhat.
>"What's the purpose when so many people run ad blockers?"
These were not web pages and not blocked by ad blockers, it was just placeholders when you open a new, fresh tab. But you could also easily elect to have the browser not show them, too. Mozilla did it right- you could just select a blank page for new tabs if you wanted. The control was right there, easy to find... just click on the gear and check "show blank page."
>"You say "cool", I say useful. I used my Dropcam (back when it was still called that) to catch my landlord entering my apartment illegally."
And why couldn't you do that with a camera that uses your OWN web services or your own private software? And why did it have to be on the Internet in order to record? Those are exactly my points. Not everything has to have some third-party service or connectivity to be useful. The third-party service might, indeed, be convenient... buy security and privacy are both typically at odds with convenience.
>"The truth is: the Nest Cam is never "off" despite an effort by Nest and its parent Google to make it appear otherwise."
And this surprises anyone? I work on the EXPECTATION that equipment that uses cloud services outside my control, and is not open source, and always connected to the Internet is just that.... uncontrolled.
Even if it were "off", there is nothing to prevent it from being turned on remotely or being changed to do so with an automatic update. Promises made by companies mean almost nothing to me... if you can even understand them when it is followed by 10 pages of incomprehensible legal jargon.
And then there are the security risks that have nothing to do with the manufacturer. If it is connected, it can be compromised by someone.
There is a reason I don't have certain devices in my home. This stuff is going to get worse and worse. People should probably reflect on why one wants or needs everything to be connected to a third-party service or always connected to the Internet. Just because it seems "cool" doesn't mean it is a great idea or that there is no potential hidden cost.
This is going to go over like a lead balloon. I know if I was greeted with that on a site I use, I would then start the process of going elsewhere.
They would do far better to just shift to some other way to display the ads using local servers instead of ad networks, if they really find all of this necessary. Oh, and in the process, make sure the ads are small, load quickly, don't pop up or under or on a time delay, have no animation and no sound, and no mouse over effects. Inotherwords, go back to the way things were before people found it necessary to block ads.
>"The company may see this as a way to differentiate themselves from the competition."
Um, yeah- "Buy our phones! They are better because we allow the government to spy on you!" What a great selling feature to differentiate yourself from your competition. I bet consumers will flock to that ?!!?!?!!
>Until then, (all else like noise, light sensitivity, color balance, etc. being equal) more pixels is better.
But they are not equal, so that is the crux. Consumer ignorance has driven a megapixel craze at the expense of pixel *quality*. I am not opposed to increasing quality (and even number of pixels, as long as they are not at the expense of anything else).
But again, there is no standard for RAW- every manufacturer does something different. So the news agency likely has to convert them all into something standard that not only can be stored smaller, but accessed and used the same.
Slashdot Mirror
>"That's the problem. There would be only one way to enforce this type of law and that would be through sting operations. An undercover officer would bring a computer in to be repaired with illicit images somewhere obvious, like the desktop background screen. If no report is filed, the worker is arrested."
But just because a tech worked on the computer doesn't mean he/she actually was aware of any porn on there- unless the sting made it so it is nearly impossible to miss (like making it a background image or something stupid). I know when I work on others' computers, I very intentionally try to NOT look at anything not absolutely necessary to do what I am trying to do. Not just from a liability aspect, but it is the professional way to handle the situation.
It is a very dangerous law which might do far more harm than ever do any good.
The summary does say the professional is required to report it IF THEY ENCOUNTER IT, but are not required to search for it. In other words, if in the process of doing work on a computer he/she discovers it (see is and knows what it is) and doesn't report it... that is a crime.
It is a law that would be nearly impossible to enforce.
>"Actually you cherry pick when you claim the Constitution doesn't allow the fed to pass laws that impact the states; any treaty we make impacts the states for example."
No, making treaties is a federal power, as stated in the Constitution. As is defense, coining money, etc.
>" The constant idiotic misrepresentation of states having some sort of limitless right to do anything they want to do is an idiotic purely partisan hack thing that's never been based on reality."
I certainly make no such representation. Not only do the States have to comply with the USA Constitution, they also have to comply with their own State Constitutions... as interpreted by the State courts and possibly the Federal courts (if appealed that high).
From Wikipedia:
"The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. "
"Section 5, also known as the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, enables Congress to pass laws enforcing the amendment's other provisions."
I don't see how either could be construed to allowing Federal laws about education or parents not being sued for allowing their kids to walk to school.
>"So: if a state or locality has decided or later decides to specifically make a law specifically against "unattended kids going to school," that law would take precedence over this act. "States rights" are still in effect here."
Your posting is informative but doesn't refute that it is still not the Federal government's power to pass such laws (based on the Constitution). The States should make the necessary laws regarding such things and the State courts will interpret them and the State Executive branch will enforce them. If there is no State law about it, then that power is left TO THE PEOPLE.
Their passing such a law specifically DOES erode the States' rights to govern their people in a matter not granted the Fed by the Constitution. If the State wanted legislation in that area, it would do so, or is free to do so. In this case, the Federal law might step out of the way if there is a State law about it, but it is still overstepping, it is just doing it in a round-around way... they are setting a default law about something. Quite clever, actually.
>"Here, you forgot a very important party, the people. I think walking to school is exercise of a people power not a state-granted privilege. Personally, I don't think the federal government has a place in education, K-12 or higher education, except as a sponsor and propagator of educational standards (which I think is a legitimate role of the Commerce Clause). But they do have a role as a protector of the people which I think this law imperfectly attempts."
I do not believe that is what they mean by "the people". They are saying the power is reserved to the States OR THE PEOPLE- meaning that powers not specifically granted the Federal government then go to the States, and if not addressed by the States, the power is not government at all but left freely to people so they can decide what they want to do. That is freedom.
You are hardly worth replying to. The Constitution is the law of the land, it is not just some optional suggestion. And people who believe in the Constitution are not anarchists nor "very right leaning GOP".
Please show me where in the Constitution the federal government is given the power to address such things such as education or children walking to school. I seem to remember that if it isn't listed there, those powers ARE RESERVED BY THE STATES.
>unless there's a blinking light or some other cue to let you know the state it's in, there's a very good chance that at any given point it may not be in the same state you thought it was.
If you watch the video on the article, it clearly explains that in order to turn the valve back on, it requires pressing a safety button AND flipping the switch. So there is pretty much zero chance that it can be accidentally turned back on (enable through) by accident.
>Microsoft Teams With Automakers To Put Windows, Office In Cars
Good thing Volvo isn't on my list of cars I would buy, anyway. But I currently have an Infiniti. Would hate to have to throw them out in the future...
The video is so overdone/overblown it is laughable. Too much drama, not enough function. $20K for 6 minutes of maybe 12MPH "flight" on something likely to be deafeningly loud. Since he wants to "create a product for the masses" I think he has to start with something else.
Oh, and there is no "turbine", just fans. At least it really is hovering.
>"An acceptable ad comes from the same domain as to web page. Simple as that."
Well it is not quite THAT simple. At least, not for me.
It also has to have no animation or movement or change EVER. It must also not prevent scrolling or travel with scrolling. Absolutely should not have any sound. No popups or unders. No change with mouse movement. Can't be deceptive. Shouldn't be overly offensive. Shouldn't delay the loading of the rest of the page. And shouldn't take up an unreasonable amount of the page.
So, how many ads have you seen like that lately?
My recommendation is Claws-Mail. Not only is it fast and simple to use, but is stable and feature-packed as well as being free, open-source, and multiplatform. http://www.claws-mail.org/
That is very true (of course, I didn't say giving up one gains the other, only that you can't have both at the same time)
>"solutions that would both keep us safe and protect our privacy,"
Sorry, that doesn't happen (which has been proven over and over again). You can have safety or privacy/freedom. They pretty much are opposite ends of the spectrum. You can try to have middle ground, but it is a compromise, not obtainment of both.
I was not aware of that until now! I still had about:config browser.newab.url set to about:blank, but it wasn't doing anything. Ug, that does piss me off, somewhat.
Well, I had no problem with it. If you don't want it blank, you just use about:config.
If you want "user choice", you must REALLY hate Chrome...
>"What's the purpose when so many people run ad blockers?"
These were not web pages and not blocked by ad blockers, it was just placeholders when you open a new, fresh tab. But you could also easily elect to have the browser not show them, too. Mozilla did it right- you could just select a blank page for new tabs if you wanted. The control was right there, easy to find... just click on the gear and check "show blank page."
Typical of Apple: form over function. Throw away one of the very few remaining universal devices/connectors.
>"You say "cool", I say useful. I used my Dropcam (back when it was still called that) to catch my landlord entering my apartment illegally."
And why couldn't you do that with a camera that uses your OWN web services or your own private software? And why did it have to be on the Internet in order to record? Those are exactly my points. Not everything has to have some third-party service or connectivity to be useful. The third-party service might, indeed, be convenient... buy security and privacy are both typically at odds with convenience.
>"The truth is: the Nest Cam is never "off" despite an effort by Nest and its parent Google to make it appear otherwise."
And this surprises anyone? I work on the EXPECTATION that equipment that uses cloud services outside my control, and is not open source, and always connected to the Internet is just that.... uncontrolled.
Even if it were "off", there is nothing to prevent it from being turned on remotely or being changed to do so with an automatic update. Promises made by companies mean almost nothing to me... if you can even understand them when it is followed by 10 pages of incomprehensible legal jargon.
And then there are the security risks that have nothing to do with the manufacturer. If it is connected, it can be compromised by someone.
There is a reason I don't have certain devices in my home. This stuff is going to get worse and worse. People should probably reflect on why one wants or needs everything to be connected to a third-party service or always connected to the Internet. Just because it seems "cool" doesn't mean it is a great idea or that there is no potential hidden cost.
This is going to go over like a lead balloon. I know if I was greeted with that on a site I use, I would then start the process of going elsewhere.
They would do far better to just shift to some other way to display the ads using local servers instead of ad networks, if they really find all of this necessary. Oh, and in the process, make sure the ads are small, load quickly, don't pop up or under or on a time delay, have no animation and no sound, and no mouse over effects. Inotherwords, go back to the way things were before people found it necessary to block ads.
>"The company may see this as a way to differentiate themselves from the competition."
Um, yeah- "Buy our phones! They are better because we allow the government to spy on you!" What a great selling feature to differentiate yourself from your competition. I bet consumers will flock to that ?!!?!?!!
>JPEG is a lossy format, every pixel affects the colour of its surrounding pixels
You know, that is a very good point.
>Until then, (all else like noise, light sensitivity, color balance, etc. being equal) more pixels is better.
But they are not equal, so that is the crux. Consumer ignorance has driven a megapixel craze at the expense of pixel *quality*. I am not opposed to increasing quality (and even number of pixels, as long as they are not at the expense of anything else).
But again, there is no standard for RAW- every manufacturer does something different. So the news agency likely has to convert them all into something standard that not only can be stored smaller, but accessed and used the same.