No matter what approach is taken, there will always be groups dissatisfied with the results.
Laws are generally reactionary. Just laws are created because entities see injustice and push for statutes to curb those injustices. For injustices to be acknowledged they have to happen, in order to happen, the population or a subset must gain experience with the particular concept or technology or action. To gain experience, if it's a technology, it has to be allowed to exist and to see how it's used, and potentially abused, and often, actual abuse might already run afoul of existing law anyway. When the laws are finally created as a reaction, some people get angry because their abusive actions are curtained. Others get angry because in order to curtail the abusive actions of others, their nonabusive actions must also be affected.
Some regulations are proactionary, being drafted and put into effect before abuses are documented. Persons wishing to use a technology affected by such regulations get upset because they're being prohibited from doing something that they feel that they should be allowed to do. It could be that what they feel should be legal is actually victimizing others, or they might have a poor understanding of the law, or they could even be right in that what they're being prohibited-from is going too far. Either way, they're angry.
Then you have the condition where something newish is starting to show signs of abuse, and regulations and/or law is put into effect in a minor way that serves to remind participants that they could be subject to regulation or rules, and they get upset. Some don't understand that they might be violating the rights of others or violating the rules that exist to protect all parties involved. Things like Uber versus taxis and how taxi regulations came to be. Things like how RC aircraft are coming under increasing regulation. Things like software that shares files in less-direct means. These are all technology changes that can be abused, and also can have legitimate benefits without abuse, but people get very, very passionate when their designs are questioned, even if they're ignorant of the law or the effects of their actions or choices.
There is no magic bullet. Someone will always be upset.
What gray area? I don't know about you, but going through pictures and family photo albums as a child with my family, seeing pictures of things that happened long before I was born and even of people long-dead, kind of established to me that a photograph has the potential to be there forever. Seeing my mother's mild embarrassment over some of her fashion choices in the seventies also reaffirmed that despite some negative perceptions in the photo it may still persist.
Yes, but the photographer can sell prints of the photograph so long as it's not represented as anything more than the picture at face-value that it is, and the subject does not have any special rights in that circumstance, because the subject is not being portrayed as endorsing anything.
That's a legal technicality, not a technical technicality.
What's the difference? Humans still chose to process the inmates for release, fill-out paperwork, return their property to them, arrange for transportation, and open the gates. Even if the humans were advised by a computer, a human still created the computer and programmed the computer, and were in-charge of the computer, and those humans are representatives of the State. At any time in the process those representatives of the State could have chosen to audit the computer results, and from a sanity-perspective should have audited those results compared to the old way of tabulating for several years before coming to rely on the new system to make sure that it was actually working correctly.
If I understand correctly, candids without context, assuming that there's not some other condition that makes them illegal, are legal so far as the photographer or publisher does not add extra content to create interpretation, ie, the difference between people on the street and editorializing the man in the train station. I wonder if the nature of the model release when applied for commercial purposes is in-part due to the same editorialization, the subject is portrayed as endorsing something in commercial photography when their likeness is used in advertising.
My argument is that consent for a photograph to be taken cannot be revoked. That's why one needs to exercise good judgement when giving such consent in the first place. The existence of the photograph does not dictate the use of the photograph. The subject might legitimately be able to influence the use of the photograph or to penalize the photographer for misuse of the image and the subject, but if the subject was legally able to consent to the picture being taken and did so, the subject should not have the right to demand the destruction of the work.
Seriously? People still assign public IP's directly to PC's? Get a router. use NAT. these "Port Scans" (which may well not be port scans at all) shouldn't be making it anywhere near a PC in the first place.
Port Address Translation breaks the end-to-end model of TCP/IP. IPv6 is designed to remove the need for NAT entirely. The network admin is supposed to actually know how to build a proper firewalling router to keep other networks out or to limit what resources they can reach.
Good firewalls deny incoming connections by default, and only allow them when they're solicited by a machine on the local side, and even then, only when the return traffic from the untrusted network conforms to expectations based on the trusted machine's initial outgoing request. This can get a little tricker with protocols that use more than one port or semirandomly chose ports from a range, but it seems to work pretty well even with public IPs on devices.
That's a great way to get your ISP to take punitive action against you, or to have some software a the target's end that's more sophisticated share your information with a blacklisting service such that your legitimate customers can't reach you.
Building on this, if you still want to see it, look at a firewall solution that can put less interesting information into a periodic report, or where you can poll for it.
Heh. Sounds like it's time to dig out the old Centris 660AV and mkLinux, statically compile everything, include no libraries, and redirect all unsolicited traffic to it.
Actually we can. There was a fairly recent example of a court sentencing a man but somehow failing to actually send him to prison. He lived clean for well past his sentence's duration and when the authorities realized their mistake a legal battle ensued and the man won. He did have to spend some time in jail pending the outcome of the second legal case, but that was short compared to the time he would have spent had the court affirmed that the state could hold him for his sentence.
As I understand it, the subject of a photograph does not have any rights to the content of the photograph, only the photographer is recognized as the artist. The subject may have rights to their own likeness such that an entity wishing to create artificial representation of the subject has to obtain rights from the subject to do so (ie, a movie studio wishing to produce toys in the likeness of a star of a movie has to obtain rights from the actor) but for the image itself, without any other agreement in-place the photographer holds the rights, not the subject.
Why does a photographer need proof of commercial compensation in order for a work to have aesthetic value?
If a work has aesthetic value and all participants at the time it was created agreed to its creation (arguably a form of verbal contract) then what gives any party, other than the photographer as the creator of the content, any special rights over the content? The subject might have rights to the content if used for public exhibition or commercial purposes, but I don't see any reason why the subject, if of legal age and in a position to consent to having an image taken, should have the right to revoke that consent at a later time such that it compels the artist in question to destroy their work.
I will say this much, lots of people are bloody stupid and don't understand that they absolutely should not consent to having photos taken of them in the nude or in sexual congress unless they've fully considered both the ramifications of how they feel about those pictures potentially being seen by absolutely everyone and how this could impact their lives down the road, but that's the choice of the subject that willfully puts themselves into that position.
Heh. This isn't the first time Audi/VW has created something with the intention of never needing service for the life of the vehicle only to discover that they undershot the mark tenfold. There's a performance engine whose cam geartrain is located at the back of the engine sandwiched up against the transmission and adjacent to the firewall. It's a complex assembly of something like five timing chains with tensioners that cannot be accessed with the engine in the car. It's also an interference engine, so when the tensioners fail the valves contact the pistons and the engine is ruined. It costs about $10,000 to have the tensioners replaced (like $3000 in parts alone) and they still aren't any better than the factory units.
Automakers need to stop treating some systems as if they're black boxes (the engineering term, not the flight data recorder term) because the systems concealed within inevitably require service.
Immoral and illegal things happen all of the time. You are obligated to prevent them from happening to you. We have attempted to build a society that reduces the number of immoral and illegal things that happen and reduces the number of people victimized, but ultimately the individual is the final line of defense against becoming a victim.
The biggest difference of the electric versus the ICE will be the nature of how maintenance and repair is handled. I expect a lot more component-level repair of circuit boards and power systems, along the lines of how Prius owners have been replacing or repairing bad battery contacts to extend the lives of the battery packs, as opposed to the very greasy, fluid-mess job that maintaining a water cooled reciprocating piston engine with hydraulic systems that we currently face.
I was on my high school's electric car team. We had a Porsche 914 that had been donated with a blown motor that was converted to electric. It had its share of problems, but the drivetrain was never among them.
I look at electric cars as a way for the car to much more quickly approach appliance-like maintenance and use compared to gasoline and diesel cars. Sure, there will be consumables to change, but the chemical-aspect of the car will not require as much owner involvement as it currently does. No gasoline, no oil change invervals a 3000, 5000, or 7500 miles depending on the manufacturer's penchant. With the end of the need for frequent fluids service I could see on-board tire pressure monitoring evolving into a central tire inflation system so that the less frequent maintenance cycles do not mean tires go underinflated for an extended period of time. That would mean possibly chassis/bearing lubes, tires, brakes (which would probably last longer with regenerative braking), and windshield washer fluid being the most common maintenance. Hell, carwashes might add a couple of services and thus meet 90% of the needs of the car within its first 100,000 miles, and it's conceivable that the cars could go far more than the ~200,000 miles we reasonably expect out of them now.
Thing is, I could see drones having an application here. Set up a drone operation per so many hundred miles of border, where that drone responds when the cheaper tech (ie, airships, balloons, even static towers) identifies that there's an indication that a closer look is needed, or when there's a need to follow a party that has crossed before officers can respond in person.
Drones could even be useful where the air currents or weather do not readily let lighter-than-air craft operate, or where population centers do not like the presence of airships.
Wouldn't something like a relatively peaceful border between two nations that are nominally at-peace, be a lot more cost-effectively administered by slow moving airships, with only a handful of rapid-response aircraft used solely for interdiction purposes?
Obviously no single technology is going to work to secure a border as long as the US-Mexico frontier, but it seems like the concept of using powered flight is somewhat misapplied here, especially if the costs are somehow as high as the article implies.
I've seen some concept-art where external tanks are used as space habitats, and it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Wouldn't it be more cost-effective to use bulk payload launch systems with lightweight, almost passive cowls to protect the payloads, without using the Shuttle as a cargo vessel? The Shuttle seemed like it was better geared as a spacious habitat and workshop for those working in space. The max takeoff weight is 120 tons. The cargo capacity of the shuttle is around 27 tons. Wouldn't it make more sense to lift bulk cargo on the rocket without the presence of the shuttle? Even if the faring weighs 20 tons, that's a hundred tons of cargo and module sizes as large as the shuttle itself, rather than modules small enough to fit within the shuttle cargo bay. The ISS weighs in around 400 tons, that could have been launched in four or five heavy launches if the shuttle hadn't been used to ferry parts.
Yep. Vital Records offices note birth and death information. I'm a little surprised that there haven't been greater pushes to integrate those records with means to reduce identity theft, but given the information security problems that are rampant it probably wouldn't make things any better at the moment.
No, it's more like a business or storefront leaving the lights on and the doors unlocked without any staff present and without any sort of door chime or camera. While it's not right for patrons to start looking through the drawers or the paperwork or the receipts, let alone steal any merchandise, it should be expected that some people will do this and it's the obligation of the entity to take steps to prevent it.
Those that do not understand at least the basics of security and do not take steps to learn the specifics or to hire-out for them have no business operating on the Internet. They deserve whatever civil legal repercussions are brought down upon them. It doesn't matter if they too are victims when they have a responsibility to protect themselves and their users from a world that is understood to be unkind.
I see a half-dozen Teslas a week these days. They're not cheap, and they're out of the price range of most people, but so is your average BMW or Mercedes Benz or even Cadillac.
If a French aerospace company made it to orbit with a lot of French workers it would not be unacceptable for them to chant, "Viva la France!". If BAE managed to do it, it would be perfectly acceptable for them to chant, "Jolly Good!"
Slashdot Mirror
This is a fallacy.
No matter what approach is taken, there will always be groups dissatisfied with the results.
Laws are generally reactionary. Just laws are created because entities see injustice and push for statutes to curb those injustices. For injustices to be acknowledged they have to happen, in order to happen, the population or a subset must gain experience with the particular concept or technology or action. To gain experience, if it's a technology, it has to be allowed to exist and to see how it's used, and potentially abused, and often, actual abuse might already run afoul of existing law anyway. When the laws are finally created as a reaction, some people get angry because their abusive actions are curtained. Others get angry because in order to curtail the abusive actions of others, their nonabusive actions must also be affected.
Some regulations are proactionary, being drafted and put into effect before abuses are documented. Persons wishing to use a technology affected by such regulations get upset because they're being prohibited from doing something that they feel that they should be allowed to do. It could be that what they feel should be legal is actually victimizing others, or they might have a poor understanding of the law, or they could even be right in that what they're being prohibited-from is going too far. Either way, they're angry.
Then you have the condition where something newish is starting to show signs of abuse, and regulations and/or law is put into effect in a minor way that serves to remind participants that they could be subject to regulation or rules, and they get upset. Some don't understand that they might be violating the rights of others or violating the rules that exist to protect all parties involved. Things like Uber versus taxis and how taxi regulations came to be. Things like how RC aircraft are coming under increasing regulation. Things like software that shares files in less-direct means. These are all technology changes that can be abused, and also can have legitimate benefits without abuse, but people get very, very passionate when their designs are questioned, even if they're ignorant of the law or the effects of their actions or choices.
There is no magic bullet. Someone will always be upset.
What gray area? I don't know about you, but going through pictures and family photo albums as a child with my family, seeing pictures of things that happened long before I was born and even of people long-dead, kind of established to me that a photograph has the potential to be there forever. Seeing my mother's mild embarrassment over some of her fashion choices in the seventies also reaffirmed that despite some negative perceptions in the photo it may still persist.
...and the reaction to finding a sex tape were about the same as to finding that person's baby pictures.
This statement could be badly misinterpreted...
Yes, but the photographer can sell prints of the photograph so long as it's not represented as anything more than the picture at face-value that it is, and the subject does not have any special rights in that circumstance, because the subject is not being portrayed as endorsing anything.
That's a legal technicality, not a technical technicality.
What's the difference? Humans still chose to process the inmates for release, fill-out paperwork, return their property to them, arrange for transportation, and open the gates. Even if the humans were advised by a computer, a human still created the computer and programmed the computer, and were in-charge of the computer, and those humans are representatives of the State. At any time in the process those representatives of the State could have chosen to audit the computer results, and from a sanity-perspective should have audited those results compared to the old way of tabulating for several years before coming to rely on the new system to make sure that it was actually working correctly.
If I understand correctly, candids without context, assuming that there's not some other condition that makes them illegal, are legal so far as the photographer or publisher does not add extra content to create interpretation, ie, the difference between people on the street and editorializing the man in the train station. I wonder if the nature of the model release when applied for commercial purposes is in-part due to the same editorialization, the subject is portrayed as endorsing something in commercial photography when their likeness is used in advertising.
My argument is that consent for a photograph to be taken cannot be revoked. That's why one needs to exercise good judgement when giving such consent in the first place. The existence of the photograph does not dictate the use of the photograph. The subject might legitimately be able to influence the use of the photograph or to penalize the photographer for misuse of the image and the subject, but if the subject was legally able to consent to the picture being taken and did so, the subject should not have the right to demand the destruction of the work.
Seriously? People still assign public IP's directly to PC's? Get a router. use NAT. these "Port Scans" (which may well not be port scans at all) shouldn't be making it anywhere near a PC in the first place.
Port Address Translation breaks the end-to-end model of TCP/IP. IPv6 is designed to remove the need for NAT entirely. The network admin is supposed to actually know how to build a proper firewalling router to keep other networks out or to limit what resources they can reach.
Good firewalls deny incoming connections by default, and only allow them when they're solicited by a machine on the local side, and even then, only when the return traffic from the untrusted network conforms to expectations based on the trusted machine's initial outgoing request. This can get a little tricker with protocols that use more than one port or semirandomly chose ports from a range, but it seems to work pretty well even with public IPs on devices.
That's a great way to get your ISP to take punitive action against you, or to have some software a the target's end that's more sophisticated share your information with a blacklisting service such that your legitimate customers can't reach you.
Building on this, if you still want to see it, look at a firewall solution that can put less interesting information into a periodic report, or where you can poll for it.
Heh. Sounds like it's time to dig out the old Centris 660AV and mkLinux, statically compile everything, include no libraries, and redirect all unsolicited traffic to it.
Actually we can. There was a fairly recent example of a court sentencing a man but somehow failing to actually send him to prison. He lived clean for well past his sentence's duration and when the authorities realized their mistake a legal battle ensued and the man won. He did have to spend some time in jail pending the outcome of the second legal case, but that was short compared to the time he would have spent had the court affirmed that the state could hold him for his sentence.
As I understand it, the subject of a photograph does not have any rights to the content of the photograph, only the photographer is recognized as the artist. The subject may have rights to their own likeness such that an entity wishing to create artificial representation of the subject has to obtain rights from the subject to do so (ie, a movie studio wishing to produce toys in the likeness of a star of a movie has to obtain rights from the actor) but for the image itself, without any other agreement in-place the photographer holds the rights, not the subject.
Why does a photographer need proof of commercial compensation in order for a work to have aesthetic value?
If a work has aesthetic value and all participants at the time it was created agreed to its creation (arguably a form of verbal contract) then what gives any party, other than the photographer as the creator of the content, any special rights over the content? The subject might have rights to the content if used for public exhibition or commercial purposes, but I don't see any reason why the subject, if of legal age and in a position to consent to having an image taken, should have the right to revoke that consent at a later time such that it compels the artist in question to destroy their work.
I will say this much, lots of people are bloody stupid and don't understand that they absolutely should not consent to having photos taken of them in the nude or in sexual congress unless they've fully considered both the ramifications of how they feel about those pictures potentially being seen by absolutely everyone and how this could impact their lives down the road, but that's the choice of the subject that willfully puts themselves into that position.
Heh. This isn't the first time Audi/VW has created something with the intention of never needing service for the life of the vehicle only to discover that they undershot the mark tenfold. There's a performance engine whose cam geartrain is located at the back of the engine sandwiched up against the transmission and adjacent to the firewall. It's a complex assembly of something like five timing chains with tensioners that cannot be accessed with the engine in the car. It's also an interference engine, so when the tensioners fail the valves contact the pistons and the engine is ruined. It costs about $10,000 to have the tensioners replaced (like $3000 in parts alone) and they still aren't any better than the factory units.
Automakers need to stop treating some systems as if they're black boxes (the engineering term, not the flight data recorder term) because the systems concealed within inevitably require service.
Immoral and illegal things happen all of the time. You are obligated to prevent them from happening to you. We have attempted to build a society that reduces the number of immoral and illegal things that happen and reduces the number of people victimized, but ultimately the individual is the final line of defense against becoming a victim.
The biggest difference of the electric versus the ICE will be the nature of how maintenance and repair is handled. I expect a lot more component-level repair of circuit boards and power systems, along the lines of how Prius owners have been replacing or repairing bad battery contacts to extend the lives of the battery packs, as opposed to the very greasy, fluid-mess job that maintaining a water cooled reciprocating piston engine with hydraulic systems that we currently face.
I was on my high school's electric car team. We had a Porsche 914 that had been donated with a blown motor that was converted to electric. It had its share of problems, but the drivetrain was never among them.
I look at electric cars as a way for the car to much more quickly approach appliance-like maintenance and use compared to gasoline and diesel cars. Sure, there will be consumables to change, but the chemical-aspect of the car will not require as much owner involvement as it currently does. No gasoline, no oil change invervals a 3000, 5000, or 7500 miles depending on the manufacturer's penchant. With the end of the need for frequent fluids service I could see on-board tire pressure monitoring evolving into a central tire inflation system so that the less frequent maintenance cycles do not mean tires go underinflated for an extended period of time. That would mean possibly chassis/bearing lubes, tires, brakes (which would probably last longer with regenerative braking), and windshield washer fluid being the most common maintenance. Hell, carwashes might add a couple of services and thus meet 90% of the needs of the car within its first 100,000 miles, and it's conceivable that the cars could go far more than the ~200,000 miles we reasonably expect out of them now.
Thing is, I could see drones having an application here. Set up a drone operation per so many hundred miles of border, where that drone responds when the cheaper tech (ie, airships, balloons, even static towers) identifies that there's an indication that a closer look is needed, or when there's a need to follow a party that has crossed before officers can respond in person.
Drones could even be useful where the air currents or weather do not readily let lighter-than-air craft operate, or where population centers do not like the presence of airships.
Wouldn't something like a relatively peaceful border between two nations that are nominally at-peace, be a lot more cost-effectively administered by slow moving airships, with only a handful of rapid-response aircraft used solely for interdiction purposes?
Obviously no single technology is going to work to secure a border as long as the US-Mexico frontier, but it seems like the concept of using powered flight is somewhat misapplied here, especially if the costs are somehow as high as the article implies.
I've seen some concept-art where external tanks are used as space habitats, and it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Wouldn't it be more cost-effective to use bulk payload launch systems with lightweight, almost passive cowls to protect the payloads, without using the Shuttle as a cargo vessel? The Shuttle seemed like it was better geared as a spacious habitat and workshop for those working in space. The max takeoff weight is 120 tons. The cargo capacity of the shuttle is around 27 tons. Wouldn't it make more sense to lift bulk cargo on the rocket without the presence of the shuttle? Even if the faring weighs 20 tons, that's a hundred tons of cargo and module sizes as large as the shuttle itself, rather than modules small enough to fit within the shuttle cargo bay. The ISS weighs in around 400 tons, that could have been launched in four or five heavy launches if the shuttle hadn't been used to ferry parts.
Yep. Vital Records offices note birth and death information. I'm a little surprised that there haven't been greater pushes to integrate those records with means to reduce identity theft, but given the information security problems that are rampant it probably wouldn't make things any better at the moment.
No, it's more like a business or storefront leaving the lights on and the doors unlocked without any staff present and without any sort of door chime or camera. While it's not right for patrons to start looking through the drawers or the paperwork or the receipts, let alone steal any merchandise, it should be expected that some people will do this and it's the obligation of the entity to take steps to prevent it.
Those that do not understand at least the basics of security and do not take steps to learn the specifics or to hire-out for them have no business operating on the Internet. They deserve whatever civil legal repercussions are brought down upon them. It doesn't matter if they too are victims when they have a responsibility to protect themselves and their users from a world that is understood to be unkind.
...electric cars nobody can afford...
I see a half-dozen Teslas a week these days. They're not cheap, and they're out of the price range of most people, but so is your average BMW or Mercedes Benz or even Cadillac.
If a French aerospace company made it to orbit with a lot of French workers it would not be unacceptable for them to chant, "Viva la France!". If BAE managed to do it, it would be perfectly acceptable for them to chant, "Jolly Good!"